What is any evidence at all of a correlation between anyone saying "Gas the Jews" and an increase in violence? — Terrapin Station

There are books on that sort of thing, you know. I own one. Part 1 of 3 is about the rise of antisemitism in Germany as a background to events leading up to the holocaust. And no, I'm not sifting through it just for you. But if you really are as ignorant as you're coming across, then I really think that you should educate yourself.

No I don’t believe I can consciously control all the processes of my body, but I do control them in the sense that all “automatic responses” are governed and regulated by me, my biology. — NOS4A2

No one talks like that. You are not your immune system, for example. Doctors do not inform patients with an autoimmune disease, such as rheumatoid arthritis, that they are attacking the cells that line their joints, they inform them that their immune system is doing so. You've gone to the ridiculous extent of inventing your own peculiar semantics, just so that you don't have to concede to any counterpoints. You are not an intellectually honest interlocutor.

There are books on that sort of thing, you know. I own one. Part 1 of 3 is about the rise of antisemitism in Germany as a background to events leading up to the holocaust. And no, I'm not sifting through it just for you. But if you really are as ignorant as you're coming across, then I really think that you should educate yourself. — S

You're right, and I feel really bad about my rather flippant response to this comment of Terrapin's originally. I didn't follow through the full implication as you have.

"... evidence at all of a correlation between anyone saying "Gas the Jews" and an increase in violence"? I'm sure Terrapin didn't mean it as such (although less so now than I was when this discussion started) but this is a denial of the holocaust. "Anyone" includes Hitler and all of his propoganda machine and officers. The proposition that of any one of them saying "Gas the Jews" didn't lead to any violence... what the fuck do we call the holocaust then? A completely coincidental act of mass psychopathy?

Like many others, I spotted the logical consequences from the very start, which is why in my very first comment in this discussion I said that hate speech should of course be banned, and remarked that the Second World War is still in living memory.

There hasn't been any real argument against this line of reasoning, just around forty pages of persistent and unreasonable doubt. Their stance on cause and effect in relation to speech generally, and hate speech in particular, lacks any explanatory power, and should be rejected on that basis. And the stance that hate speech shouldn't be banned should be rejected based on a reasonable assessment of history and a sensible cost-benefit analysis. Turning up with a die-hard commitment to free speech fanaticism in spite of all reason is not a credible stance, so Terrapin, along with his vampiric compadre, is just wasting his time and effort here.

Video games, movies which include violence generally without an underlying racial theme or fascist political agendas do not provoke violence. — Wittgenstein

So first, what Isaac and S keep harping on is correlation. There's just as strong of a correlation between video games like GTA, horror films, etc. and violence. (That's not to say that I'm arguing that there's a strong correlation there--there's not a strong correlation between hate speech and violence, either, and of course I don't agree that correlation implies causation, etc.) But if they're to be consistent, they'd have to acknowledge the correlation.

On the other hand, you have movies that are banned in various countries, like nazi era movies are banned in Germany. — Wittgenstein

Sure. I'm simply asking them about their views. (And mostly because I consider the folks who want to ban or regulate video games or movies because they believe that they are causal factors for violent behavior to be morons of the highest degree. I'm trying to get more insight into just how troglodytish these folks are. It's easier to quickly glean that in person, but we don't have that advantage here.)

the main purpose of movies and games is entertainment while hate speech has the primary motive being to cause violence or harm. — Wittgenstein

They've said nothing about "the main purpose" being a criterion for their stance on hate speech.

Of course, if they'd said that, just how we know "the main purpose" and just why it should matter when there's a correlation between x and violence regardless of "the main purpose" would have been other big tangents I would have introduced.

I can't. That's the point, and I'm sure you're smart enough to know that. Imagine if I contested the idea that people dislike being shot. It's certainly true, but you'd have to be an idiot to think anyone could just "quote something" that claims it other than "the whole of human experience". — Isaac

It took me about two seconds to find this:

https://thoughtcatalog.com/holly-riordan/2017/02/26-gunshot-survivors-explain-exactly-what-the-bullet-felt-like/

You're claiming that the paper you cited claims that hate speech is causal to violence. Does it? Where does it claim that? It doesn't explicitly claim it? You mean that you're just reading it into the paper?

I'm not about to read you blah blah blahing on when you don't even answer simple questions and you argue so dishonestly.

And your evidence for your perfectly rational and not at all fundamental belief that our beliefs are generated. . . — Isaac

Our beliefs are generated . . . ? You're not even reading what I'm writing apparently.

No I wouldn't say that every psychologist in the world thinks these things are causal to violence and I didn't say that about hate speech either. — Isaac

What you said, and what I wrote just the same, was the "just about every psychologist" thinks this.

Again, very dishonest back and forth with you.

See my now total of eleven linked psychology papers. — Isaac

Which paper talked about the phrase "Gas the Jews"?

There are books on that sort of thing, you know. I own one. Part 1 of 3 is about the rise of antisemitism in Germany as a background to events leading up to the holocaust. — S

So he was referring to Germany 80-90 years ago? Seriously? It wasn't a reference to Mark Meechan or anything more recent? With Meechan, by the way, it was a humorous context.

Do any of those books actually have anyone uttering the phrase "Gas the Jews" (in German or translated) even?

By the way, why are you linking to papers such as "Attitudes in the Social Context: The Impact of Social Network Composition on Individual-Level Attitude Strength"?

You're trying to pass that off as making a claim about hate speech causing violence? Or pass it off like it's going to talk about a correlation between the phrase "Gas the Jews" and violence?

Yes, but absolutely no-one is suggesting we ban all speech, so why the hell would you be arguing against it? — Isaac

What kind of friggin moron do you need to be to believe that he's thinking that anyone is suggesting to ban all speech? lol

At any rate, coming across like a dishonest idiot is definitely going to be persuasive. Do continue.

