Propose a reasonable benefit of hate speech. — Shamshir

It has to be something that you consider reasonable?

We don't have a burden to constantly satisfy your unreasonable doubts and denials. — S

Sure. So what would the purpose be of it rhetorically? That was the question.

Will you or won't you propose a reasonable benefit of hate speech?

Will you or won't you propose a reasonable benefit of hate speech? — Shamshir

Yes. But first I'm clarifying the requirement. Does it have to be something that you consider reasonable?

It's not implied anywhere - is it?

"Reasonable" is always to someone. So I'm clarifying who needs to think the answer is reasonable.

Someone.

So then, no, I'm not going to bother if you're not going to bother yourself.

So, you won't propose a reasonable benefit of hate speech?

You know that there aren't any facts as to whether something is a benefit or not, right? — Terrapin Station

That would make the word 'benefit' meaningless, and I don't, as a general rule, like defining words away. Anything which has survived thousands of years of use probably has a meaning somewhere, even if a little confused. I take the word 'benefit' to refer, in context, to the subject of the sentence it is in. So if I say, "it is of benefit to me to have a raincoat", I'm referring to my opinion of what a benefit is. If I say "of benefit to society" I'm referring to society's opinion of what a benefit is. I haven't specified in that sentence the means by which such heterogeneous opinion is summarised. Usually by democratically elected representatives, but it could be sociologists, psychologist, or any other of a number of means we have of averaging heterogeneous measures.

This is very odd to say because it suggests that the problem has nothing to do with semantics but rather quite literally with word choices, with the sounds or looks (if written) of certain words. — Terrapin Station

I'm not sure (other than for rhetorical value) why you've missed of the end of my sentence. I said " is possible to express every idea in non-hateful ways, unless that idea is actual hate". So no, it's not entirely to do with certain word choices, but it is considerably to with that.

Not unless you clarify in whose judgment we're saying whether it's reasonable. Why you won't clarify that, I don't know.

It was quite clear - in someone's judgement.
If you will not propose a reasonable benefit of hate speech - you lead me to believe you cannot.

That would make the word 'benefit' meaningless — Isaac

So you don't agree with S that you were only saying what most people considered a benefit? I figured as much, but I wanted to give S the benefit of the doubt.

At any rate, no, "benefit" isn't meaningless to many people just in case there are no facts as to whether something is a benefit.

So if I say, "it is of benefit to me to have a raincoat", I'm referring to my opinion of what a benefit is. — Isaac

Sure. You feel that it's a benefit to you to have a raincoat. It's not a fact that it's a benefit to you to have a raincoat.

I haven't specified in that sentence the means by which such heterogeneous opinion is summarised. — Isaac

That's fine. Whether you've done that or not, there's no fact as to whether it's a benefit.

Usually by democratically elected representatives, but it could be sociologists, psychologist, — Isaac

That's what you go by as to whether a raincoat is a benefit to you? lol

Again, at any rate, no matter who thinks it's a benefit, it's not a fact that it's a benefit. It's just how individuals feel about whatever it is.

I'm not sure (other than for rhetorical value) why you've missed of the end of my sentence. I said " is possible to express every idea in non-hateful ways, unless that idea is actual hate". So no, it's not entirely to do with certain word choices, but it is considerably to with that. — Isaac

So then we're not at all saying that we're allowing the expression of all ideas, and the distinction you're making is pointless.

We could try this: what would be an example of an idea that we could express by hate speech that could be expressed by speech you'd allow instead? The distinction would make sense if we have an example of that.

It was quite clear - in someone's judgement. — Shamshir

Right. Whose?

If you will not propose a reasonable benefit of hate speech - you lead me to believe you cannot. — Shamshir

The challenge would be getting me to care what you'd believe, especially when you won't clarify the question.

What bearing on anything does the fact that most people consider it to have no benefit have? — Terrapin Station

The question is whether hate speech "should" be allowed, which is a normative question. It would be stupid to approach it, on a public forum, as a relativistic poll of fixed opinion, what on earth would be the point of that? So we treat it either as a forum for discussing the pros and cons with those who share at least some foundational position on what constitutes 'good' and 'bad' outcomes for society, or we might as well just walk away.

