I’ve stated explicitly that I don’t believe it should be censored. Take that to whatever logical conclusion you wish and imagine I’m arguing for it, but I cannot make it any more explicit. — NOS4A2

Do you accept the logical consequences of that statement, as I've set out for you? Yes or no? And if no, then why not?

Why is it so difficult to get an answer out of you? Repeating that you don't believe that it should be censored obviously isn't helpful in any way at all, because I'm asking you about the logical consequences of that.

Not from the showing of a single swastika, no. But regular, supportive, coverage of (say) racist stuff does cause a surge in support for organisations like the KKK, who are more prominent today since Trump came to power, and gave them his support. — Pattern-chaser

You're right, he was attacking his own straw man there, as I pointed out. And it is bad form that NOS4A2 just moves on from this sort of criticism without any acknowledgement of error.

So, if a notable media outlet (if it hasn't already slipped your mind, you'll recall that they have a wide audience) decided to publish a hate speech in full, then you would have no objection to that (given that you're totally against censorship), yes? — S

You didn't ask me, but of course I'd have no objection to that.

Aside from the nonsense of "Trump gave the KKK his support" (lol), what empirical studies are you using for "regular, 'supportive' coverage of racist stuff causes a surge of support for organizations like the KKK"?

You didn't ask me, but of course I'd have no objection to that. — Terrapin Station

Yes, but you also say that you seriously think that I could right now believe that I'm on the moon, or an ostrich, etc., etc., so now there's little reason trying to reason with you over anything at all. If you can believe that, then you can believe anything. You've lost all credibility.

Yes, but you also say that you seriously think that I could right now believe that I'm on the moon, or an ostrich, etc., etc., so now there's little reason trying to reason with you over anything at all. If you can believe that, then you can believe anything. You've lost all credibility. — S

Whereas I'd say that claiming that any arbitrary person couldn't believe any arbitrary thing is not at all justifiable (and suggests little experience with a wide variety of people, because folks believe all sorts of wacky crap)

Whereas I'd say that claiming that any arbitrary person couldn't believe any arbitrary thing is not at all justifiable (and suggests little experience with a wide variety of people, because folks believe all sorts of wacky crap). — Terrapin Station

Not that this should require any further explanation, but one of the weakest types of argument is an appeal to logical possibility over an issue that's about what you think is the case. That it's possible is literally all you have going for you, against all of the evidence to the contrary. So, to quantify it approximately, your case has about 0.000001% going for it, whereas the contrary case has like 9.999999% going for it. So it's a possibility far too remote to take seriously. So you are being totally unreasonable here, Terrapin. Not that you'll admit it, of course.

Again, empirically, "folks believe all sorts of wacky crap"

Again, empirically, "folks believe all sorts of wacky crap". — Terrapin Station

That's a shoddy analysis. How many people out of the total population believe that they're on the moon with Chevy Chase?

What does the number of people with a specific belief have to do with anything? Why do you keep going back to what most people do for every single thing?

I can just imagine you making sure you have 2.3 kids.

What does the number of people with a specific belief have to do with anything? Why do you keep going back to what most people do for every single thing? — Terrapin Station

So there's this thing called probability. You may have heard of it.

Not from the showing of a single swastika, no. But regular, supportive, coverage of (say) racist stuff does cause a surge in support for organisations like the KKK, who are more prominent today since Trump came to power, and gave them his support.

This is off topic but fits into it, The same media who blamed themselves for giving Trump free exposure don’t blame themselves for the free exposure given to white nationalists. Trump has explicitly denounced racism and white nationalism.

Noam Chomsky makes this wonderful point that in Europe, where holocaust denial is illegal, holocaust denialists are given massive exposure whenever they say something. The same isn’t the case in the US. There are tenured professors in the US who write works of holocaust denial and no one cares.

I accept that someone may or may not publish hate speech to a wide audience. Do I think it’s a logical consequence that it will happen? No.

Do you know why ISIS hates us and fights us in the west? They’ve written about it in their propaganda. Should the reason they hate us and fight us be censored, or is this important information?

I accept that someone may or may not publish hate speech to a wide audience. Do I think it’s a logical consequence that it will happen? No. — NOS4A2

That's a tiny part of the reasoning I put to you. What about all the rest?

That someone may be inspired by it? Yeah sure. Or they may take the opposite stance and oppose it.

Do you know why ISIS hates us and fights us in the west? They’ve written about it in their propaganda. Should the reason they hate us and fight us be censored, or is this important information?

That someone may be inspired by it? Yeah sure. Or they may take the opposite stance and oppose it. — NOS4A2

Okay. And if someone is inspired by it, and they go on to commit a hate crime as a result, in the name of the hateful ideology, then that's something that you're willing to accept? Just to paint the picture, that could mean an explosion brutally killing and maiming innocent men, women, and children, scarring the lives of any surviving victims, as well as families and friends of the victims.

