Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Free Speech vs Hate Speech

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #81
    Originally posted by Kajin_Style View Post

    It is more than that. Hate speech as I mentioned in my last post is specifically wishing a group of people harm. This usually is physical or financial like forcing them to move out of the country. It also includes making them the scapegoat for a problem or set of problems in society.

    "We don't have jobs because the mexicans took them all."

    "Muslims are blowing up our country."

    "Italians come here to kill and steal our things" -- (1890s-1920s view of italian immigrants)

    "Chinese are coming to take or jobs and ruin society with opium!" -- (early 1800s view of chinese immigrants)


    This kind of hate speech is nothing new but as it shown us in the past it does nothing productive either. The immigrants, the minorities aren't the problem. It is the laws and companies that are the problem. So by allowing hate speech to fester, we are in turn slowing down the progress of improving our own society and at worse repeating history over and over again.
    Again, these people should be protected too. Sure they look like assholes but so what? These kinds of people don't go away simply because you take away their ability to say those things. If anything you give them more reason to hate and more reason to repeat history over and over again. All you do is open up the path to a slippery slope and just make monsters out of people who otherwise would just be assholes.

    Comment


      #82
      Originally posted by Doctor. View Post

      Yes, let's ignore how the Qu'ran is inherently hateful and chalk it up to "a tiny minority."

      It has everything to do with what you said because you're using the "muslims are terrorists" argument as an example of hate speech. If such "hate speech" prevents terrorism then your argument backfires.
      But it doesn't prevent terrorism. Hate speech could never prevent terrorist. Infact that is exactly what the terrorists are using to turn others into extremists.

      Originally posted by Date Rape Prophet
      I don't believe in infallibility of scripture

      Comment


        #83
        Originally posted by Chibz View Post

        Again, these people should be protected too. Sure they look like assholes but so what? These kinds of people don't go away simply because you take away their ability to say those things. If anything you give them more reason to hate and more reason to repeat history over and over again. All you do is open up the path to a slippery slope and just make monsters out of people who otherwise would just be assholes.
        Once more, misunderstanding what I am saying. My intent is to put it on the same level of other exceptions of free speech such as: incitement and slander. People still do these things and many others despite the lack of protect they have. It would be no different here.

        The problem is that hate speech can cause a lot of damage by turning a group of people against another group of people not just politically but also physically. To let a person get away with causing this chaos because it is protected is silly. We don't do the same when a person incites a riot, nor when a person slanders another and causes damages to that person's business and/or reputation. So why should hate speech be any different?

        Originally posted by Date Rape Prophet
        I don't believe in infallibility of scripture

        Comment


          #84
          Originally posted by Doctor. View Post
          Except everyone else not being targeted
          It gives you benefit of knowing who's an idiot. I'd much rather have every racist and bigot out in the open than behind closed doors.

          Comment


            #85
            Originally posted by Kajin_Style View Post

            That's easy, hate speech is anything used to target a group of people based on race, gender, orientation, etc. It is possible to selectively carve out what is and isn't hate speech. We got very complex laws out there that does this for a number of things. Hate speech would be no different. It would be a lengthy process but I'm sure it is possible.

            My personal take would be two fold. The targets of hate speech, and what is hate speech in itself, and I'll explain more on this after.

            As for targets I would say targeting anything of a person they can't willfully or very easily change. This would be sexual orientation, race, color, gender, intelligence, health conditions, and disabilities. I'm sure I might've missed a few in that but you get the idea. Sure some can change genders or get treatment for health conditions or disabilities but these things aren't something you can change on your own. A few of examples of things that can't be targets of hate speech for the sole reason that you can easily change them are: occupation, political leanings, religion, hobbies, other interests, residency, etc. Now sure some of these things I mentions aren't as easy as others like changing your religion or home but they aren't as hard as say changing your gender.

