So yeah, whether the speech act counts as an act of violence is incidental to the speaker being culpable.

If you have time, take a look at at least the first few pages of Speech Acts and Unspeakable Acts. It elicited an interesting discussion. At issue is the extent to which a perlocution is separable from an illocution.

Does all this then mean you approve of the political correctness which societally, though not legally, mitigates hate speech as previously defined, this as the optimal mode of societal checks and balances?

Not at all. I disapprove. I’m just trying to argue that speaking speech that can be construed as hate speech is riskier than hearing it.

’m baffled by your once again separating politics from ethics/morality. — javra

I thought you wanted to separate out the politics.

Can the issue of hate speech be addressed without embarking on perceived issues of political victimization? — javra

Because I'm not talking about laws. I'm talking about what is right and beneficial. — javra

I’m baffled myself.

you previously agreed the two are entwined — javra

Well, morality is entwined in every human interaction.

This would mean not separate. — javra

But we can separate things to talk about them. I thought that was what you were trying to do.

So back to non-legally sanctioned systems of checks and balances. — javra

Exactly.

hate speech is bad for society, — javra

Yes.

it is dangerous to criminalize — javra

Yes (and, to me, discussion around this point is the heart of discussion of the term “hate speech”)

and the preservation of free speech should bring about a system of checks and balances within society to mitigate [hate speech]. — javra

Close enough. (We probably agree here too. I might say here that, by keeping political debate free, we protect an opportunity resolve differences. So not so reliant on the emergence of checks and balances, but just opportunity to argue it out.

For my part, I’ll leave it at that. — javra

I’ll consider it left. :up:

Why would we have advertising, prayer, speeches or Fox News if language was powerless?

Just curious, but how many products have you bought in ratio to how many advertisements you’ve seen? Using the power of your speech, perhaps you can convince those who say “nay” to hate speech legislation to believe otherwise. Both of these demonstrations ought to inform you on just how powerful speech really is, and that we’re not just thinking magically.

I’ve been swayed by advertisements many times, most people I know have. Bought plenty of things I didn’t need. I’ve also been convinced to do things by compelling rhetoric - it’s not magic, just how people behave. But I lack the disposition for debate and so I will leave you unmoved. :wink:

Fair enough, I’ll take your word for it. But there is another way to frame it, and it doesn’t involve attributing to scratches on paper and articulated sounds from the mouth special powers and unseen forces. Perhaps your disposition is to blame for your purchases, and not the words.

The point of hate speech laws was the ability to turn state crimes into federal ones for the purposes of trials being taken out of places considered too bigoted to adjudicate properly.

If you have time, take a look at at least the first few pages of Speech Acts and Unspeakable Acts. It elicited an interesting discussion. At issue is the extent to which a perlocution is separable from an illocution. — Banno

I'll try to check it out. Thanks.

I am late to this thread, but glad I read it, lots of interesting comments. If not too late, some of my thoughts.

Agreed with the OP - the term, as currently deployed, does not have utility.

Incitement to violence, as in Rwanda, via hate, clearly a different matter.

I know that so many oppose 'wokism'. However, this may be about allowing bullying and legitimising forms of oppression in the name of 'freedom to express hate', as a human right. — Jack Cummins

You can contend with the bullying without using the term 'hate' which is of course subjective. One of the things I, ahem, hate about wokeness is that it can encourage this framing. As a teacher, I seldom encountered anything 'hateful' in hallways or classrooms, but I always wondered how often the concept of hate replaces the concept of bullying. And what of bullying towards those with no 'hated' identity category?

I find it difficult to consider a 'hierarchy' of traumas for children. A straight white boy experiencing bullying will experience plenty of negative feelings. I fear the concept of hate obscures this in some cases.

I am a free speech absolutist. To my knowledge, there are no hate speech laws in the US, but here in Canada, we have them. We nearly had one that would have criminalized future speech. I kid you not.

And in the UK, people are being reported for non-crime hate incidents on a daily basis. Think of that Father Ted guy getting arrested at the airport over three tweets.

I find myself despairing somewhat to see US conservatives now invoking hate speech the way we Canadians do, despite the laws being so very different. So many US leaders, across the spectrum, seem to misunderstand free speech principles - the oft abused 'shouting fire in a theatre' meme, for example.

Hate is an inherently high resolution word. Intensity corresponds with specificity. Go ahead and check within - the things you hate most are very specific. So are the people.

By contrast, the hate speech version requires a lower resolution target - and so a lower intensity dislike. The territory of hate speech is much more like out-group etiquette than hatred. — Roke

Well said. I am enjoying your comments throughout.

Can the issue of hate speech be addressed without embarking on perceived issues of political victimization? — javra

Great question. Probably not? I certainly don't see anyone out policing hate speech against white people - the premise is viewed as laughable. There are certainly plenty of statements made by, say, DEI advocates about whites that would be considered hate if it were directed toward a group with less power.

It comes down to the power of the relative power of the group, a phenomenon we all witnessed when jews went from oppressed to oppressor overnight on Oct. 7th. (an oversimplification, for sure)

One of the dangers of 'hate speech' is that we don't know the demographics of the groups doing the hate speaking, but we know the culprit is likely 'white supremacy'. How hate speech by Muslims towards Jews represents 'white supremacy' is where things get dicey.

If 'power' is central to the definition of 'hate speech', that's just another subjective term that can be misused. Those who speak in the language of power certainly have plenty of 'power' - educational privilege, class privilege, etc.... Trudeau, calling voters opposed to his open-door immigration policies 'racist' seemed to be punching down, not up.

It is just too easy to abuse the language for tribal purposes.

