It's irrelevant if the crowd thinking something doesn't determine that something is right/correct. — Terrapin Station

It's irrelevant when it commits the fallacy of appealing to the masses and not otherwise. The exceptions have been explained to you. As far as I'm aware, you continue not to acknowledge them.

It's irrelevant when it commits the fallacy of appealing to the masses and not otherwise. The exceptions have been explained to you. — S

The only exception is when we're talking about what the crowd thinks/believes per se.

So what the crowd thinks about hate speech is obviously relevant to what the crowd thinks about hate speech.

That has no implication for anything else, though. For example, "The crowd thinks that hate speech should be banned," has no implication a la "Hate speech should be banned."

No, exceptions include explaining how language works.

I was merely pointing out that your approach to linking violations of other rights such as right to life to hate speech by insisting on statistics or data is wrong and as a matter of fact, they are logically interlinked. As a result , we have the paradox of tolerance or paradox of freedom, however you phrase it.

In another sleight of hand, some have applied the harm principle to speech, and based on this have evoked the paradox of tolerance in order to defend censorship.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1341168.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

I’m not sure Popper applied it to free speech, but in my reading the paradox suggest we must defend our rights even with violence if necessary.

No, exceptions include explaining how language works. — S

Only insofar as making statements about how most people (in some population) use language.

Speech acts are statements of thought/belief. Thought/belief have efficacy. They lead to patterns of thinking, habits, and acts.

Does anyone here deny this?

What we’re denying is that those thoughts and beliefs have efficacy beyond the person thinking or speaking them. Most have argued that, yes, words fly through the air and alter the matter in someone else’s brain.

In another sleight of hand, some have applied the harm principle to speech, and based on this have evoked the paradox of tolerance in order to defend censorship. — NOS4A2

That's yet another problem with some of the papers being referenced. Hate speech is contributing to hate crimes in many cases simply because hate speech is considered a hate crime, with the idea that the speech is a harm in itself.

Only insofar as making statements about how most people (in some population) use language. — Terrapin Station

That's implicit in saying that this or that interpretation is right or wrong. Your earlier interpretation was wrong. It's true to say that it's a fact that something is a benefit. If you end up concluding that it's false, then you must be interpreting it wrong.

That's implicit in saying that this or that interpretation is right or wrong. — S

Again, people use right/wrong, correct/incorrect with a normative implication. Examples of that abound, and it's inherent in anyone correcting anyone who uses language unusually. We see it with grammar police all the time, for example.

But mere descriptive statements of how language is used among some population have no normative weight at all.

That's yet another problem with some of the papers being referenced. Hate speech is contributing to hate crimes in many cases simply because hate speech is considered a hate crime, with the idea that the speech is a harm in itself.

The idea that the speech is a harm is always assumed before it is ever proven. It’s weird.

Somehow we arrived at it being fairly popular beliefs that:

(a) any offense taken by someone in response to speech indicates something that needs to be corrected on offender's side, and this is believed strongly enough that the mere suggestion that the offendee rather needs to work on themselves to not be offended is itself seen as offensive, unreasonable/outrageous,

and

(b) it's obligatory to give others respect; respect no longer needs to be earned.

And both of these beliefs are strong enough that people literally want them to be legislated. Even social/peer-pressure enforcement isn't strong enough, though folks will do that, too (and that's part of what has seemed to be a movement of social persecution being preferred to deferring to the legal system, where the popular stance now seems to be "you're going to more or less be assumed to be guilty as long as someone is making accusations, unless you can make a pretty good case as to your innocence, but we'll still be leery of your motivations in trying to establish your innocence")

I don't know how any of that happened, but sadly, it did.

Actually, I think that one important thing that precipitated the social persecution/"you're going to more or less be assumed guilty" movement was the OJ Simpson acquittal in his murder trial.

We have the sensitivity training to prove it. What we need is insensitivity training, and from a young age to boot. A thickened skin beets any censorship. It reminds me of what Bertrand Russell’s said when he tried to teach in New York (I think) and was essentially denied the position for corrupting the youth with his atheism and libertinism.

“in a democracy, it is necessary that people should learn to endure having their sentiments outraged”

Exactly.

For awhile--back in the later 90s, early 2000s, I used to regularly ask, "Don't we teach 'sticks and stones' any longer?"

Apparently, we actually did stop teaching it.

It also seems to be wrapped up with the "participation award" culture. There are no more losers/failures. Everyone gets a trophy. Everyone moves on/graduates.

That’s the worst part. In protecting our children from loss or speech we only make them weaker against it.

Again, people use right/wrong, correct/incorrect with a normative implication. Examples of that abound, and it's inherent in anyone correcting anyone who uses language unusually. We see it with grammar police all the time, for example.

