I think that problem is focused badly in the context of "hate speech". The problem is the organization of Fascist terror. Wearing a Joy Division T-shirt in the wrong context in Germany might constitute Volksverhetzung, but the real problem is that there are Fascists who are out there who intend to do harm. Arbitrary bans on forms of expression merely appear to address the problem. Perhaps I'm too cynical, but I just don't see a ban on hate speech effecting anything other than that the State decides to make an example out of someone like Ian MacKaye so as to gloss over the role that it had to play in the formation of the Neo-Fascist project.

Um... What alternative do you think I have apart from what I think you're arguing? Telepathy? — Isaac

Reading what I had already written in the thread?

I never said you said so, so there's no straw man. There was an "if" in my last reply that you seem to have missed. That was one possible interpretation, and it fits, given the context. But even if it wasn't a hasty generalisation, then it was nevertheless a fallacy of relevance, more broadly.

That’s false. It was a question, not an argument.

It can't, and it most certainly can't by merely appealing to the experience of you or I, as you did in your original comment, as that would obviously be too small a sample group, and would fail to account for more relevant cases where people have actually been convicted of hate crimes.

There is no point in equivocating between hate crimes and hate speech. One is not the topic, the other is.

But “incitement”, the idea that words can induce one to hatred, is magical thinking, which is a point i’ve Been making since the beginning.

If you want to see my arguments as to why hate speech should be allowed, we can talk about the rest of the arguments you suspiciously refused to quote.

Reading what I had already written in the thread? — Terrapin Station

I could say the same, where does that get us? I've read what you've already written, reached the conclusions I have about the substance of your argument and presented what I think are flaws. You can just continue to dodge actually responding to that, as you've been doing for the exchange thus far, or you can actually respond, but I don't see the merit of continuing to simply be insulting.

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. — Isaac

Tsk... the questions were rhetorical, but I guess it's a lost art.

Ok, let's unpack this: If there was a causal connection between hate speech on its own and hatred/violence, rather than speech simply being a tool to inflict hate, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion given the widespread availability of it thanks to the internet and we'd be promoting hate-based narratives. If this isn't enough, keep reading for more concrete examples.

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

It wasn't hate speech per se, it was hate speech delivered by a charismatic authority figure, in the right socioeconomic climate and allowing it to go unchallenged. Basically without the alignment of various socioeconomic factors, hate speech would be little more than words. The factors that enabled Nazism have been the topic of discussion of historians for decades for this reason. To say it was just speech is too simplistic, too local.

For specific evidence, take a look at Hitler's works and footage. Mein Kampf is basically a hate manifesto that has been circulated worldwide (though not Bavaria until recently) for a rather long time. You can find .pdfs of it with a simple search, it has been a widely available/read book, often by prominent, influential intellectuals, yet not everyone who reads it becomes an antisemitism mouthpiece.

Going further: Many of Hitler's speeches are available in video/audio format and the internet has caused them to become widespread. In Youtube alone many of them have millions of views, yet the comments (in the videos that allow them) suggest not everyone bought what he had to sell.

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? — Isaac

No, it wouldn't. Hate speech is widely contested in general, and there are many barriers to open violence as it is. Even if there is a risk, it is greatly preferable to the alternative:

To censor hate speech at a systemic level not only institutionalizes the idea that people cannot be relied on to think for themselves and scrutinize said speech , but it creates a slippery slope based on the fact there's no objective definition for hate speech. Censorship at a government level would act as a gateway for authoritarianism/ fascism by clearing the largest barrier to increasingly oppressive governance (think of the frog in boiling water analogy) . This would in my opinion endanger many more lives, hinder the quality of life of people as a whole and facilitate intellectual regression.

To make topics taboo creates sheltered perspectives on them, and leaves people unprepared against indoctrination in the event of being subjected to it. It also represents a form of legitimization: i.e. the idea that the topic is taboo because it cannot be disputed otherwise. Not to mention controversy begets curiosity.

