So stupid. The early morning hour has robbed me of my good sense and Im actually responding to a clueless douche. Or is it his magical words, forcing me to action?!
Anyway, I do not hate you I just think you are a fool on this topic. You think I could force people to commit violence against you by talking about how much you deserve it or telling them to go do it. Nonsense.
You think the lesson of Nazi Germany was that hate speech is evil and should be banned?
You think when they say “never again”, they are talking about Hitlers fucking speeches?! Your self righteousness is blinding you. Do some research for christs sake.
You think holocaust survivors think back and say “if only Hitler hadnt said those hateful incitements”? Maybe they would, but not before they said “if only all those people hadnt rounded us up into camps and systematically exterminated us”.
No, the lesson, the “never again” is in following a madman, in allowing his derangement to become their derangement. The German people who took part our responsible for their own actions, not the hate speech they heard.
Clueless, cuz you don’t really know what you are talking about AND haven't thought it all the way through, and a douche because thats the term I use to describe people that are aggressively self righteous. So I wasnt just insulting you, I was also being very, very accurate. In contrast, all you can muster up was some directed swear words which aren’t even insulting. Pathetic. You aren’t even a worthy adversary.

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

The problem wasnt hate speech. It was the abolishment of free speech that allowed a particular ideology to gain hold and fester in the German mindset. When you outlaw Free Speech you outlaw free thinking. When you have no power to speak out against what is being said then that is how hate speech becomes violence by whole culture against another.

So, not only should hate speech be allowed but reasonable speech that argues against the emotion of hate speech should be allowed and not prohibited. Allowing certain hate speech and then preventing free speech is how hate speech becomes violence on the scale of nations.

↪god must be atheist I'm not sure what you mean? — Coben

You are asking for parameters to define a concept as if those parameters could be established for sure. Well, some parameters of values expressed by language can't be established. For instance, "life" is undefineable in its essence; so is "good", and so on.

To ask me to define the parameters of the precise division between hate speech and non-hate speech is a tall order. I can tell one when I see one; but I can't possibly provide you with a precise, unfailing, and perfect conceptual definition of such.

You don't buy influence? — Pattern-chaser

As I've pointed out at least four or five times in recent weeks, influence and causality are NOT the same thing.

I wasn't expecting a precise, unfailing and perfect definition.
I read this...

The wrongness starts when we would entice others to hate the other along with our personal hatred — god must be atheist

And it led me to ask how you (and from there how one) would distinguish between speech that expresses hate - which you think is fine - and speech that incites other to hate - which you do not think is fine.

If you use your intuition and cannot further define your position, fine.

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. — god must be atheist

If you think it's causation in the sense that I accept that term, you could try to demonstrate the physical causal chain.

But, as you still have not answered, you've eliminated joint cause. — Isaac

I did address that. The cause of C can be A and B. The cause of C isn't A in that case. It has to be A and B. A alone might never result in B. So in that case A isn't the cause of B.

If someone wants to claim that speech in conjunction with this and that and whatever causes some action, that's fine. Show all of the work. Show the entire cause or the entire causal chain.

"The sound waves from the utterance enter S's ear, and then . . ." well, then what? Show the work.

No, of course hate speech (as defined by law) shouldn't be allowed. The Second World War is in living memory.

The cause of C can be A and B. The cause of C isn't A in that case. It has to be A and B. A alone might never result in B. So in that case A isn't the cause of B. — Terrapin Station

I may be wrong, but I'd bet no-one here has even mentioned hate speech being the cause of violence, so your claim that A alone is not the cause of C is not an answer. The claim is that hate speech causes violence. Nowhere in that claim is the statement that is is the sole cause.

If someone wants to claim that speech in conjunction with this and that and whatever causes some action, that's fine. Show all of the work. Show the entire cause or the entire causal chain. — Terrapin Station

Why must the burden of proof fall on those making the null hypothesis. We see a correlation between hate speech and violence again and again. We have no other mechanism than neurological processes to explain the link.

It is you here that is making the more outlandish claim that speech does not affect our actions by any physical process. That our actions are, rather, motivated by some magical Non-physical force, so it's quite normal to expect that you should bear the burden of proof.

But in order to have any responsibility for causing someone to do something, you literally have to physically grab their body and move it around. Kind of like puppeteering. And your emotional and behavioural responses to speech acts are just like menu items you pick and choose at your whim regardless of context. — Baden

:lol::up:

We see a correlation between hate speech and violence again and again. — Isaac

You're seriously not familiar with "correlation does not imply causation"?

You're seriously not familiar with "correlation does not imply causation"? — Terrapin Station

Of course correlation implies causation. The expression is that correlation is not causation. Ie the one is not necessarily the other. Are you seriously suggesting that repeated correlation implies nothing whatsoever? How on earth do you think science has progressed this far if every correlation were treated as if it implied no causal link?

Of course correlation implies causation. — Isaac

Lol, no it doesn't.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

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.

