If there's a correlation between hate speech and nonviolence so that 4,999 out of 5,000 people exposed to hate speech are not violent, then why can't we conclude that hate speech causes nonviolence? I thought that significant correlations were supposed to suggest causality, no? — Terrapin Station

Sorry, but that's just dumb. No one on my side of the argument ever suggested anything like a causal impact of 4,999 people for every 5,000. You think that we thought that hate speech was like 99.99% effective? Are you deliberately missing the point or something?

The actual experiment - not an easy one to either set up or perform using surveys and interviews - would be better if it compared groups of people who have been exposed to groups not exposed. So, even if most people exposed did not commit violence, if there was an increase in violence by those exposed we now have a correlation between exposure to hate speech and increased numbers of violent acts. — Coben

That's fair, but if the numbers are so small--say that we had 500,000 people not exposed to hate speech and only 60 were subsequently violent, and then 500,000 exposed to hate speech and 100 were subsequently violent, it's tough to say that suggests anything at all about a connection between the speech and violence, because it's basically a negligible difference that could be attributed to just about anything. (Although I'd agree that it might make a difference in establishing a correlation if we can show a similar difference in numbers over many iterations . . . although if we're dealing with numbers like that, we'd quickly run out of people)

Sorry, but that's just dumb. No one on my side of the argument ever suggested anything like a causal impact of 4,999 people for every 5,000. You think that we thought that hate speech was like 99.99% effective? Are you deliberately missing the point or something? — S

I'm mocking the notion of there being a strong enough correlation to conclude that hate speech is causal to violence.

I think it's even harder than that, though I think the correlation can be much higher. But that's the problem. How do you eliminate which came first issues? We don't have discrete events, I don't think, where we can track an exposed and a control groups. All we can do, I think, it note increases in hate speech and see if this is followed by hate crimes. But, that might simply be the natural cycle. People hate, they talk, they act.

I think it's different when there is a systematic use of hate speech, by a government and much of the media. Though that's not the kind of experiment one caed upn run.

There have been psychological experiments where people/children have been told another group is bad or problematic and then they end up treating them worse. I suspect that skeptics will not find this convincing enough.

Oh, you did mention 'if' the numbers are small. If they are not, then some people are going to take it seriously.

I would also, then, add in other potential results. Like how other people not directly involved in the violence react to the violence. If there were significant changes in sympathy for victims, or victim blaming or indifference or justifying the violence in other ways, I think that should matter. It doesn't have to just be the violent acts, especially if we are dealing with something systematic.

I'm mocking the notion of there being a strong enough correlation to conclude that hate speech is causal to violence. — Terrapin Station

Which is also dumb. It is evident that hate speech has an inflammatory effect on certain kinds of people under the right circumstances, and that this can and most likely has lead to hate crime. Just look at a case like that of Elliot Rodger, and similar or related cases, and the impact that that has had.

I think it's even harder than that, though I think the correlation can be much higher. But that's the problem. How do you eliminate which came first issues? We don't have discrete events, I don't think, where we can track an exposed and a control groups. All we can do, I think, it note increases in hate speech and see if this is followed by hate crimes. But, that might simply be the natural cycle. People hate, they talk, they act. — Coben

When we're just looking observationally at the world at large, it would be difficult to even say that there's been an increase in hate speech.

And then re crimes, there's a problem (again, when we're just looking at this broadly) of not knowing what, if any, hate speech someone was exposed to, and whether some of the hate speech we were looking at broadly wasn't uttered by some of the people committing the crimes in question (which undermines that the speech caused the action rather than both being symptomatic of something about that individual).

Just look at a case like that of Elliot Rodger, and similar or related cases, and the impact that that has had. — S

Had to refamiliarize myself with who he was just now, but the Wikipedia page says that, per his manifesto, "He explained that he wanted to punish women for rejecting him, and punish sexually active men because he envied them."

What is the hate speech connection supposed to be there. What speech did he hear (from someone else) that supposedly contributed to him being violent?

How about Anjem Choudary? He wasn't partly responsible for any acts of crime that his hate speech inspired, I suppose?

That this is even up for debate is a joke.

How about Anjem Choudary? — S

No idea who that is off the top of my head. Looking it up now.

Not that I needed to look him up to answer, actually, but no, of course I'd not say that someone should be held legally responsible for any crimes done subsequent to their speech.