On the other hand, allowing hate speech, then consistently challenging it, undermining it and ridiculing it in a public manner presents a great opportunity for society's education and entertainment. Think of it as a peer-assisted exploration, or think of a parent guiding a child as he encounters controversial topics in movies. It's not the information, it's the lack of counterpoints that validates it.

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. — god must be atheist

I understand your outrage, but it doesn't exactly do much to show me the error of my ways, or make me inclined to take you seriously or in good faith.

I don't speak the way I do to minimize the monstrosity that was the Holocaust, nor to diminish the loss of life and atrocities committed, but because I am of the mind that your perspective could beget similar ones. Hate speech, I reiterate, is a superficial symptom, not the illness.

That’s false. It was a question, not an argument. — NOS4A2

The following is not a question:

Hitler’s speeches incite me to the opposite, actually, to the hatred of Hitler. — NOS4A2

It is a clear appeal to your own personal experience. And your question was either rhetorical or suggestive, appealing to the experience of others, though you'll probably deny that because you're trying your best to backtrack and wriggle your way out of my criticism.

There is no point in equivocating between hate crimes and hate speech. One is not the topic, the other is. — NOS4A2

Just because you apparently lack the intelligence to pick up on how what I'm saying links to the topic, that doesn't mean that it is off topic. How about you ask what the connection is before jumping to that conclusion? The connection should be obvious, but then this is you we're talking about, and you seem like the kind of person who would deny that the sky is blue if it suited your position in a debate.

But “incitement”, the idea that words can induce one to hatred, is magical thinking, which is a point i’ve Been making since the beginning. — NOS4A2

A point with no valid support that I've seen from you, and which flies in the face of a wealth of evidence to the contrary.

If you want to see my arguments as to why hate speech should be allowed, we can talk about the rest of the arguments you suspiciously refused to quote. — NOS4A2

You're letting your imagination get the better of you. I haven't "refused" to quote anything.

One of the reasons Hitler subjected his opponents to extreme censorship and the denial of civil rights was that he himself was censored and denied those rights. He made this explicit in a debate with Otto Wells, and used it as justification for the Richstag decree and the Enabling Act of 1933.

Wait! I've just noticed that you inadvertently refuted your own stance! :rofl:

But “incitement”, the idea that words can induce one to hatred, is magical thinking, which is a point i’ve Been making since the beginning. — NOS4A2

Hitler’s speeches incite me to the opposite, actually, to the hatred of Hitler. — NOS4A2

Yes your quibbling about an aside question has allowed you to steer clear of my arguments in favor of why I believe hate speech should be allowed.

I was using the common and legal language of incitement to make a point. No, I’m not literally incited to hatred by someone’s expression. More bad faith quibbling.

Yeah, yeah. You have an answer for everything, right? You're somehow never wrong, even when caught red handed.

I can tell why you're a fan of Trump.

I wouldn’t mind debating the topic. I think free speech is very important and debating it helps me clarify my thoughts, Can we start over?

↪S

I wouldn’t mind debating the topic. I think free speech is very important and debating it helps me clarify my thoughts, Can we start over? — NOS4A2

No.

Well said.

If there was a causal connection between hate speech on its own — Necrofantasia

Who said anything about the causal connection being about hate speech on its own? If hate speech were one factor which together with other factors, lead to violence, why would that have any bearing on whether we should legislate against it? Driving at 80 miles per hour through a village is only one factor leading to an increase in RTA deaths, that doesn't mean we shouldn't prohibit it.

Censorship at a government level would act as a gateway for authoritarianism/ fascism by clearing the largest barrier to increasingly oppressive governance (think of the frog in boiling water analogy) . This would in my opinion endanger many more lives, hinder the quality of life of people as a whole and facilitate intellectual regression. — Necrofantasia

But surely censorship would be only one factor among many in this degradation of civil life, not the sole direct cause. So why dont your concerns here suffer from the same problem as the correlation between hate speech and violence?

Simply claiming that censorship will lead to the problems you cite, but allowing hate speech will not lead to the problems I'm concerned about, doesn't really get us anywhere. If we're just down to speculation about whose consequences will come to be, there's not much more to say.