Do you know why ISIS hates us and fights us in the west? They’ve written about it in their propaganda. Should the reason they hate us and fight us be censored, or is this important information? — NOS4A2

It doesn't matter what I think, because that isn't down to me. It is, and should be, down to the relevant authorities.

Okay. And if someone is inspired by it, and they go on to commit a hate crime as a result, in the name of the hateful ideology, then that's something that you're willing to accept? Just to paint the picture, that could mean an explosion brutally killing and maiming innocent men, women, and children, scarring the lives of any surviving victims, as well as families and friends of the victims.

No, I do not accept terrorism, nor the stupid reasons they give for their actions.

It doesn't matter what I think, because that isn't down to me. It is, and should be, down to the relevant authorities.

It does matter quite a bit. I know why ISIS hates us and why they fight us because I can go and read their arguments. Someone in the UK, on the other hand, may get serious jail time for even viewing it.

No, I do not accept terrorism, nor the stupid reasons they give for their actions. — NOS4A2

But you just said that someone may be inspired by the hate speech. It's possible that if they weren't inspired by it, then they would never have gone on to commit the act of terrorism. So by permitting hate speech, you are by implication accepting that possible consequence. So by not accepting it, you're being inconsistent.

It does matter quite a bit. I know why ISIS hates us and why they fight us because I can go and read their arguments. Someone in the UK, on the other hand, may get serious jail time for even viewing it. — NOS4A2

Good! We've already had terrorist attacks inspired by just that kind of hate speech. That's easily a price worth paying. I would happily forsake that privilege of access.

But you just said that someone may be inspired by the hate speech. It's possible that if they weren't inspired by it, then they would never have gone on to commit the act of terrorism. So by permitting hate speech, you are by implication accepting that possible consequence. So by not accepting it, you're being inconsistent.

I never said nor implied their terrorism was a consequence of the hate speech. By “inspired by it”, I meant they were stupid enough to agree with it. The magical thinking of “consequences” is effectively crystallized in our language, that much I will admit, that it takes a sheer act of will to speak about it differently.

Good! We've already had terrorist attacks inspired by just that kind of hate speech. That's easily a price worth paying. I would happily forsake that privilege.

That’s frightening, unless you believe the very act of reading it will commit you to terrorism. I trust that isn’t the case, but ignorance of the hateful reasons why people want us dead is not a remedy for their hatred.

But you just said that someone may be inspired by the hate speech. It's possible that if they weren't inspired by it, then they would never have gone on to commit the act of terrorism. So by permitting hate speech, you are by implication accepting that possible consequence. So by not accepting it, you're being inconsistent. — S

You think that someone with a non violent predisposition would hear hate speech and be inspired to go commit violence? Just what kind of people do you think hear hate speech and are convinced to go blow people up? (Where the hate speech was the sole or major factor, obviously) Anyone? Or do you have a specific kind of person in mind?
You also said “possibly”, what is your acceptable limit of risk, how do you calculate it?

I never said nor implied their terrorism was a consequence of the hate speech. By “inspired by it”, I meant they were stupid enough to agree with it. The magical thinking of “consequences” is effectively crystallized in our language, that much I will admit, that it takes a sheer act of will to speak about it differently. — NOS4A2

Backtracking. You mean you accidentally slipped into being reasonable, but then I called out your inconsistency, and now you're having to explain it away. People don't just randomly agree with things, all of their own accord. They agree with things that they find agreeable, convincing. If the person in question is receptive to the content of the hate speech, then he's more likely than otherwise to act on it. Neither you nor Terrapin Station have come up with an alternative explanation with the explanatory power to account for these kinds of situation. It's really shortsighted to think that just because ten, twenty, fifty, a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand, people might not be receptive enough towards it, that therefore it has no influence (causal) over anyone. That's a hasty generalisation.

That’s frightening, unless you believe the very act of reading it will commit you to terrorism. — NOS4A2

That's ridiculous. There are 66 million people in the U.K., and I'm just one of them. Have you forgotten that we're talking about the law? If it was legal in the U.K. to access, then that opens it up to tens of millions of people, not just me.

I trust that isn’t the case, but ignorance of the hateful reasons why people want us dead is not a remedy for their hatred. — NOS4A2

That's why we have authorities who have access to content which regular citizens do not have access to. There would be a greater risk of terrorism if there were no censored information relating to terrorism and hate speech. Why do you think we have intelligence agencies with exclusive access to highly censored information? Do you even think these things through? If you really cared about a remedy to terrorism, then you wouldn't be a free speech fanatic, because that's part of the problem.

You think that someone with a non violent predisposition would hear hate speech and be inspired to go commit violence? — DingoJones

You too? There are 66 million people in the U.K. You don't think that a single person would be at risk of radicalisation? You do realise that this has already happened, as in people have become radicalised, joined ISIS, and things like that?

Just what kind of people do you think hear hate speech and are convinced to go blow people up? — DingoJones

Those vulnerable to radicalisation or who are already radicalised.