The question is whether hate speech "should" be allowed, which is a normative question. — Isaac

What do normatives have to do with what most people think?

So you don't agree with S that you were only saying what most people considered a benefit? — Terrapin Station

No, that is almost exactly what I'm saying, with the caveat that I think there are other ways of averaging heterogeneous opinion than simply majority, but by and large, a sentence with the word 'benefit' in refers to the averaged opinion of the subject(s) of the sentence.

I really don't understand what you're getting at with talk about 'facts'. By 'fact' I mean a state of affairs in the world (all that is the case). It is a state of affairs in the world that the averaged opinion of society is that it does not consider there to be much of a benefit to hate speech.

If x is a common opinion about the benefit of anything, the significance or implication of that is?

What do normatives have to do with what most people think? — Terrapin Station

They don't. I never suggested they did. I said there little to no point in normative discussions without at least some shared foundational views of what is 'good' and 'bad'.

They don't. I never suggested they did. — Isaac

Sure. So again, I asked you, and you quoted, "What bearing on anything does the fact that most people consider it to have no benefit have?"

Your response began with, "The question is whether hate speech 'should' be allowed, which is a normative question."

If the fact that most people consider it to have no benefit has no bearing on it being a normative question, then why was that your answer to the question you quoted?

What bearing does a shared view of what is good or bad have on normatives?

If x is a common opinion about the benefit of anything, the significance or implication of that is? — Terrapin Station

Again, as I mentioned above, there is little to no point in normative discussions without at least some shared foundational views about what constitutes 'good' and 'bad'. Imposing something on society which society, on average, considers to be of little benefit, despite a risk of harm is a generally agreed upon 'bad'. If you don't agree with that 'bad' there's no point in taking part in this discussion (unless you are proposing some even deeper foundation that we might share)

Imposing something on society which most people consider to be of little benefit, despite what they consider to be a risk of harm, is going to be generally agreed on by them to be bad. Sure.

The question is what the implication of that is for anything else.

If the fact that most people consider it to have no benefit has no bearing on it being a normative question, then why was that your answer to the question you quoted? — Terrapin Station

It is a normative question, that's just the definition of normative. The fact that most people consider it to have no benefit impacts on the fruitfulness or otherwise of having a normative discussions, as I've specified above.

It is a normative question, that's just the definition of normative. — Isaac

Normatives are NOT determined by "what most people think." This is a very important point.

Imposing something on society which most people consider to be of little benefit, despite what they consider to be a risk of harm, is going to be generally agreed on them to be bad. Sure.

The question is what the implication of that is for anything else. — Terrapin Station

For the fourth time, just to be sure. If you don't share any foundational views about what is good or bad with your interlocutors, there is no point in engaging in a normative discussion.

If you don't share any foundational views about what is good or bad with your interlocutors, there is no point in engaging in a normative discussion. — Isaac

That can be your opinion, sure. It's certainly not mine.

So we apparently don't agree on foundational views about what is good or bad, yet you're continuing to post to me about this topic.

Normatives are NOT determined by "what most people think." This is a very important point. — Terrapin Station

OK, we'll try it a fifth time. Normatives are determined by individuals on the basis of what they consider to be good and bad. We are having a discussion about a normative. If we do not agree on anything that is good or bad, that discussion is pointless.

OK, we'll try it a fifth time. Normatives are determined by individuals on the basis of what they consider to be good and bad. We are having a discussion about a normative. If we do not agree on anything that is good or bad, that discussion is pointless. — Isaac

Okay . . . well, at least you agree that normatives are not determined by what most people think. But sure, maybe we don't agree on what's good or bad enough that you think it's pointless to talk to me about this particular normative. In which case . . . don't stop responding to/addressing me, I guess? I don't know, I guess somehow that makes sense to you, to think that it's pointless to talk to me about it, but to incessantly direct posts to me about it.

So we apparently don't agree on foundational views about what is good or bad, yet you're continuing to post to me about this topic. — Terrapin Station

Firstly, I work on the presumption that being a normal human you share foundational stances on basic things that most humans do. As I said earlier, you're either a sociopath or you're lying about your feelings for argument's sake.

Secondly, we are now discussing the purpose of normative argument. Again I work from the principle that you probably do share some foundations with me on each new issue.