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.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
↪god must be atheist I'm not sure what you mean? — Coben
You don't buy influence? — Pattern-chaser
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.The wrongness starts when we would entice others to hate the other along with our personal hatred — god must be atheist
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
But, as you still have not answered, you've eliminated joint cause. — Isaac
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
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
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
We see a correlation between hate speech and violence again and again. — Isaac
You're seriously not familiar with "correlation does not imply causation"? — Terrapin Station
Of course correlation implies causation. — Isaac
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.
Lol, no it doesn't. — Terrapin Station
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.
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?
It would be better if you didn’t legislate. — NOS4A2
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
It is certainly relevant if the speech causes the opposite reaction as people claim. — NOS4A2
Well, actions are different than speech. Yes, there should be laws against certain actions, but no, there should be no laws regarding speech. — NOS4A2
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.