5 ms·

> New research suggests that this digital hatred is now spilling over into the real world. I don't agree there is a distinction to be made here. The real world

> New research suggests that this digital hatred is now spilling over into the real world. I don't agree there is a distinction to be made here. The real world subsumes social media. Certainly violent crimes such as arson and assault are different, and more severe, than hateful or abusive posts or direct messages. Neither category is less real.

jack9 9y ago
> Neither category is less real. I think the context is that "real world" is supposed to mean it has a physical effect. The implication is that physical crimes are legitimately categorized crimes and speech crimes are not exactly legitimate (according to where you say words, they might be criminal). I believe that some words that make someone/some group possibly feel bad (intrinsically, not just to libel), are not a real harm that is in need of remedy. Even if it is something that is known to make someone feel bad, I wouldn't consider it legitimate. It's always subjective and I don't subscribe to that kind of only-use-doublespeak-watchdog thinking.
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
  I think we're in agreement then.
- pluma 9y ago
  That's the massive understanding I see when people who don't live in Germany complain about German censorship of speech: It's not about feelings. It's about shaping other people's opinions. If someone says "jack9 is a kiddy fiddler" the damage is not that it might make jack9 upset, the damage is that others might think it's true and take actions that harm him. If someone says "kill the kikes" the damage is not that Jewish people might be upset, the damage is that others might agree and commit violence against Jewish people. It doesn't even have to be a convincing argument, it just has to give other people the impression their hatred is socially acceptable and their violence has public support. Hate speech is like broken windows: the more a certain hateful sentiment is tolerated in society, the more socially acceptable that sentiment becomes, the more likely it becomes someone will act on it and that society will tolerate those actions too. Hitler's rise to power was not a coup d'etat. Hitler didn't overthrow the government by killing generals and politicians and installing himself as leader. Hitler rose to power by manipulating people's sentiments with language. He created scapegoats and convinced people it's okay to channel their hate and frustration towards those scapegoats. When the Nazis first called for people to be killed or that their neighbors were inferior, few thought they meant it, but saying it over and over normalised the idea. They dehumanised their victims and their future enemies. A lot of that rhetoric is normal in many places today and Trump's campaign wasn't even a special example. The rhetoric after 9/11 made Germans feel icky because it was so familiar but even then it wasn't new. Americans worry about racism and sexism, Germans worry about xenophobia -- hatred of the foreign, the different, the "other".
  - pluma 9y ago
    Oh, before anyone thinks this backs up radical "SJW" sentiments: there's plenty of hatred on that side of the arena as well. Intersectionality especially has a tendency to break down into othering. Victim narratives easily lend themselves to excusing violence against "abusers". While we're going full Godwin: Nazi Germany started out as the victim of the victors of WW2 and socialist traitors. Germany's entry into WW2 literally was as the victim of Polish aggression. None of that is really true if you look at it objectively, of course, but that was the language used by nazis at the time. If you the only thing making your behaviour morally righteous is your victimhood, maybe your behaviour isn't righteous at all. I'm socialist-libertarian myself but that doesn't mean I tolerate the same damaging behaviour from "my" side.
  - b6 9y ago
    > Hitler rose to power by manipulating people's sentiments with language. He created scapegoats and convinced people it's okay to channel their hate and frustration towards those scapegoats. People should have the freedom to be persuaded to believe things that you don't agree with. It's OK to have a "wrong" opinion. Let people say what they want and believe what they want. I'm stunned that I still have to defend freedom of expression.
    - novalis78 9y ago
      Exactly. And here I was thinking there was such a thing as 'being an adult' and 'education' and 'freedom of speech' - do we really want to undermine the basic tenets of the Age of Reason? Because if I am not mistaken, censorship was a widespread reality and it took a very long time and a lot of blood to crawl out from underneath it. In other words: Do you think Hitler could have been stopped by not letting 'The Stormer' publish?
      - pluma 9y ago