But mere descriptive statements of how language is used among some population have no normative weight at all. — Terrapin Station

It's not normative. It's obviously just the default. That's why it makes sense to say that a cat isn't a giraffe. If you interpret it that way, then you're wrong by default.

Re (so THATS why you use that...so handy) not teaching “sticks and stones”, Ive often said the exact same thing. I also note that there are way too many other things that are like this too, like everyone has forgotten the lessons understood by children. Lying, cheating, stealing...all things people teach children not to do yet do themselves.
Thats a bit different though I suppose.
“To succeed you have to try hard” is another, a lesson for children that that somehow turns into participation awards and no fail policies.
If they cannot master those simple childish equations how are they going to learn much more important lessons like those from Nazi Germany. To bring it back to free speech, we were supposed to have learned from that NOT to restrict free speech, but then again that was only one example recently. History shows us that the restriction of speech is just to powerful a tool/weapon to cede to the state.

History shows us that the restriction of speech is just too powerful a tool/weapon to cede to the state. — DingoJones

Only when it is ceded in excess. I don't believe that restrictions on hate speech are an excessive restriction on the freedom of expression. It's too extreme a position to consider any restriction whatsoever as excessive. That's a position for those who have taken leave of their senses. And I doubt anyone here would support going to the other extreme and giving the state total control.

Well it depends on what qualifies as hate speech. Thats my problem with it. Im not a speech absolutist like Terra, Im more on your side in that sense.
When I refer to it as a tool/weapon, Im thinking about the abuse of that tool. As soon as someone is powered by society to apply speech control, someone else will inevitably abuse that control and horrible things will happen. History shows this rather clearly. Here in Canada its especially bad, as legislation has passed classifying the non-use of certain words as “hate speech”. You can face legal consequences, not to mention the effect on rage culture on ones life, for not using the proper gender pronouns here.
So to deny there is a problem with banning hate speech, given what ive just explained above, is without problems provokes great skepticism in me. Not that im saying you are doing that here, but as a general point.

The purpose of anything isn't determined by rationality, by the way. And neither are normatives. — Terrapin Station

Who said it was?

So let's say that someone agrees with most people on foundational views re good/bad.

In that context, what is supposed to be the rhetorical point of mentioning that most people feel that hate speech has no benefit? — Terrapin Station

Because it is a premise in a reasoned argument. People may agree with all the foundational premises of an argument but disagree with the conclusion (through poor reasoning), showing that certain agreed upon premises lead to certain (less agreed upon) conclusions can be a way of re-inforcing certainty in those conclusions. It can also be helpful to those who dislike their arguments to lack good reasoning.

Like just about any argument, these start with one or more things that those involved agree on and attempt to show a reasoned conclusion based on those agreed premises. I can't believe I'm having to explain this.

Only when it is ceded in excess. I don't believe that restrictions on hate speech are an excessive restriction on the freedom of expression. It's too extreme a position to consider any restriction whatsoever as excessive. That's a position for those who have taken leave of their senses. And I doubt anyone here would support going to the other extreme and giving the state total control.

Article 19 of the UN human rights code:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

Is this an example of the UN taking leave of their senses?

Okay, so Canada should be more like the U.K. :up:

Didnt a comedian go to jail for teaching his dog to do a Nazi salute? Thats the same kinda thing.

Article 19 of the UN human rights code:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

Is this an example of the UN taking leave of their senses? — NOS4A2

The U.K. is a member of the U.N. We're a founding member. So you must be cherry picking, instead of giving a full picture. Hate speech is obviously an exception in the U.K. We still have laws on freedom of expression.

Human Rights Act 1998, Article 10

Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Point 2 is eminently sensible, by the way.

Didnt a comedian go to jail for teaching his dog to do a Nazi salute? Thats the same kinda thing. — DingoJones

Okay, Canada should be more like the U.K., with the possible exception of the case of the comedian who went to jail for teaching his dog to do a Nazi salute.

So still a problem in the UK. Maybe both countries should be like something else.

So still a problem in the UK. Maybe both countries should be like something else. — DingoJones

Maybe. Though not the U.S., of course.

Meh, Im not a US hater. Plenty of stupid to go around, US included. Its that pesky human problem, always fucking everything up.

Meh, Im not a US hater. Plenty of stupid to go around, US included. Its that pesky human problem, always fucking everything up. — DingoJones

Too much guns, religion, celebrity, flag waving nationalism, egomaniac, warmongering, stupid constitutional rights obsession. The U.S. is like our deformed offspring.

It’s what Salman Rushdie calls the “But Brigade”. You have freedom of speech, but...

No, you don’t have freedom of expression.