Indirect causes being further back in the causal chain?

For example, in a Rube Goldberg contraption, setting a billiard ball in a slot causes a level to lower, which causes a chain to move, which causes a lighter to light . . . etc. all the way until we get to a hammer cracking an egg? — Terrapin Station

Simpler than that, I think. Either the insults prove unendurable, and the target attacks the speaker, or the words empower and provoke others to commit violence or worse. Gay-bashing, ni**er-bashing, woman-bashing (often called "rape"), and so on. Indirect, but not by much

And no positive aspects, only negative ones. Do You know of anything that is good or beneficial about hate speech? I believe there is no such thing. Can you show me otherwise? :chin:

Either the insults prove unendurable, and the target attacks the speaker, or the words empower and provoke others to commit violence or worse. Gay-bashing, ni**er-bashing, woman-bashing (often called "rape"), and so on. Indirect, but not by much — Pattern-chaser

So again, you don't think that people have to decide whether to attack someone or not, or at least that they do or should have the power to stop themselves from becoming violent?

Do You know of anything that is good or beneficial about hate speech? — Pattern-chaser

There is something good and beneficial about not restricting what people say. There is something good and beneficial about letting people decide whether what they say is good and beneficial rather than authorizing the government to do it.

What is meant by "allowed"? I, for instance, think that Death in June has a 'right' to utilize Fascist symbolism in their art, but no 'right' to purpose their shows for the organization of neo-Fascists who intend to 'do harm'. As far as that kind of art goes, I think that neo-Folk got a lot better after Sol Invictus decided to drop the act and do the split with Of the Wand and the Moon. The cult aspect of "Sunspot" is a lot more interesting than banal Fascist goading.

I think that The Damned is a transgressive film that can only be interpreted as being subversive. There is nothing intrinsically subversive about it. You can't censor The Damned, though. Doing so will violate the more privileged 'right' of free speech. It's all just a matter of what effectively makes for a better society. I don't think that banning hate speech will do so.

You, of course, do want to counter that Fascists organize at events. There are lot of different tactics to this, some of which are more effective than others.

Edit: To clarify my point about The Damned: The Damned is a celebration of Nazi decadence that is only marginally intentionally trenchant. Visconti should only be given so much credit as a director. If anyone hasn't seen The Damned, I would highly recommend watching it. In spite of that it is only so subversive, it is one of the best films ever made. I would recommend watching that, and nothing else by the same director. The only reason that Death in Venice was not the longest two hours of my life is because Ludwig goes on for two hours longer.

So again, you don't think that people have to decide whether to attack someone or not, or at least that they do or should have the power to stop themselves from becoming violent? — Terrapin Station

No, I don't think any of those things. We are human. Humans can be provoked beyond endurance. If Messrs Spock and Data behave otherwise, fair enough, but that's how humans are. Acknowledging our nature, and wishing to avoid conflict where possible, we proscribe hate speech. We do not reproach the target of hate speech for taking offence, any more than we reproach the shooting victim for dirtying the wall with their brain tissue. The person in the wrong is the hate-speaker. The targets of hate are just humans, we accept this, and do not condemn them for it, as it seems you would have me do, from your words above.

"It was her own fault for wearing a skirt that short."
"He should have been able to restrain himself from becoming violent."
"Snowflakes need to toughen up. Wimps!"

No, in all cases. It is not the victim who is at fault, it is the attacker.

No, I don't think any of those things. We are human. Humans can be provoked beyond endurance. — Pattern-chaser

So this isn't something we agree on. I believe we have free will and that we can or at least should have the power to stop ourselves from becoming violent.

So you'd have to convince me that we don't have free will or that we don't or shouldn't have the power to stop ourselves from becoming violent.

There is something good and beneficial about not restricting what people say. — T Clark

Yes, there is. I think that's where we get 'freedom of speech' from - we (most of us) think it's a good idea.

There is something good and beneficial about letting people decide whether what they say is good and beneficial rather than authorizing the government to do it. — T Clark

There's something very American about this. It's phrased as though the government is some kind of alien power that has been foisted on the general population, as if we'd been invaded and conquered. Not so. Because we cannot all take part in our government, for purely practical reasons, we elect representatives to act on our behalf, and to speak in our names. We are the government; the government is us.

As to the actual point you make here: yes, I agree. But (some) humans are given to hate speech, and their targets are (sometimes) unable to endure the hatred aimed at them, and respond with violence. We can confirm this by simple empirical observation. So, if we wish to avoid the violence (as a social species surely must) we have a choice. We can stop the hate-speakers or we can stop their targets. The judgement of most people is that the former is more appropriate. So that's what we do: we ban hate speech.

Freedom of speech still exists, of course, as it should, but it explicitly does not include the freedom to insult. It's exactly like banning ad hominem attacks here on TPF. It doesn't prevent discussion, only conflict. So while it would be great to allow complete freedom of speech, we (humans) have decided that we aren't able to deal with that privilege in a way that we find acceptable. So we specifically ban hate speech.