I'm not in favor of any conspiracy laws, for example.

Had to refamiliarize myself with who he was just now, but the Wikipedia page says that, per his manifesto, "He explained that he wanted to punish women for rejecting him, and punish sexually active men because he envied them."

What is the hate speech connection supposed to be there. What speech did he hear (from someone else) that supposedly contributed to him being violent? — Terrapin Station

He was embroiled in incel culture, and he has since become a hero in the eyes of those who delve in that twisted world. I would not at all be surprised if others have been inspired by his crime and by his words and followed in his footsteps.

He was embroiled in incel culture, and he has since become a hero in the eyes of those who delve in that twisted world. I would not at all be surprised if others have since followed in his footsteps. — S

"He was embroiled in incel culture"--is this known from people knowing something like a username he used on a message board or something? And if so, wasn't he someone posting "hate speech" himself? If that's the case, why wouldn't we think that both his hate speech and his actions were symptomatic of something about him, rather than being caused by someone else's hate speech? How would we conclude the latter?

Not that I needed to look him up to answer, actually, but no, of course I'd not say that someone should be held legally responsible for any crimes done subsequent to their speech. — Terrapin Station

We already know that. That's not a proper response.

The Manchester bomber was inspired by Choudary's hate speech. He was a known acolyte of his. It would be totally unreasonable of you to deny the causal link here.

It would be totally unreasonable of you to deny the causal link here. — S

I think it would be totally unreasonable of you to claim a causal link.

Obviously, different people think that different things are reasonable.

Reviewing Elliot Rodger a bit more, I'd be in favor of something like a program dedicated to providing sex for anyone interested in having sex but having trouble with acquiring it. Something like government-sponsored call girls, or call girls as an extension of socialized medical coverage. I'd bet that would help stave off violence motivated by frustration like Rodger's more than outlawing "hate speech" would.

"He was embroiled in incel culture"--is this known from people knowing something like a username he used on a message board or something? And if so, wasn't he someone posting "hate speech" himself? If that's the case, why wouldn't we think that both his hate speech and his actions were symptomatic of something about him, rather than being caused by someone else's hate speech? How would we conclude the latter? — Terrapin Station

Why are you drawing this out to such unnecessary and unreasonable lengths? What would it take for you to concede the point? What if some teenage boy had gone out and murdered a group of popular teenage girls at his school, and then killed himself, and left behind a suicide note and diary explicitly naming Elliot Rodger and incel culture as his motive?

Sure. It's damn hard to draw anything like a scientific conclusion, I would say. Me, I go often by intuition, toss in some rational analysis, if I can, for things like this. I remember high school where a bit of gossip if spread could get you treated badly. There's that study where teachers are told that group X of students is high quality and another is low quality and they experience the two equivalent groups as being this. There are the prisoner studies, where college students were split into two groups and one played prisoners and the other guards and the whole thing had to be stopped, even when everyone knew it was arbritrary groupings. I notice how people in workplaces will mistreat certain people if a rumour goes around about them. I notice the way I have reacted when people have said bad things about subgroups in communities I been in, not racial ones, but social circles. And there's more, both consciously connected and likely I am influenced in other ways. I believe it. I think hate speech probably does lead to a change in hate crimes, indifference, polarization, discrimination and othet things I consider negative. I can't prove this. I don't expect you to believe me and the floppy way my mind reaches conclusions. Maybe I'm great at it. Maybe not. I don't have a peer reviewed paper in here and not even a decently organized article. I could go at it with a pick ax myself if I wanted to. But there it is. I think so. I think a lot of people are looking for something to hate. I think they are primed by their natures, by stress, and there will be statistical effects.

What would it take for you to concede the point? — S

Brain damage, probably.

What if some teenage boy had gone out and murdered a group of popular teenage girls at his school, and then killed himself, and left behind a suicide note and diary explicitly naming Elliot Roger and incel culture as his motive? — S

I would say that he decided to take the actions he did, where he at least decided to credit Elliot Rodger as an influence on his decision (whether that was accurate or whether he had some ulterior motive for it, such as being S on thephilosophyforum and thinking it would "prove a point").

I think it would be totally unreasonable of you to claim a causal link.