Does Hitler’s speeches incite you to hatred or violence? Hitler’s speeches incite me to the opposite, actually, to the hatred of Hitler.

Nazi censorship, which suppressed anything that dissented from their sordid ideology, created one of worst information ecosystems.

Weimar Germany had fairly strong hate speech laws, even by today’s standards. Hate speakers, including the editor of Dur Sturmer, were jailed on numerous occasions. It made them martyrs. Little good hate speech laws did.

Lol, no it doesn't. — Terrapin Station

As I said, how do you suppose scientific knowledge progresses if correlation is not taken to imply the possibility of causation. Do you suppose that scientists investigate a random set of possible causes to establish what the particular cause of some event is? Or do you suppose rather, that they investigate first those possible causes with which there is some correlation with the event? If the former, you clearly have no idea how scientific investigation works, if the latter, then correlation must at least imply the possibility of causation, over and above those candidate causes for which there is no correlation.

If you want to quibble over the word 'imply' and the strength of deduction it carries then you'll have to find someone else to argue semantics with. It's abundantly clear that I'm arguing that the correlation is something about which we must form a view. The common scientific process is that correlations are significant and worth persuing as possible signs of causation. Whilst that is happening (and it is happening), we must nonetheless form a view upon which to legislate. I'm asking you, in the absence any evidence whatsoever, why you think that view should be that there is no causation, rather than that there is causation. If neither are proven, all we have is correlation, why would presume the correlation is coincidence rather than causal?

If it is causal, and we do nothing, people will die. If it is coincidence, yet we legislate, people will be unable to say some stuff in public that most of us think is pretty hateful anyway.

I can't understand how you could rationally chose the former over the latter.

If it is causal, and we do nothing, people will die. If it is coincidence, yet we legislate, people will be unable to say some stuff in public that most of us think is pretty hateful anyway.

I can't understand how you could rationally chose the former over the latter.

For a couple reasons. Censorship tends to push hatred into the underground where it festers and grows without any dissent or opposition.

With censorship, people no longer get to see hateful ideas collide with good ideas, or false ideas with true ideas. This, to JS Mill, was “robbing the human race”.

Hatred needs to be exposed, combatted and laid thread-bare with speech, or else people will continue to believe it.

Censorship tends to push hatred into the underground where it festers and grows without any dissent or opposition.

With censorship, people no longer get to see hateful ideas collide with good ideas, or false ideas with true ideas. — NOS4A2

So no demand for proof of direct physical causation when it comes the the negative effects of censorship? We just legislate on whatever effects you 'reckon' it might have?

So no demand for proof of direct physical causation when it comes the the negative effects of censorship? We just legislate on whatever effects you 'reckon' it might have?

It would be better if you didn’t legislate. Can you think of a single person, past or present, that has the moral capacity to tell you what you can and cannot say?

It would be better if you didn’t legislate. — NOS4A2

By 'legislate' I mean to refer to the process of deciding law, not the process of making law. A decision must be made, there is no natural default position because laws are currently in place. To allow hate speech now would require legislation to overturn existing law. If we just 'didn't legislate' from here, hate speech would remain illegal.

Can you think of a single person, past or present, that has the moral capacity to tell you what you can and cannot say? — NOS4A2

No, but it's not about moral capacity. You could ask the same question about telling me what I can and cannot do and my answer would still be no. Does that mean we should have no laws at all?

Hate speech is legal where I’m from. So by not legislating it would remain legal.

Well, actions are different than speech. Yes, there should be laws against certain actions, but no, there should be no laws regarding speech.

Does Do Hitler’s speeches incite you to hatred or violence? Hitler’s speeches incite me to the opposite, actually, to the hatred of Hitler. — NOS4A2

That is of no relevance, given that there are actual cases contrary to your own personal experience.

It is certainly relevant if the speech causes the opposite reaction as people claim.

It is certainly relevant if the speech causes the opposite reaction as people claim. — NOS4A2

But it doesn't in the cases that matter. Laws aren't based on exceptions like that. That would be extremely foolish. Should drink driving become legal again because you've driven home over the limit a number of times without accident?

Well, actions are different than speech. Yes, there should be laws against certain actions, but no, there should be no laws regarding speech. — NOS4A2

How does that relate to the argument you presented in support of this conclusion...

"Can you think of a single person, past or present, that has the moral capacity to tell you what you can and cannot say?"

If it doesn't relate at all, then I feel like I'm lacking any argument to support your position. Why do you think there should be laws against action but not speech?

I’m not talking about laws.

Why do you think there should be laws against action but not speech?

Because there is a fundamental difference between words and deeds.

I’m not talking about laws. — NOS4A2

Then you're off topic.

Then you're off topic.

I am fully on topic.

I am fully on topic. — NOS4A2

No, you're clearly not. Read the discussion title. The question of whether hate speech should be allowed is obviously a discussion relating to law.

Quibbling. It’s also a discussion relating to hate speech.