I'd even argue the idea that hate speech causes violence has parallels with the idea that videogames cause violence. — Necrofantasia

A better option would be to use one's own freedom of speech to challenge and undermine hate speech because it is validation that emboldens people to act upon it. — Necrofantasia

These are both empirical statements, not philosophical ones. Whether there is a correlation between hate speech and violence is an empirical fact, in my opinion too obvious to even counter, but if you wish to counter it, doing so would require empirical evidence.

Say there is a causal correlation. Allowing hate speech would cause violent harm to come to people. Don't you think we need a little more than your ad hoc 'reckon' about whether there is a link, given the nature of the harm that would arise were we to presume not?

What is truly needed though, is to analyze what brings people to the kind of mindsets that would feel hate speech is justified — Necrofantasia

How can it be the case both that we know violence is not caused by hate speech, and that the causes of hateful mindsets still require analysis? What is it about the state of psychology do you think, that has resulted in certainty about the causes of violence, but not the causes of hateful speech acts?

These are both empirical statements, not philosophical ones. Whether there is a correlation between hate speech and violence is an empirical fact, in my opinion too obvious to even counter, but if you wish to counter it, doing so would require empirical evidence. — Isaac

Say there is a causal correlation. Allowing hate speech would cause violent harm to come to people. Don't you think we need a little more than your ad hoc 'reckon' about whether there is a link, given the nature of the harm that would arise were we to presume not? — Isaac

Correlation and causation are different things. Is exposure to hate speech all it takes for individuals to start hating groups of people to the point of engaging in violence ? Or are there other factors at play that create a predisposition to social enmity? (i.e. Economic uncertainty, lack of alternative explanations lack of adequate education, indoctrination from childhood, cultural precedents, group pressure etc.) If you Need something in place of censorship to avert violence, maybe looking at those factors would produce better results.

If you wish to censor hate speech in a specific social group because you don't want the discussions it begets or want to avoid potential conflict or association with hate groups, it's an entirely different story. But to have legal sanction on speech pertaining to ideology is a slippery slope that could result in power abuse by governments. Sheltering via censorship may address the symptoms, but education via public rejection and discourse would be the equivalent of exposing mold to sunlight.

How can it be the case both that we know violence is not caused by hate speech, and that the causes of hateful mindsets still require analysis? What is it about the state of psychology do you think, that has resulted in certainty about the causes of violence, but not the causes of hateful speech acts? — Isaac

Both violence and hate speech are caused by adoption of hate-based narratives that attribute responsibility for perceived ills or slights to groups of people. Meaning the source isn't strictly psychological, it is also sociological. All you would do by censoring hate speech is eliminate indicators that point to the systemic factors in need of correction, which could hinder societal progress in the long term.

I don't agree that speech can actually cause violence. People deciding to be violent causes violence. — Terrapin Station

An anti-point in case is the Hungarian Revolution and War of Independence of 1848. The revolution started (ie. was triggered, not caused) by a poem by Sandor Petofi, who went out to the main square of Pest and recited his poem. It was so full of nationalistic encouragement, that people went home, grabbed their muskets and daggers and intercontinental nuclear missile launcher silos, and ousted the hapless Hapsburgh governor.

For those who insist on finding case studies of empirical evidence of hate speech causing undue and unwarranted violence, I offer the example of Nazi Germany. The Jews and the Christians reluctantly had mulled about doing their own business, and more-or-less had strived within the situation of multi-religious nations. Then came a hate speaker, and as a direct result of his efforts, six million Jews were brutally executed, or horribly tortured or both. This is a direct result of having a single solitary person spewing out hate speech. If you need any more evidence than this that hate speech is effective, then first drive a dagger through my throat.

Correlation and causation are different things. Is exposure to hate speech all it takes for individuals to start hating groups of people to the point of engaging in violence ? Or are there other factors at play that create a predisposition to social enmity? — Necrofantasia

The fact that you have to ask these questions (rather than simply provide me with empirical evidence of the answers) means that it is possible that the correlation we observe is causal. If there were no such possibility, we would have ready access to the empirical evidence refuting such an hypothesis.

