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.

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.

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.

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.

Ah that makes sense. I wasn't reading it as one's hair really being on fire.

Oh sure, sure. It's the status quo that's ridiculous, and not your fringe view. — S

Maybe that's the status quo in Australia, where people seem to be much more amenable to censorship, speech control, etc. In the U.S., the status quo is to think that it's ridiculous that people suggest that video games, films, etc. cause violence, and it's the fringe moral majority-type wackos who want to ban stuff.

You don't want to regulate just anything that's correlated with an increase of violence, though, do you?

For example, there's an increase in violence in Chicago that's correlated with the Chicago Bears being 3rd or 4th (out of 4) in their division. I'm sure you don't want to regulate Chicago Bears seasons because of this, even though the Bears losing might be a causal factor in some of the violence in Chicago, right?

What makes the difference in what you want to regulate?

They are, and I agree with that. — S

Yikes. Okay, at least that's consistent. Ridiculous, but consistent.

Says the guy who never seems to get that not everyone uses "proof" in the most strict of senses. — S

In philosophy we use "proof" in the stricter sense standardly (because we're often concerned with proof in that sense a la logic, the issue of certainty in epistemology, the methodological foundations of science re philosophy of science, etc.). This is supposed to be a philosophy board.

Anyway, if you think that hate speech is sometimes a causal factor for violence, and it should be regulated because of that, why don't you think that video games, movies, etc. are sometimes are causal factor for violence that should be regulated because of that?

Sigh. Something like: hate speech can be a causal factor leading to acts of violence. — S

C'mon, man--just how many Aspies are on this board anyway?

"Hate speech causes violence" isn't saying anything different. No one would think that we're saying that it always causes violence or that it's the only cause or anything like that.

On today's episode of Adventures of Creative Misreading . . .

I'm not, but the qualified version is more of a mouthful. — S

What is the qualified version?

Same sociopathic tendency as Terrapin. Why would you consider the benefit to society of being able to publicly say "Gas the Jews" is so great that it requires an overwhelming evidence of harm to remove it. What's so great for you about being able to say "Gas the Jews"? — Isaac

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

Were you being serious? — Terrapin Station


Yes. — S

Yikes. Okay.

I wouldn't make a blanket statement like that. — S

Why are you comfortable making a blanket statement like "Hate speech causes violence?"

but do you think there could be a more improved version of what we call economic organization? — rlclauer

Yes. I'm not a fan of the way we've structured things at all. I'd do a socialized (but otherwise libertarian) structure, not based on money in any traditional way, where the competition is instead focused on helping people out and rather directly providing things that people want, where we regularly poll that.

It's not a matter of "letting". Either I'm swayed or I'm not. That's out of my hands. It's not like I can decide what I do or don't find convincing. — S

Were you being serious?

Same question for you, by the way--do you also think that video games, movies, etc. cause violence?

Why do you care so much about "showing"? It's the most plausible explanation. — S

Nothing plausible about it in my view if we don't have empirical evidence to support it.

So that's why I care. I guess I'm more skeptical than you.

Do you also think that video games, movies, etc. can cause violence? Would you say that just about every psychologist in the world thinks those things are causal to violence? And if you don't think they're causal to violence, why not, when you think that hate speech is?

Letting posts on this board sway you on something is a scary idea.

Okay, but clearly that's not free will. It's not will, and it's not free. It's an unconscious automatic response. — S

That bit didn't have anything to do with free will. It had to do with how meaning works.

That document does not support your argument, — DingoJones


You mean my argument that there is a possibility hate speech might lead to increased violence? How does it not support that?

You are completely ignoring the papers own caveats to its data — DingoJones


You mean like my directly saying that social sciences cannot provide strong evidence for their theories because of methodological problems and can only ever be suggestive? How is that ignoring those caveats?

Then, you try and shift the burden of proof — DingoJones


Shifting the burden of proof implies that the burden lay rightly in one place prior to my actions. So why is the burden of proof correctly on me such that my requesting evidence from the other side is a disingenuous 'shift'? — Isaac

What he means by you not arguing in good faith is that you're now trying to ignore that you had just written:

" 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). They think this off the back of decades of research. I've presented some of that research in a summary paper saying exactly that."