I maintain that in such circumstances we should err on the side of caution. We have a correlation between hate speech and violence. We have no examples where banning hate speech has lead to the slippery slope you describe. Why would we act on your speculation and not historical correlation?

Who said anything about the causal connection being about hate speech on its own? If hate speech were one factor which together with other factors, lead to violence, why would that have any bearing on whether we should legislate against it? — Isaac

Indeed, and obviously it should not. I suspect the whole basis for those on the other side of this debate reaching the conclusion they do is similarly flawed. I think this error in reasoning was best conveyed by Baden in his satirical reply early on, where he takes it to even more extreme lengths to highlight the absurdity.

I could say the same, where does that get us? — Isaac

One place it should get you is a realization that I wasn't saying anything about possibilities and I wasn't dismissing correlations.

If hate speech were one factor which together with other factors, — Isaac

As I've requested many times, specify all of the causal factors/the causal chain.

The sophist Gorgias believed rhetoric was like a drug, “magical incantations”.

Just as different drugs draw forth different humors from the body – some putting a stop to disease, others to life – so too with words: some cause pain, others joy, some strike fear, some stir the audience to boldness, some benumb and bewitch the soul with evil persuasion

The Athenian elite believed Socrates would “corrupt the youth”, as if a poison, and killed him for it.

It seems obvious that those who believe words carry some force of power must believe they themselves can exert that power, and as a corollary, that it can be used on them.

In my view, this is a dangerous overestimation, essentially a superstition. Speech cannot fly through the air and control another’s action. But the idea is no less crystallized in our language, as far back as Ancient Greece apparently.

As I've requested many times, specify all of the causal factors/the causal chain. — Terrapin Station

It's unreasonable to ask him to list them all, but it shouldn't be difficult to figure out what that list would include. It would include things like being of the right mindset, such as being vulnerable and easily influenced, perhaps having a propensity for violence, or having formed a prejudice against the target of the hate speech. One's environment, interests, reading materials, upbringing, what one watches, religion, and politics, can all affect one's beliefs and actions, and it is just not a credible position to take to deny that this is the case.

It seems obvious that those who believe words carry some force of power must believe they themselves can exert that power, and as a corollary, that it can be used on them. — NOS4A2

Of course they can, silly. It's called manipulation, and it's a skill, although it comes more naturally to some than others. It is a fundamental part of my job role as a salesperson. I am required, as part of my job, to use language to my advantage, in order to increase profit. A good salesperson will know exactly what to say and how to say it, and will be conscious of body language, tone of voice, facial expression, how to direct the conversation, add on sales, how to overcome objections, and so on.

Of course they can, silly. It's called manipulation, and it's a skill, although it comes more naturally to some than others. It is a fundamental part of my job role as a salesperson. I am required, as part of my job, to use language to my advantage, in order to increase profit.

But you’re not much of a manipulator if they know your skills and can see your con from a mile away. Your magical powers are negated.

But you’re not much of a manipulator if they know your skills and can see your con from a mile away. Your magical powers are negated. — NOS4A2

It is really silly to call what I'm talking about "magical powers", and yes, of course one can learn how to spot what's going on and to resist it, if it doesn't come naturally. That doesn't refute my point in any way. People are different, and some are more easily manipulated than others. And that's why your earlier point was ill considered. The laws on hate speech are not there because of people like you or I. They are there to protect people like you or I from those who are the kind of people who are the prime target of incitements to hate crime.

They are there to protect citizens against the Jihadi Jacks of the world. Jihadi Jack is the name that was given to Jack Letts, and his case is a good example (though I'm sure there are plenty of others) of why hate speech should be banned. He has been interviewed on camera, spoken of his experience, and expressed deep regrets for his actions.

Going to ease myself out of the discussion, because having my posts randomly deleted with no feedback is exhausting and counter to the spirit of philosophy.