            So with a general idea of potential targets for hate speech. Let's define hate speech itself. To me hate speech is when a person wishes harm to a group of people based on something they can't easily changed. This is where the race, gender, orientation, etc all comes in. With that said, what is harm? To me harm can be physical, emotional and even financial. I should preface that emotional harm isn't someone getting their feelings hurt. Emotional harm is someone developing a debilitating mental condition like a phobia or fear others, something that psychiatrist would have to rule on. Financial harm can also include forcing another person to change their residency.

            You see the problem with hate speech is it doesn't create any productive solutions. It targets a group of people based on things they can't easily change of themselves and puts the blame on them for a set of troubles we have in society. This is an archaic process hell, even a barbaric one. It has been done in the past many, many times. Witches getting burned at the stake; jews being slaughtered; killing of gays and lesbians; etc etc. It is a tale as old as time and you even see it in the bible. This is why hate speech shouldn't protected. It does nothing good for anyone and is no more helpful to debates or political discussions than say inciting riots or use of slander.

            So then what are some examples of things not being hate speech? Well as mentioned before we need two things for it to be considered hate speech: 1) A group to target. 2) wishing harm to that group.

            This however could be exaggerated to include groups of people that shouldn't be included such as lawyers or politicians. You are well within good moral standings to hate the standings a politician takes on a number of topics. However, to hate that politician solely because their skin is black or their eyes are blue is completely wrong. That kind of hatred is what we call racism and it is something as a society we should teach others to avoid and repel.

            Hatred is not a bad emotion to have. It can be productive but like any emotion it can be toxic and destructive. Even love, thrown at the wrong person can be destructive. So to have hatred toward a person or a group of people based on something they can't easily change is destructive. It puts you in this paradox, in this perpetual hate box that you can't get out. It is impossible for blacks to change their race to something else because even if they bleached themselves people would still call them blacks. Therefore the people who hate blacks, who are racist towards blacks can never have that hatred resolved because blacks will always exist even if they try genocide, some will always exist in hiding somewhere. Meanwhile that hatred never vanishes, it'll just shift to the next target. So the only real resolution to removing this hate is to just let it go and learn to accept others for who they are.

            So again, you can hate the position a politician takes like wanting to restrict guns and that is fine because that can always change; it can be resolved. Gun laws can be reduce or added as time goes on. Said hatred towards gun law (whether for or against) can see a resolution happen at some point and so resolves itself. With race, gender, orientation, etc... not so much.



            Sorry about the lengthy response. It is a loaded topic and one others can easily misconstrued for trolling or jokes so my wording had to be careful. This is a general, rough draft, approach I would take to the matter.
            So racial slurs are fine as long as you don't wish harm on that group of people?

            Comment


              #86
              I don't care about the distinction either way, so long as long as everyone itt is aware that you're free to get punched in the face for being a hater.

              I mean, you can press charges for assault later, sure, but nobody's gonna dive in front of the metaphorical bullet. That is to say, you're still gonna get rocked for being a faggot. See: Richard Spencer.

              Comment


                #87
                Originally posted by Oneiros View Post
                I don't care about the distinction either way, so long as long as everyone itt is aware that you're free to get punched in the face for being a hater.

                I mean, you can press charges for assault later, sure, but nobody's gonna dive in front of the metaphorical bullet. That is to say, you're still gonna get rocked for being a faggot. See: Richard Spencer.
                I mean if you get charged with assault, that means you're not fre to do it.

                Comment


                  #88
                  Originally posted by King John View Post

                  So racial slurs are fine as long as you don't wish harm on that group of people?
                  Pretty much, yup

                  Originally posted by Date Rape Prophet
                  I don't believe in infallibility of scripture

                  Comment


                    #89
                    Originally posted by -Person- View Post
                    But if some loser wants to express such views in private then the law cant really do much about it
                    This is Islamophobic. Please don't do it again.
                    Originally posted by Snap
                    "man you always know what to get me for my birthday, you really are a nigger"

                    Comment


                      #90
                      Originally posted by #83.6666666667 View Post

                      Okay shorty, just remember you asked for it. You're not losing weight due to eating fast food, you just surpassed the limit of fatness and the universe is reseting your weight to avoid a cosmic black hole.