It took me about two seconds to find this: — Terrapin Station

That's a subjective account. How long do you think it would take me to find a subjective account of hate speech leading to violence?

Find a quote from a psychologist proposing the theory that people dislike being shot.

What you said, and what I wrote just the same, was the "just about every psychologist" thinks this. — Terrapin Station

Quote me saying that then.

Which paper talked about the phrase "Gas the Jews"? — Terrapin Station

like it's going to talk about a correlation between the phrase "Gas the Jews" and violence? — Terrapin Station

WTF? So now we've got to provide evidence on a phrase by phrase basis?

What kind of friggin moron do you need to be to believe that he's thinking that anyone is suggesting to ban all speech? lol — Terrapin Station

Oh now we've got to treat people with a presumption of intelligence and a charitable interpretation of what they're saying? You first.

That's a subjective account. — Isaac

Jesus Christ are you stupid. Whether someone likes something is necessarily subjective.

Jesus Christ are you stupid. Whether someone likes something is necessarily subjective. — Terrapin Station

Whether that is the case generally or not is not subjective.

How long do you think it would take me to find a subjective account of hate speech leading to violence? — Isaac

All I asked you was where in that paper anyone was claiming that hate speech causes violence.

I don't care what the background of it is. Can you find any psychologist writing anything more or less equivalent to "hate speech causes violence"? Let's see if we can find even one.

I've never denied any such correlation, and you never asked me about one. You did ask me a question which was poorly framed, like if I were to ask you whether chocolate causes obesity, so I decided not to answer directly, but instead to indicate the problem with the question.

We've already explained why hate speech should be banned, but video games like GTA and horror films shouldn't be. It's not our fault if you ignore the explanation that we've given. Hate speech fails the cost-benefit analysis, whereas video games like GTA and horror films don't. Although of course some that go too far do fail the cost-benefit analysis, and we have laws and regulations in place for that very reason. There's a reason why you can't walk into your local video game store and purchase a copy of Jew Killer, because such a game doesn't exist for obvious reasons.

Whether that is the case generally or not is not subjective. — Isaac

I'm not asking you anything about "generally the case"--again, you're either being stupid or dishonest here.

I'm asking you to just show me one instance in the paper at hand of something akin to "hate speech causes violence."

If it's not in that paper, find me one instance of any psychologist saying anything akin to that.

Hate speech fails the cost-benefit analysis, — S

How is the "cost-benefit" analysis not simply something that you're making up?

You're not claiming that there are objective benefits, are you?

I said "that sort of thing". I was charitably assuming that your example wasn't specific to the point of absurdity.

I was asking about that specific phrase. So if there's nothing about that specific phrase, how about picking any specific utterances that there's a correlation study for? Or are you claiming that there are no correlation studies for any specific utterances, and we're supposed to just assume a correlation between hate speech not-defined-very-well and violence?

Can you find any psychologist writing anything more or less equivalent to "hate speech causes violence"? Let's see if we can find even one. — Terrapin Station

No. No psychologist worthy of the title would claim such a thing as I have already made abundantly clear several times. Psychologists are almost united on the concept that the social environment has a causal influence on behaviour, you won't find a single quote on that because it is just a foundational position of social psychology. Try a textbook. I have, however, linked several papers in which the language makes it abundantly clear that this is the case. If you disagree, you'll have to explain how you disagree before I can help you with that.

The consequence of this position is that where a correlation is suggestive of some link, the link it is suggestive of is a causal one.

Try a textbook. — Isaac

If it's in a textbook, there would be an instance of a psychologist saying it.

I'm not asking you, by the way, for a comment in the vein of "the social environment has a causal influence on beahavior." I'm asking you for a comment that's specifically about hate speech That's what we're discussing here.

It's curious that "just about every psychologist" agrees that hate speech is causal to violent behavior, yet we can't find a single one saying anything amounting to this.

Which you should read as, "You lie amusingly."

I have, however, linked several papers in which the language makes it abundantly clear that this is the case. — Isaac

Give an example. Quote something that you think amounts to it.

How is the "cost-benefit" analysis not simply something that you're making up? — Terrapin Station

Because we live in a fucking democracy, for God's sake. S isn't personally responsible for making the law.

Because we live in a fucking democracy, for God's sake. — Isaac

So if a lot of people agree to how it's being made up, then it's good to go?

"just about every psychologist" agrees that hate speech is causal to violent behavior, — Terrapin Station

Quote me claiming that then. Don't piece together bits of my writing for your own convenience. Provide me with the actual quote where I say "just about every psychologist" agrees that hate speech is causal to violent behavior,"

I'm not making it up, and whether or not you believe that is irrelevant. I weighed up the costs and benefits before reaching my conclusion. You can do likewise, but my analysis is sensible and unbiased, whereas yours has been unreasonably skewed from the start because you are a hopelessly biased free speech fanatic.

So if a lot of people agree to how it's being made up, then it's good to go? — Terrapin Station

Yes, have you a better plan with subjective harms and benefits? Ignore them all to serve some religious ideology? Come and ask you? Why on earth shouldn't a community get together and decide that the risk of allowing people to say "Gas the Jews" isn't worth the benefit?

Quote me claiming that then. — Isaac

I've already quoted it a couple times. In this post: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/320905 you wrote, "There's a correlation between hate speech and violence which just about every psychologist in the world thinks is causal (as in one of a number of causes, all of which are necessary)."

I'm starting to think that you're an alternate personality of khaled. Seriously, you're either extremely dishonest, extremely moronic, or there's something seriously wrong with you re a mental illness.