Who said anything about the causal connection being about hate speech on its own? If hate speech were one factor which together with other factors, lead to violence, why would that have any bearing on whether we should legislate against it? Driving at 80 miles per hour through a village is only one factor leading to an increase in RTA deaths, that doesn't mean we shouldn't prohibit it. — Isaac

You're comparing apples and oranges. Censorship of ideas by itself has repercussions on a cultural level that mere traffic regulations don't have. You may eradicate an illness by preventing exposure to it, but I'd argue vaccination via education and critical thinking is a much better solution. Ideology operates the same way. Learn from history by educating people and providing them them the critical thinking tools to defend themselves, don't put them in bubbles.

But surely censorship would be only one factor among many in this degradation of civil life, not the sole direct cause. So why dont your concerns here suffer from the same problem as the correlation between hate speech and violence? — Isaac

I think I've already explained this: If you enable systemic censorship of one ideology on a preventive basis, you can always make the case to include others on similar grounds, gradually expanding the criteria of what gets censored depending of the agendas authorities want you to follow.

Deplatforming on a private level coupled with condemnation, rejection and ridicule by the general population serves the same functional purposes of censorship without giving authorities an umbrella term they can expand to legally persecute people for disagreeing with them or drawing caricatures of them and some such.

Not to mention, it innoculates people against similar lines of thinking, instead of just sheltering them.

A much more constructive alternative to censorship on a systemic level could be policies along the lines of the Fairness Doctrine, that made it a requirement to broadcast not just issues of public importance, but contrasting views.

Simply claiming that censorship will lead to the problems you cite, but allowing hate speech will not lead to the problems I'm concerned about, doesn't really get us anywhere. If we're just down to speculation about whose consequences will come to be, there's not much more to say.

I maintain that in such circumstances we should err on the side of caution. We have a correlation between hate speech and violence. We have no examples where banning hate speech has lead to the slippery slope you describe. Why would we act on your speculation and not historical correlation? — Isaac

If you only prepare yourself for problems you've already encountered, don't you leave yourself open for new takes on old concepts? There is no historical precedent for what the Internet has facilitated for example.

We have a correlation between censorship of detractors and authoritarianism in history and it has been established as a power consolidation device. It is also a core component of the definition of Fascism. It's not just my speculation.

If you want another specific historical precedent, I point to the documented effects of religious censorship on scientific development across history, construed as "Anti God". The logical progression to calling it hate speech wouldn't be difficult to make.

Essentially I trust my peers to do "censoring" on their terms, not the system.
Speaking of which, let's hope my post lasts longer than a minute this time.

Did you contact a mod? Your posts dont seem offensive or against the rules so its probably some limd of filter glitch or something.

NOS4A2 is full of contradictions and so should not be taken too seriously. Elsewhere on the forum he said the following, which clearly undermines his argument here, and in the other discussion about Trump where he said something along the lines that words are powerless:

Yes, I think the political division is a media-induced hysteria, mostly for reasons of profit, and Trump is the scapegoat for what they’ve caused — NOS4A2

So the media induces hysteria in people, yet words are powerless, the idea that words can induce strong emotions like hatred is magical thinking, etc.? :brow:

Turns out it was a spam filter false positive. And I'm a goofus.
Confound dem sneaky newfangled thingamabobs.

It's unreasonable to ask him to list them all, — S

It's not unreasonable if he wants me to believe that speech can be causal to actions. The main thing we'd have to show is that the people in question do not have free will in the situations in question. I don't know how we'd show that, though.

What's causal to actions then?

It's not unreasonable if he wants me to believe that speech can be causal to actions. — Terrapin Station

It is unreasonable for him to do as you ask as it is both impractical and unnecessary. If it is necessary for you to be convinced, then you yourself are being unreasonable. You're committing the continuum fallacy by rejecting the claim on the basis that it is not as precise as you would like it to be.

The main thing we'd have to show is that the people in question do not have free will in the situations in question. I don't know how we'd show that, though. — Terrapin Station

That's not necessary either. Where did you get that idea from? You've clearly gone wrong somewhere in your reasoning to think that.