                      Try that on that for size.
                      Is this Darkseeker's alt? How are you so boring? lol
                      Originally posted by Snap
                      "man you always know what to get me for my birthday, you really are a nigger"

                      Comment


                        #91
                        Originally posted by dan View Post
                        You are free to say what you want just as people are free to knock your chin to the wall if you say something stupid, all of it comes with consequences, but let's not act like you wimpy twinks would say anything controversial to a normal human being, outside, in the real world.
                        You've never made a proper fist in your life, faggot. lol
                        Originally posted by Snap
                        "man you always know what to get me for my birthday, you really are a nigger"

                        Comment


                          #92
                          Originally posted by King John View Post

                          I mean if you get charged with assault, that means you're not fre to do it.
                          You're taking the word "free" out of context there, champ. It was a quip based on the thread title, which is why I didn't mean it in the legal sense...
                          Last edited by Oneiros; March 13th, 2018, 08:07 PM.

                          Comment


                            #93
                            I think you just need to break down what "hate speech" is. In essence, its communication of an individual's delusion, which 1. risks spreading that delusion and 2. encourages a course of action that would threaten the well-being of certain demographics of society. In short, its communication that harms the progress of society.

                            It's why alt-righters talk about "red pilling": to actually accept the misinformation that the movement spreads, you have to actively delude yourself with distorted to false information presented as fact. And, in a world where the internet has made the communication of information a chaotic and unregulated affair, the danger is that people really are being deluded by the misinformation they read. Just think about pizzagate.

                            Just take three people: a holocaust denier, a white supremacist and an islamaphobe:

                            The holocaust denier wants to spread the belief that our perception of the holocaust is hugely flawed, normally due them holding anti-sematic sentiments. It's a delusion that violates the historical certainty borne years of research into the holocaust.

                            The white supremacist wants to communicate their opinion that black people are more degenerate than white people; that they are less-evolved then white people. It's a delusion that violates scientific certainty borne from 100 hundred years of scientific research.

                            The islamaphobe wants to communicate that a large percentage of practioners of the Islamic faith are consciously trying to Islamisize the West. It's a delusion that violates all certainty gained from sociological studies.

                            Anyone with a healthy perception and informed knowledge of the subject of each communication (the Holocaust, black people, Muslims) would recognise each of these beliefs as delusional. Again, its why alt-right people need to "red pill" themselves: they choose to belief in unsourced and unsubstantiated information from deliberately selected sources, and questions the sources of contradicting information to an extent that's irrational.


                            Now let's take the UK Hate Speech Laws, which says:

                            A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

                            (a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or

                            (b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.


                            and:

                            (1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—

                            (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

                            (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.



                            These three individuals would not be prosecuted for possessing these beliefs. The precedent is that the crime lies in the manner it was communicated, and what purpose it served.

                            Hate Speech isn't combatted because its presenting "unPC" things: its fought because it is either trying to viciously offend someone, or to communicate misinformation that risks deluded society.


                            Comment


                              #94
                              Originally posted by Falsey View Post
                              I think you just need to break down what "hate speech" is. In essence, its communication of an individual's delusion, which 1. risks spreading that delusion and 2. encourages a course of action that would threaten the well-being of certain demographics of society. In short, its communication that harms the progress of society.

                              It's why alt-righters talk about "red pilling": to actually accept the misinformation that the movement spreads, you have to actively delude yourself with distorted to false information presented as fact. And, in a world where the internet has made the communication of information a chaotic and unregulated affair, the danger is that people really are being deluded by the misinformation they read. Just think about pizzagate.

                              Just take three people: a holocaust denier, a white supremacist and an islamaphobe:

                              The holocaust denier wants to spread the belief that our perception of the holocaust is hugely flawed, normally due them holding anti-sematic sentiments. It's a delusion that violates the historical certainty borne years of research into the holocaust.