So, to re-iterate my question. Given that there remains the possibility that the correlation we observe is causal, would it not recklessly risk the wellbeing of those potential victims for us to proceed as if the correlation were not causal simply on the grounds that it might not be?

, @Terrapin Station and @necrofantasia, please see my comment two up form this. It is ridiculous to claim that hate speech is ineffective. The empirical evidence that hate speech is effective, has been proven by history over and over again. What the heck other would you need to convince you of this, if you even ignore the death and suffering of ten million Jews?

Those who started wondering about my figures: six million Jews DIED in WWII death camps. 4 million Jews survived horrible conditions, torture, starvation, and constant and severe sleep deprivation, as well as exposure to the elements. That figure creates 6 million plus four million, which is ten million (give or take a few.)

I'm not sure why you're addressing this comment to me as I've clearly indicated that I already think the correlation between hate speech and violence is unarguable.

What is at issue here is the degree to which it is causative. I don't think we have direct and unequivocal evidence that hate speech causes violent actions, and what evidence we do have does not establish the extent of it's role relative to other factors.

I am, however, arguing that in the absence of evidence, we are better taking a precautionary position rather than taking an absolutist one as if the evidence were already conclusive.

I don't think we have direct and unequivocal evidence that hate speech causes violent actions, — Isaac

This is why I included you in the list. You are a black wolf in white sheeps' clothing. You are undermining, or trying to, huge empirical evidence, by downplaying the effect.

I said enough. To those who advocate the return of unrestricted hate speech to society, i have only one message for you: go fuck yourselves.

Societies set their own laws, but those laws can still be right or wrong — NOS4A2

And yet right and wrong are relative to who they refer to. What's right for me, a tuberculosis bacterium, is wrong for you, a human with damaged lungs. Societies set their own laws, and they are always 'right' by definition. Societies do not set laws that are wrong for them. In time, they may amend their laws, if it proves that they are not optimal for their purpose(s).

Societies are like nature in the proverb: red in tooth and claw. They don't play well with others. They do what they want without regard to others. And they're too big to argue with, so we don't. Societies are sociopaths. :chin: :gasp:

Societies are like nature in the proverb: red in tooth and claw. They don't play well with others. They do what they want without regard to others. And they're too big to argue with, so we don't. Societies are sociopaths. — Pattern-chaser

I wholeheartedly agree with this. You don't specifically target hate speech, but the meaning is there: some soiceties approve of it, some disapprove, so you just have to roll with the flow. This is true. In our society hate speech is disallowed, and that's that, you say, as "that's that" applies to all rules of any society.

Societies set their own laws, but those laws can still be right or wrong — NOS4A2

Anything can be right or wrong in the sense of society's morals. By society's morals I mean those moral behaviour forms, which are encouraged by a particular society, independent of the individual person's own interest.

So from society's point of view, there are no society-created and maintained "WRONG" rules. The wrongness is only established by an individual whose interest or else whose moral feeling or attitude disagrees with the so-called MORAL rule pushed and advocated by society.

That sounds like a pretty hateful bit of speech at the end (when you tell me to go fuck myself) you clueless douche, better be careful lest someone read that and be causally forced to commit violence.
What a joke.
your points were well made, just ignore these self righteous retards advocating that hate speech causes violence, they just havent thought it through and are reacting emotionally.

you clueless douche, — DingoJones

You mother-fucking cunt, you go fuck yourself. Right now. Pronto.

@DingoJones you have no clue what hate speech is. You can still hate someone, and express your hate. But you can't incite others to join your hatred. That's what it means.

You can hate me, and you can express it on these pages. And I can hate you, and I expressed on these pages that I do, and there is nothing wrong with that. The wrongness starts when we would entice others to hate the other along with our personal hatred.

For those who insist on finding case studies of empirical evidence of hate speech causing undue and unwarranted violence, I offer the example of Nazi Germany. The Jews and the Christians reluctantly had mulled about doing their own business, and more-or-less had strived within the situation of multi-religious nations. Then came a hate speaker, and as a direct result of his efforts, six million Jews were brutally executed, or horribly tortured or both. This is a direct result of having a single solitary person spewing out hate speech. If you need any more evidence than this that hate speech is effective, then first drive a dagger through my throat. — god must be atheist

. . . that's just evidence of not understanding how I use the word "cause."