Obviously, different people think that different things are reasonable. — Terrapin Station

Yes, but you're the Flat Earther in this case.

Not that vaguely. I explained it and also copy-pasted the explanation again. — Terrapin Station

Right so what started out as "that's just what libertarianism is" is now about the exact degree of vagueness libertarianism as a whole philosophy ascribes to restrictions on liberty.

Perhaps you could return the evidence favour and provide me with the quotes from the classic libertarian philosophers outlining the exact degree of vagueness below which liberties are not considered. Unless of course its "... something you're making up/based on your own views rather."

It matters here because if there is a weighing exercise to be done, then the weight you attach to the freedom to speak hateful things makes a difference.

Like any risk we weigh the harms and the liklihood of those harms coming to pass. So, if we ban hate speech, the harm is the loss of a small subset of public speech (the loss of which is trivial compared to other liberties), the liklihood of that being the case is 100%. The harm if we don't is potential loss of life, fear, inability to get work, housing, fair treatment. The probability of this being the case is whatever probability you ascribe to the results of the psychological and sociological investigations.

My problem is, that you must agree there is a non-zero chance that the correlation is causal (unless you're going to invoke your magic barrier which somehow prevents desires from being caused). The loss of liberty, if it were the case, would be massive. Whereas, the loss of liberty if we ban hate speech, whilst being 100% likely to happen, is absolutely trivial (by your understanding) compared to the other liberties I've mentioned, because it is of no further use.

It would be like banning purple hats because there's a possibility they might cause harm. The possibility in that case doesn't need to be very high because the loss of liberty (no more purple hat choices) is so tiny.

I would say that he decided to take the actions he did, where he at least decided to credit Elliot Rodger as an influence on his decision. — Terrapin Station

Decisions are influenced, and influences are causes in some respect. So you're conceding the point, then? What Elliot Rodger did and said was an indirect cause of the subsequent crime by his admirer?

I was just about to suggest we brainstorm other ways to minimize violence. I'd allow people to express their feelings. It's interesting that free speech is often the topic with it's implicit focus on content. We have so pathologized emotions and we walk around hiding them, pretending we don't have them, choosing the ones most acceptable in a given situation, medicating them away, pathologizing other people for having (strong) emotions
and through all sorts of social, professional, governmental, court related, employer
punishments
made expressing emotions, heck, just in the form of sound and tears or whatever
a de facto crime in all sorts of contexts. There is no freedom to emote. That's the corner I'd start working. I think if we stop punishing, both through legal, illegal, social and policy/regulation methods, the expression of emotions, we will not get people jumping to violence so quickly.

Yes, but you're the Flat Earther in this case. — S

You're the "video games cause violence" guy,

Right so what started out as "that's just what libertarianism is" is now about the exact degree of vagueness libertarianism as a whole philosophy ascribes to restrictions on liberty. — Isaac

What? I didn't say that libertarianism was about "liberty" by the way. That's like people who think that "progressive rock" was literally about "progress."

Perhaps you could return the evidence favour and provide me with the quotes from the classic libertarian philosophers — Isaac

I'm not talking about "classic libertarian philosophers." I'm talking about people in the party and what their views are. I was involved with the party on local, state and national levels for awhile back in the late 80s and the 90s

Decisions are influenced, and influences are causes in some respect. — S

Influences are not causes in any respect. Influences don't remove free will. Causes do.

"Indirect cause" would only make sense as something far back in a causal chain.

What would it take for you to concede the point?
— S

Brain damage, probably. — Terrapin Station

Oh, so you've already conceded. I must've missed that.

Well, and I'm actually serious about the sex assistance program(s). Watching the Rodger video, he strikes me as a guy just really frustrated about not being able to get laid (which must have been because of a "creepy," unusual personality--it certainly wouldn't have been a factor of his looks, his socio-economic status, etc.). If he had gotten laid, especially regularly, things would probably have turned out different.

Oh, so you've already conceded. I must've missed that. — S

haha

I took it seriously. I mean, we both had outlet solutions.

Influences are not causes in any respect. — Terrapin Station

Of course they are. They're just prior causes. I already gave you an example, which you ignored. The writings of Marx influenced my thinking, which in turn was a causal factor in my act of purchasing books on Marx. Without that cause in the chain, I wouldn't have purchased books on Marx. That's fundamental to the explanation.