You're an extremely dishonest poster. You approach this stuff just like a fundie.

I'm not going to run an entire introduction to psychology course. — Isaac

Dude, just quote something in the paper that you believe amounts to a claim that hate speech is causal to violence.

You are clearly exercising bias here. That document does not support your argument, except if you have heavy confirmation bias like when religious folks read the bible. You are completely ignoring the papers own caveats to its data. Then, you try and shift the burden of proof...also like a religious person.
Conclusion: you aren’t arguing in good faith, but showing your dogmatic thinking on this issue. — DingoJones

Yeah, I also had the impression that he's arguing in the vein of a fundie.

It says it's fraught with methodological difficulties, and "few convincing studies" doesn't necessarily imply there are any convincing studies, unless you're an Aspie who is insisting that we read everything strictly "literally."

So again, what text in the paper do you believe supports a claim that hate speech is causal to any violence?

Table 1.3 in the paper doesn't list "hate speech" as a cause anywhere, for another example.

What in the paper do you believe claims that hate speech is causal, or even correlated to violence?

Well no, obviously I'm referring to the entire rest of the document — Isaac

So that statement contradicts what other text in the document that you believe forwards a claim that hate speech is causal to violent actions in others?

why do you think it cant be known to be causal? — khaled

I don't even think we can show a correlation.

I don't mean that we can't show this in principle necessarily. But certainly there's nothing showing a correlation yet, forget trying to show causality.

For causality, because (a) we can't even give an account of mentality being identical to brain states yet in a manner that can convince people on the fence about mind/brain ontology--we have a ton of work to do there, if it will ever be possible to give an account of it that's plausible to fence-sitters (forget about those firmly in the "not physical" camp), and (b) we'd have to be able to show that free will doesn't obtain. (Which might turn out to be impossible to do in principle . . . well, and especially because I believe it's incorrect; I believe we have free will.)

Yeah, and how they think about what they're hearing, the semantics they apply to it, etc. Where they wouldn't at all have to think about it the way they are.

The idea is that abusive speech causes stress, stress causes physical damage, therefor speech is violence. — NOS4A2

One of the many problems with that, by the way, is that any combination of words could be abusive (or not) in a given context. It just depends on the people involved. And for one, a lot of it depends on the relationship between the people involved. A lot of it can be based on implicature, etc. (Implicature just in case anyone is not familiar with it: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/implicature/)

Okay, the first paper you cited says, for example, "Similarly, demonstrating the causal effects of media or political rhetoric on people’s prejudiced attitudes or conduct is fraught with methodological difficulties and few convincing studies exist. "

Is that the sort of thing you have in mind?

I'm trying to find the links to the papers again. This stupid thread is so long it's a pain finding them.

It seems obvious that someone with anti-immigrant Facebook posts is more likely to be violent towards immigrants. — NOS4A2

The claim isn't that. The claim being made is that the Facebook posts cause other people, people who didn't make the posts, to be violent.

Of course we can 'show' that it is. 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). — Isaac

I'm not querying whether particular other people have concluded something. But what are you referring to there anyway? You presented two papers. One which didn't even give any correlation data, and another which talked about a correlation between Facebook posts and attacks on refugees, and that stressed that correlation does not imply causation in its introductory remarks. Which of those two are you referring to?

Right, so my comments in this thread have been in context. We're talking about person's actions, and whether hate speech can be (known to be) causal to someone else's actions.

But there is someone who chose to put the gun there should they be punished? But we can't say putting the gun there was causal to someone getting shot can we? — khaled

You realize that the two examples are not at all alike first, right?

Sure it's controlled then turns determined at the moment the decision is being made. Now what. — khaled

The whole point of that is that it's not at all like the gun example.

Okay (although I don't get where the past tense was in "Do 'you' control your choices, no, the randomness of your choices results in the feeling of control." That's not something I agree with.)

Ah, so you're not saying now that neurons can't control neurons. So I'm back to asking why you're NOW saying that you don't control your choices?

Because I didn't want to say neurons control what neurons do — khaled

Right. So, for example, you don't believe that you can control your thoughts at all?