So this isn't something we agree on. I believe we have free will and that we can or at least should have the power to stop ourselves from becoming violent. — Terrapin Station

Aren't you confusing ought with is here? :chin: Empirical evidence demonstrates clearly and unambiguously that your expectation is not met by real humans in the real world. If we ever transcend this aspect of our nature, we can return to your aspirations then, OK? :wink:

So you'd have to convince me that we don't have free will or that we don't or shouldn't have the power to stop ourselves from becoming violent. — Terrapin Station

Look around at real humans in the real world. There you will find conclusive and unmistakeable evidence to convince you, so I don't need to bother. Job done. :smile:

Yes, there is. I think that's where we get 'freedom of speech' from - we (most of us) think it's a good idea. — Pattern-chaser

Free speech doesn't amount to much if it doesn't include people being able to say things that you'd really rather they didn't say, things that make you very uncomfortable, upset, etc.

But (some) humans are given to hate speech, and their targets are (sometimes) unable to endure the hatred aimed at them, and respond with violence. We can confirm this by simple empirical observation. — Pattern-chaser

Yes, but you don't observe that the responders didn't have a choice in how they responded.

Aren't you confusing ought with is here? — Pattern-chaser

?? "or at least should" is just an ought. What "is" does it seem to you like I'm confusing it with?

Free speech doesn't amount to much if it doesn't include people being able to say things that you'd really rather they didn't say, things that make you very uncomfortable, upset, etc. — Terrapin Station

Please don't dilute the offending concept to make it look like something innocuous. We aren't talking about banning the discussion of uncomfortable subjects. There are no subjects that cannot be courteously discussed.

But there are attacks that no reasonable person is expected to tolerate: hate speech. Hate speech has no semantic content. Its only effect - its intended effect - is to cause so much hurt as to provoke a violent response.

Please do not conflate hate speech with subjects that might be uncomfortable to discuss. They are quite distinct; they have no commonalities; comparing them does not result in a justification for hatred.

?? "or at least should" is just an ought. What "is" does it seem to you like I'm confusing it with? — Terrapin Station

I believe we have free will and that we can or at least should have the power to stop ourselves from becoming violent. — Terrapin Station

Your "ought" is that we "should have the power to stop ourselves from becoming violent". But the corresponding "is" is that we can't. The empirical evidence is conclusive. Do you deny this?

I believe we have free will and that we can or at least should have the power to stop ourselves from becoming violent. — Terrapin Station

P.S. why do you focus only on the victims? :chin:

Why have you not (also) said "I believe we have free will and that we can or at least should have the power to stop ourselves from spouting hate speech"? :chin:

You write like someone who values the freedom to speak hatefully toward others. :chin: Maybe even someone who enjoys speaking hatefully toward others? :scream:

Your "ought" is that we "should have the power to stop ourselves from becoming violent". But the corresponding "is" is that we can't. The empirical evidence is conclusive. Do you deny this? — Pattern-chaser

They're divided by the word "or."

"I'm going to buy a house in Wyoming or Utah"--that's not saying that I'm confusing Wyoming with Utah is it?

This is degenerating into silliness. You know quite well the points I have made. You wiggle and squirm around to avoid my points with petty objections. Why not just admit that there is no human, moral, practical, justification for your position?

Why have you not (also) said "I believe we have free will and that we can or at least should have the power to stop ourselves from spouting hate speech"? — Pattern-chaser

Sure, people can do that. But there's nothing wrong with hate speech, or any speech. It doesn't CAUSE violence. People choose to be violent, just like they choose to utter hate speech if they do.

You write like someone who values the freedom to speak hatefully toward others. — Pattern-chaser

Yes, that's definitely the case. I value the freedom of people to be able to say/express anything imaginable.

This is degenerating into silliness. You know quite well the points I have made. You wiggle and squirm around to avoid my points with petty objections. Why not just admit that there is no human, moral, justification for your position? — Pattern-chaser

Maybe you could try to understand points of view that you're not familiar with?

You write like someone who values the freedom to speak hatefully toward others. — Pattern-chaser


Yes, and that's definitely the case. — Terrapin Station

Then I have nothing further to say to you.

Maybe you could try to understand points of view that you're not familiar with? — Terrapin Station

I have nothing further to say to you. — Pattern-chaser

But there are attacks that no reasonable person should be expected to tolerate: — Pattern-chaser

What's to stop anyone from parsing any arbitrary speech that way?--as something that "no reasonable person should be expected to tolerate"?

Its only effect - its intended effect - is to cause so much hurt as to provoke a violent response. — Pattern-chaser

There's no utterance where any specific intent can be guaranteed, and there's no utterance where the intent might not be to cause so much hurt as to provoke a violent response. So intent were the motivator, you'd not be able to blanketly allow or ban any particular utterances.

Hate speech must die. — StreetlightX

Could you please say such comments a little less bluntly? :joke:

You write like someone who values the freedom to speak hatefully toward others. — Pattern-chaser


Yes, and that's definitely the case.
— Terrapin Station

Then I have nothing further to say to you. — Pattern-chaser

I value the freedom for others to speak hatefully towards others.