                              The white supremacist wants to communicate their opinion that black people are more degenerate than white people; that they are less-evolved then white people. It's a delusion that violates scientific certainty borne from 100 hundred years of scientific research.

                              The islamaphobe wants to communicate that a large percentage of practioners of the Islamic faith are consciously trying to Islamisize the West. It's a delusion that violates all certainty gained from sociological studies.

                              Anyone with a healthy perception and informed knowledge of the subject of each communication (the Holocaust, black people, Muslims) would recognise each of these beliefs as delusional. Again, its why alt-right people need to "red pill" themselves: they choose to belief in unsourced and unsubstantiated information from deliberately selected sources, and questions the sources of contradicting information to an extent that's irrational.


                              Now let's take the UK Hate Speech Laws, which says:

                              A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

                              (a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or

                              (b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.


                              and:

                              (1) A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he—

                              (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

                              (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.



                              These three individuals would not be prosecuted for possessing these beliefs. The precedent is that the crime lies in the manner it was communicated, and what purpose it served.

                              Hate Speech isn't combatted because its presenting "unPC" things: its fought because it is either trying to viciously offend someone, or to communicate misinformation that risks deluded society.

                              That final line should read: its fought because it is either trying to viciously offend someone, encourage action that would harm (be it the well-being or otherwise) members of a specific societal group, or to communicate misinformation that risks deluding society.

                              Comment


                                #95
                                Originally posted by Falsey View Post
                                The islamaphobe wants to communicate that a large percentage of practioners of the Islamic faith are consciously trying to Islamisize the West. It's a delusion that violates all certainty gained from sociological studies.
                                Long post:

                                While I agree that going "OMG, ISLAMIZATION!" is technically false, a concern that a massive influx of Muslim immigrants, all at once, possibly producing negative social shockwaves is not at all a bad concern. There are videos out there of Muslims being interviewed seemingly accepting/advocating for many views which we in the West do not approve of, IIRC. In addition, there were some Pew Research statistics that indicated that either 50% to upwards of 80% of Muslims in majority Muslim countries abided by non-Western values, such as viewing homosexuality as immoral.

                                I'm not against Muslim immigration (I know a Muslim that's perfectly fine), but considering the types of views harbored by Muslims in many countries, it's not harmful to want immigration to be controlled and regulated to minimize any harmful effects of immigration as much as possible, while making sure integration is done appropriately (and if Sweden is anything to go by, it is possible to fuck this up). At the very least, it'll make integration easier, and at best, it will avoid creating devastating social divides.

                                In addition to your other stuff, I feel like treating hate speech as something that needs to be regulated by a government is counterintuitive (regardless of whether or not you support such regulation). The best way to combat misinformation is through actual information, especially against the people spreading it. When you block out the opposition, you're essentially giving up the battle, and not to mention, you only fuel the misinformed spreading such delusional stuff. People already get pretty shamed for harboring views like Holocaust denial in a social sense (was in a comment thread with "Communism is worse than Nazism" folks and they shamed a Jewish conspiracy theorist when said theorist arrived), so there's already a mechanism in place for preventing such deluding of society, but making Holocaust denial punishable by jail time only serves the narratives of the deluded.

                                Almost half of the nonsense spouted by Holocaust deniers is stuff like "When you tear out a man's tongue, you prove that you fear what he has to say." It doesn't help that an overwhelming amount of censorship is typically done to hide the truth, so you make the deluded person sound smart. When you censor stuff that isn't the truth (Holocaust denial), you only help to make people sympathize with the deniers and potentially decide to give the Deniers a "chance," so to say. With the dawn of the internet, it's especially easy to get caught up in echo chambers that only fuel and refuel a point of view, and typically exposure to stuff like Holocaust denial is by visiting these same echo chambers, which can almost be the only way to get exposed to such views as well.

                                Combating "hate speech" with silencing is a double-edged sword (when it's done at the government level and not just because of private platforms rules or something). Sure, you won't have to see all the stupid stuff, but you also technically help the people being censored and you don't really change their views in the end. It's a blunt instrument.