(Where the hate speech was the sole or major factor, obviously) — DingoJones

That it would be the sole factor is ridiculous. That it would be a significant factor is to be expected. And this isn't just hypothetical. There are already real life cases to support this point.

Anyone? Or do you have a specific kind of person in mind? — DingoJones

See above.

You also said “possibly”, what is your acceptable limit of risk, how do you calculate it? — DingoJones

I don't need a precise calculation. Like I said earlier, if it was a chance of every one in ten million people being effected, I would still be in favour of maintaining our hate speech laws, because the prevention of terrorism is extremely important. Many people in positions of power agree that national security is a top priority, if not the top priority.

Backtracking. You mean you accidentally slipped into being reasonable, but then I called out your inconsistency, and now you're having to explain it away. People don't just randomly agree with things, all of their own accord. They agree with things that they find agreeable, convincing. If the person in question is receptive to the content of the hate speech, then he's more likely than otherwise to act on it. Neither you nor Terrapin Station have come up with an alternative explanation with the explanatory power to account for these kinds of situation. It's really shortsighted to think that just because ten, twenty, fifty, a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand, people might not be receptive enough towards it, that therefore it has no influence (causal) over anyone. That's a hasty generalisation.

No, I admit, it takes a sheer act of will to step out of the magical thinking involved in speaking about the so-called consequences of speech. But people don’t arrive at a belief just by hearing it. Our conclusions are not determined by what we read.

That's why we have authorities who have access to content which regular citizens do not have access to. There would be a greater risk of terrorism if there were no censored information relating to terrorism and hate speech. Why do you think we have intelligence agencies with exclusive access to highly censored information? Do you even think these things through? If you really cared about a remedy to terrorism, then you wouldn't be a free speech fanatic, because that's part of the problem.

Then surely these authorities have told you what ISIS’s primary motivations for hating and fighting those in the West are. Why are these people trying to kill us? Care to hazard a guess?

No, I admit, it takes a sheer act of will to step out of the magical thinking involved in speaking about the so-called consequences of speech. But people don’t arrive at a belief just by hearing it. Our conclusions are not determined by what we read. — NOS4A2

That's a nonresponse which doesn't address what I said properly.

Then surely these authorities have told you what ISIS’s primary motivations for hating and fighting those in the West are. Why are these people trying to kill us? Care to hazard a guess? — NOS4A2

Another illogical nonresponse. You're too much hard work, so maybe just forget it and DingoJones can takeover for you.

I’ll just assume you don’t know. I’ll assume further that you agree with these censorial measures, which a UN inspector likens to “thought crimes”, and which human rights groups say are “Orwellian”.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/thought-crime-uk-un-terrorism-government-viewing-material-offence-law-a8423546.html

Thought crimes are private, not published for all to see. Anjem Choudary used to make his speeches in public. Lots and lots of people completely ignored them, or just outright rejected them. Some people were inspired by them and went on to commit acts of terrorism. But you're right, I'm sure that was just a complete coincidence.

Not “me too”, no. I was just asking.
So someone vulnerable to radicalisation is salient here, unless you think someone who is already radicalised is significantly affected by hate speech in that way. Probably not changing their minds at that point. Depends on how one defines radicalised I suppose.
Anyway, i didnt ask for a precise calculation. To be clear, I am clarifying your position, not taking up arms beside NOS. I wouldnt be making those arguments. I just wanna know how you came to your conclusions about the risk of a “possible” act of violence caused by hate speech. Like, when you ban hate speech...what are the details of the risks you think are being thwarted?

Choudary doesn’t believe in liberal democracy, fundamental human rights and free speech either. I’d be wary of who we align our beliefs with.

Not “me too”, no. I was just asking.
So someone vulnerable to radicalisation is salient here, unless you think someone who is already radicalised is significantly affected by hate speech in that way. Probably not changing their minds at that point. Depends on how one defines radicalised I suppose.
Anyway, i didnt ask for a precise calculation. To be clear, I am clarifying your position, not taking up arms beside NOS. I wouldnt be making those arguments. I just wanna know how you came to your conclusions about the risk of a “possible” act of violence caused by hate speech. Like, when you ban hate speech...what are the details of the risks you think are being thwarted? — DingoJones

What kind of details are you after from me? We can look to real life cases for examples. I gave examples earlier. I think that it just causes more problems to deny the links to hate speech discovered by the authorities in acts of serious crime and terrorism that have been committed than to acknowledge them. The methodology employed by the other side is unreasonable skepticism with a disregard for explanatory power. It is a failed methodology, because they have more things to explain than I do. It isn't plausible that it's all just a coincidence, and that every aspect of the events which unfolded are somehow independent of each other rather than of a cause and effect relationship.

Given the Manchester bombing, the murder of Jo Cox, the murder of Lee Rigby, and the London Bridge attack, to give just four examples, these are the kinds of risks we face, and they are severe.