I do wonder how much of the explosion in accusations of hate speech is due to the availability heuristic?

This is the best thing I've read on free speech in the wake of the Kirk murder. Greg Lukianoff is a progressive free speech champion. Glad to see conservative "The Free Press" giving him the platform.

https://www.thefp.com/p/bury-the-words-are-violence-cliche

"We need maximal tolerance for speech; zero tolerance for force".

I agree with Lukianoff.

Speech is not violence. That is a pretty un-crossable line in definition and usage. Trying to shoe-horn 'violence' into words is an expansion of meaning which loses meaning and creates more ambiguity than clarity. Its something we should reject entirely.

A straight white boy experiencing bullying will experience plenty of negative feelings. — Jeremy Murray

Does a boy really know what sexuality is? What straight is? What race or being "white" is? They do not.

They know colors. Which have no meaning other than the visual perception they experience. Growing up, me and an African American boy would play hide and seek. Once or twice we would joke "Hey, that's no fair! It's getting dark, (boy's name here) is gonna hide and we'll never be able to find him!" And we all laughed and joked, equally. Sure, I suppose in hindsight that was "racist" but, not really, because we had no deeper meaning of the term. It didn't mean anything. So we all laughed together. Sure, it's not that way as an adult. No, not by far. But my point is, kids don't process any deeper meaning behind the words beyond what the words suggest.

Does a boy really know what sexuality is? What straight is? What race or being "white" is? They do not. — Outlander

They do. My son is 8 and extremely feminine. He is acutely aware of how this will follow him through life.

My son is 8 and extremely feminine — AmadeusD

How's that? Is he smaller than others? Daintier? That means nothing, that's size-ism. Just because a person is born larger and another person is born smaller doesn't mean the larger person is a better person.

Does he talk with a lighter voice? That also means nothing, that's hormone-ism. Just because a person is born with a hormone or pituitary gland imbalance, doesn't mean they're a better person.

Is he more "whimsical", enjoying things like frolicking through the flowers and uh, just being a kid? Yeah. That's called just being a kid. Just because a person likes to express themself without caring what others think, doesn't mean they're a better person.

Can't you see those who think otherwise are slaves? Sure, there's more of them. And they're larger and stupider, therefore more violent. But does that really matter?

Just because some hypothetical other kid is larger. stronger, and what not, essentially a dull, basic rock-like form of existence that has no passion or intelligence or sense of joy, that will go through life pretending they do, doesn't mean you can compare that unfortunate being as "masculine" and another more spirited child as "feminine."

It just makes no sense. It's anti-human, really.

If you think he's too "whimsical", teach him discipline through physical work. Hard work. Like mowing the lawn or harvesting a field. He should be sore and sweaty after. I'd wager, he's just thin and so moves "daintily" compared to other children. That's a purely skeletal and locomotive trait. Nothing to do with gender, hormones, or sexuality. Thinner people need less testosterone because they have less muscle tone and require less energy to move about. Making sense yet? Perhaps he likes bright colors and ponies and whatnot. That doesn't mean anything but what you allow society to dictate it as. All that means is he has more intelligence to appreciate art and culture. Getting through to you now?

That has nothing to do with sexuality.

He is acutely aware of how this will follow him through life. — AmadeusD

95% of cases, it's 100% about size. Miserable people have the most kids, they're the lions share of humans alive on this rock. That means, they are raised by terrible people and have no guidance, they see their parents flaws, who in turn irrationally act out (they are also mentally ill, yes, most people alive are mentally ill by all legitimate, medical standard) are fully aware, and so take it out on the world around them. So they will bully smaller "happier" children. Now, if your kid was larger, they wouldn't dare. See what's going on here? The "strong" (mentally weak, or raised by the mentally weak) pick on the "weak" (physically smaller) because it's the only thing they can do to feel adequate being raised by mentally-weak subhumans who don't know how to raise children and should have no business having any.

Stuff like this is why I'm a staunch monarchist and royalist. Those Made to be subject to a Lord rebelled, killed those Made to be their appointed leaders, (I won't even get into the Biblical repercussions they'll face eternally), and that's the world we live in. For now. All I'm saying is, don't let this silly world be your kids mother and father. That's supposed to be your job.

Does a boy really know what sexuality is? What straight is? What race or being "white" is? They do not. — Outlander

Hello Outlander. I appreciate you commenting on my post! But I think these questions are nutso.

And, irrelevant. Who cares if they know definitions of these terms that you approve of? Kids do feel and think and know things. If the outcome of a belief system damages children, it is a problem.

Miserable people have the most kids, they're the lions share of humans alive on this rock. That means, they are raised by terrible people and have no guidance, they see their parents flaws, who in turn irrationally act out (they are also mentally ill, yes, most people alive are mentally ill by all legitimate, medical standard) are fully aware, and so take it out on the world around them. So they will bully smaller "happier" children. Now, if your kid was larger, they wouldn't dare. See what's going on here? The "strong" (mentally weak, or raised by the mentally weak) pick on the "weak" (physically smaller) because it's the only thing they can do to feel adequate being raised by mentally-weak subhumans who don't know how to raise children and should have no business having any. — Outlander

Lot of judgement here.

But setting that aside, "most people alive are mentally ill by all legitimate, medical standard" is, again, nutso.

Mental illness is not really subject to 'legitimate mental standard'. Psychology is, what, 150 years old? Mental illness is a different concept from physical illness.

Calling people who act poorly 'mentally ill' is insulting to those of us with mental illnesses. It is insulting to victims of those acting poorly. Etc.

You can't force people not to suck. None of what you have written here is 'making sense yet'. What are you suggesting?