I value the freedom for others to speak hatefully towards others. — T Clark

So I imagine you support the (sometime) consequences too? Rape, queer-bashing, black-lynching, Jew-bashing, .... :sad:

I imagine you support the (sometime) consequences too? Rape, queer-bashing, black-lynching, Jew-bashing — Pattern-chaser

Pattern Chaser, I really hope that you do not believe that just because a person that is in favor of free speech, that they are by default a person who believes in acts of violence. If you do than please let me know because in most cases you are mistaken. I may not like what a neo Nazi has to say but I won't stop him from saying it. I will also express my opinions to him and do expect the same respect to my voice.
The use of words can get messy and someone said that the pen is mighter than the first. Stifling people's verbal expression only leads to those feeling oppressed to act out nonverbally.
I am not sure about you but I much prefer verbal communication over nonverbal, at least when we are talking about angry/hate speech.

Pattern Chaser, I really hope that you do not believe that just because a person that is in favor of free speech, that they are by default a person who believes in acts of violence. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

No, I'm a person who believes that those who support, nurture and encourage hatred and hate speech, must realise that their actions incite violence. And they should take responsibility for that.

In the UK, some years ago, we had a real problem with terrorism in Northern Ireland (and on the UK mainland too). We learned that the violence would not stop - could not be stopped - while there was a substantial part of the community that supported those who acted with violence. Even though those supporters did not plant bombs themselves, their support convinced the bombers that the community supported and approved of what they were doing. Only when that stopped, and an agreed settlement was in place, did the violence stop.

If one supports and encourages the violent, one must take some responsibility for that violence.

I am not sure about you but I much prefer verbal communication over nonverbal, at least when we are talking about angry/hate speech. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Yes, of course. But my aim here is to minimise or stop violence. Inciting it via hate speech goes directly against this aim, so I oppose it.

You're conflating speech and things like rape and bombings. For some odd reason you can't see the distinction between speech and other actions.

Yes, of course. But my aim here is to minimise or stop violence. Inciting it via hate speech goes directly against this aim, so I oppose it. — Pattern-chaser

Words only have the impact that you allow them to have on you. Only YOU are in control of what you say and I am the only one that can control my response, neither of us can do anything more about any one else's choice.

No amount of extreral pressure to silence a voice seeking to be heard will last indefinitely.
In my experience, violence (nonverbal communication) comes from people feeling like their concerns are not being validated and their voices not heard. Telling me that I cannot express how I feel is quite infuriating to me. How does someone telling you what you can and cannot say feel to you?

Not allowing personal expression of feeling's for the sake of keeping the masses settled sounds rather controlling. Who decided what "hate speech" is in the UK? What is the plan for the evolution of speech and how words are deemed as hateful?

Words only have the impact that you allow them to have on you. Only YOU are in control of what you say and I am the only one that can control my response, — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Per his comments above, he doesn't believe that it's possible to control one's response, at least in some situations.

This is such a ridiculous conversation. This is a debate? We teach CHILDREN better ways of thinking about this.
“Sticks and stones may break my bones but names can never hurt me”
We don’t need to make it illegal for people to hurt other peoples feelings with their words. Grow up.
Thats at the level of government and law.
On a personal or moral level...grow up.
Thats how far things have fallen, we have to aim for the philosophy meant for children.

This is such a ridiculous conversation. This is a debate? We teach CHILDREN better ways of thinking about this.
“Sticks and stones may break my bones but names can never hurt me”
We don’t need to make it illegal for people to hurt other peoples feelings with their words. Grow up.
Thats at the level of government and law.
On a personal or moral level...grow up.
Thats how far things have fallen, we have to aim for the philosophy meant for children. — DingoJones

:up:

I really hope that you do not believe that just because a person that is in favor of free speech, that they are by default a person who believes in acts of violence. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

As far as I can tell, @Pattern-chaseris describing an "is", while @Terrapin Station, @ArguingWAristotleTiff, and @DingoJones are talking about an "ought".

I can agree that people SHOULD not be bothered by words. But the fact is that most people ARE (whether 'most' is 51% or 91% may be debatable).

Humans are emotional beings. In High School, my friends and I had an unspoken game of "see who can make the others mad using only words". The 'loser' is the one who gets upset...and if you can make the other person tackle you or swing at you, you are the champion...and everyone else laughs at the emotional person. What did we learn? Well 3 of us (out of about 8 or ten) would not show emotion in response to anything (I am not saying for sure no emotions were felt). Most everyone else had a 'trigger'. For some, all it takes is suggesting their mom has a few promiscuous habits. For others, you can just bring up some girl they like. The point being, more than our random insults, I can easily see comments that basically say "you and everyone like you are inferior scum that has nothing to offer society" being a 'trigger' for some people.

We SHOULD not be bothered by words, but we SHOULD also never resort to violence, right? But I never hear that we should remove assault laws, because people should know better??

If 'the data' shows that people respond to 'hate speech' with violence, then what is the easiest way to stop that violence?