. . . that's just evidence of not understanding how I use the word "cause." — Terrapin Station

You gave no explanation as to its specific meaning. Why do you blame me for that?

I wholeheartedly agree with this. You don't specifically target hate speech, but the meaning is there: some societies approve of it, some disapprove, so you just have to roll with the flow. This is true. In our society hate speech is disallowed, and that's that, you say, as "that's that" applies to all rules of any society. — god must be atheist

Now I'm going to contradict myself, just a little. For although societies do as they wish, their 'minds' can be changed by their component 'cells' (us). In my country, we are considering changing our law on cannabis, but we haven't got there yet. So our laws remain severe and in place. But if enough of us become convinced, our society (which is ourselves, considered and acting collectively) will change. ... But only when it wants to, and on its own terms! :up:

Causes are physically deterministic forces, where, if A is the cause of B, B must follow A, ceteris paribus.

That sounds like a pretty hateful bit of speech at the end (when you tell me to go fuck myself) you clueless douche, better be careful lest someone read that and be causally forced to commit violence.
What a joke. — DingoJones

A poor joke, I suggest. Your wish to demean the 'snowflakes' has lead you to write nonsense. The provocation in your words is aimed specifically at @god must be atheist. There is no reason at all why anyone else should be affected by them.

Oh, and "causally forced violence" is a deliberate distortion on your part, I think, to further demean the argument you despise. Too much emotion, I think, and too little philosophy. IMO, of course.

Causes are physically deterministic forces, where, if A is the cause of B, B must follow A, ceteris paribus. — Terrapin Station

Thank you for the explanation.

So I don't consider Hitler to have caused anyone's death. (Insofar as I know, at least. I have no idea if Hitler himself ever killed anyone directly, but I'd say his utterances did not.)

I'd say his utterances did not — Terrapin Station

And yet (some of) those to whom those utterances were directed did kill people, or have them killed. Was that coincidence? :chin:

And yet (some of) those to whom those utterances were directed did kill people, or have them killed. Was that coincidence? — Pattern-chaser

You don't buy free will?

You can hate me, and you can express it on these pages. And I can hate you, and I expressed on these pages that I do, and there is nothing wrong with that. The wrongness starts when we would entice others to hate the other along with our personal hatred. — god must be atheist

So what are your rules for acceptable expressions of hate and not? If when telling one person you hate them you justifiy it and others can see this, could this not incite hatred in others? Likewise with groups?What makes a communication of hatred one that incites others? Is it labeling them a certain way? Playing to the gallery?

You don't buy influence? Too vague? Instead of free will - I will do this, without influence from anyone or anything - the real world is more about many influences affecting what we do. Some influences are strong; others less so.

So I don't consider Hitler to have caused anyone's death. — Terrapin Station

Okay, I'll disregard your future comments. If you are so stupid as to not notice the causation between Hitler's speeches to the Reichstag and to the people of Germany, his book "Mein Kampf" and the ensuing Nazi rule, then I have no hope of ever getting through to you.

Say what you will, I will not read your comments.

So what are your rules for acceptable expressions of hate and not? If when telling one person you hate them you justifiy it and others can see this, could this not incite hatred in others? Likewise with groups?What makes a communication of hatred one that incites others? — Coben

You are asking questions as if we were still in the pre-postmodernism era.

I'm not sure what you mean. I do know what postmodernism means, at least, a range of meanings. If one is saying hate speech is problematic but one thinks that expression of hatred can be ok, it seems like there would some criteria. I am asking what they are. I am not sure how postmodernism comes into that.

Causes are physically deterministic forces, where, if A is the cause of B, B must follow A, ceteris paribus. — Terrapin Station

But, as you still have not answered, you've eliminated joint cause. For a carburettor to 'cause' the motion of an engine, it requires both fuel input and air input. Are you suggesting that the motion of an engine has no cause simply because one of that pair alone does not necessarily cause the motion?