                                In addition, assholes LOVE to take advantage of security issues (or "security issues") to implement potentially oppressive and abusive policies, so "hate speech" laws can easily straddle the line between legitimate protection and oppression. Especially if the people implementing the laws get to define what is being combated so as to legitimize any abusive actions planned.

                                Comment


                                  #96
                                  Originally posted by RussianCoffeeAddict View Post
                                  Long post:

                                  While I agree that going "OMG, ISLAMIZATION!" is technically false, a concern that a massive influx of Muslim immigrants, all at once, possibly producing negative social shockwaves is not at all a bad concern. There are videos out there of Muslims being interviewed seemingly accepting/advocating for many views which we in the West do not approve of, IIRC. In addition, there were some Pew Research statistics that indicated that either 50% to upwards of 80% of Muslims in majority Muslim countries abided by non-Western values, such as viewing homosexuality as immoral.

                                  I'm not against Muslim immigration (I know a Muslim that's perfectly fine), but considering the types of views harbored by Muslims in many countries, it's not harmful to want immigration to be controlled and regulated to minimize any harmful effects of immigration as much as possible, while making sure integration is done appropriately (and if Sweden is anything to go by, it is possible to fuck this up). At the very least, it'll make integration easier, and at best, it will avoid creating devastating social divides.

                                  In addition to your other stuff, I feel like treating hate speech as something that needs to be regulated by a government is counterintuitive (regardless of whether or not you support such regulation). The best way to combat misinformation is through actual information, especially against the people spreading it. When you block out the opposition, you're essentially giving up the battle, and not to mention, you only fuel the misinformed spreading such delusional stuff. People already get pretty shamed for harboring views like Holocaust denial in a social sense (was in a comment thread with "Communism is worse than Nazism" folks and they shamed a Jewish conspiracy theorist when said theorist arrived), so there's already a mechanism in place for preventing such deluding of society, but making Holocaust denial punishable by jail time only serves the narratives of the deluded.

                                  Almost half of the nonsense spouted by Holocaust deniers is stuff like "When you tear out a man's tongue, you prove that you fear what he has to say." It doesn't help that an overwhelming amount of censorship is typically done to hide the truth, so you make the deluded person sound smart. When you censor stuff that isn't the truth (Holocaust denial), you only help to make people sympathize with the deniers and potentially decide to give the Deniers a "chance," so to say. With the dawn of the internet, it's especially easy to get caught up in echo chambers that only fuel and refuel a point of view, and typically exposure to stuff like Holocaust denial is by visiting these same echo chambers, which can almost be the only way to get exposed to such views as well.

                                  Combating "hate speech" with silencing is a double-edged sword (when it's done at the government level and not just because of private platforms rules or something). Sure, you won't have to see all the stupid stuff, but you also technically help the people being censored and you don't really change their views in the end. It's a blunt instrument.

                                  In addition, assholes LOVE to take advantage of security issues (or "security issues") to implement potentially oppressive and abusive policies, so "hate speech" laws can easily straddle the line between legitimate protection and oppression. Especially if the people implementing the laws get to define what is being combated so as to legitimize any abusive actions planned.
                                  man i wrote a really long response to this and then my computer crashed, what is life

                                  Comment


                                    #97
                                    Originally posted by Falsey View Post

                                    man i wrote a really long response to this and then my computer crashed, what is life
                                    Jus give meh da jist of et.

                                    Comment


                                      #98
                                      All Speech is Free Speech, Faggot!
                                      http://kinasin.tumblr.com/

                                      Comment


                                        #99
                                        Hate speech is bullshit, and I feel sorry for the citizens in other nations who have to deal with such laws.

                                        Under my glorious US constitution there is no clause that exempts "hate speech" in the first amendment. So all of my "hateful" ideas are protected, Hurray America.

                                        Comment


                                          Originally posted by Sheko View Post

                                          Is this Darkseeker's alt? How are you so boring? lol
                                          Does it need 20% more penis to stimulate your senses?

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X