        I think "could X have stopped Hitler" is asking the wrong question (and it betrays the same kind of black/white thinking that is fundamental to the rhetoric I mentioned). The Treaty of Versailles was crippling the economy, the royalists felt betrayed by the social democrats who ended the Great War by surrendering, the Great Depression destabilised the banks, and so on. Even a bullet in the brain wouldn't necessarily have "stopped Hitler" at the time (the reason we talk about "stopping Hitler" is that Hitler wasn't stopped so we don't know who'd have taken his place and where that would have led the movement at the time). But this is irrelevant because 2010s Germans aren't 1920s/1930s Germans. West Germany underwent a massive process of Denazification, we entered into and established ourselves in the European Union and Germans who grew up in post-war Germany are used to the idea that incitement is a crime and racial hatred has no place in a civilised society. It's irrelevant whether criminalising incitement ("censorship") would have stopped Hitler in the 1930s because a single law doesn't instantly transform society. It's 2018 and this is not a new law. But we'll never be able to tell whether it stopped Hitler today because if we stopped him we won't know who he is because he'll never ascend to the same significance in history in the first place. It's a strawman. You also seem to be under the false presumption that you having legal "freedom of speech" means you can express anything you want without consequences. As is being pointed out all the time, freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, just freedom from direct legal consequences. If you hold no significant political power and say something other people find disagreeable, you will be called out at best and ostracized at worst. In fact, freedom of speech might actually help those seeking to harm you because they have the righteous fury on their side. If you hold significant power, there are plenty of examples in US politics how that usually works out (though time will tell how it works out for Trump in particular). Fun side effect: dehumanising people also makes it easier to justify war. The US has been in a perpetual state of war since WW2. Do you even remember how to recognise propaganda and war rhetoric if it's been part of the mainstream since before you were born?
pluma 9y ago
There's a distinction between "shitposting" (or smack/trash talk) and actual hate speech. The lines can be blurry and I think Poe's law can lead to miscommunication in both directions, e.g. * person A might say something outlandishly racist thinking it's obvious they can't be serious * but person B actually thinks that's something perfectly reasonably to say and agrees * which person A in turn misunderstands to mean person B is in on the joke * 30 minutes later person A is wearing a Klansman hood in front of a burning cross and wondering how they ended up in that situation as it dawns on them they're surrounded by actual racists I think this is how a lot of Internet trolls felt after the US elections. Some trolls just wanted to see the world burn (so Trump is the gift that keeps on giving) but many simply didn't think Trump could win (because surely people would just go for the unlikeable but safe establishment candidate rather than the obviously outrageous joke candidate). The problem with maintaining that distinction in the digital age however is that it's very hard to tell apart the satire from the real thing. The joke works because the audience is in on it (e.g. rape jokes work because the audience and the joke teller have a mutual understanding that rape is horrible and joking about it is inappropriate -- the inappropriateness is what makes it funny) but the Internet is not the social equivalent of two friends talking smack in a pub or a comedian talking on stage in a comedy club, it's the equivalent of random people writing on a public wall or shouting in a massive crowd of strangers. When talking to friends there's a mutual understanding of what is or isn't appropriate. There are numerous social cues that can indicate something deadpan is still meant as a joke. Even an actual misunderstanding may still come around as a funny story. In a comedy club the environment sets the expectation. If the guy on stage calls to arms and rallies the crowd to overthrow the government the context makes it clear this isn't a serious attempt at rebellion but more likely a build up to some kind of punchline. But on the Internet all that context is lost. Even a conversation between friends can still likely viewed by thousands or millions of other people, so the words stand on their own. It's obviously still important to have these private exchanges but it's also obviously not appropriate to have them in public spaces where every passer-by might become a participant.

jack9 9y ago

> Neither category is less real. I think the context is that "real world" is supposed to mean it has a physical effect. The implication is that physical crimes are legitimately categorized crimes and speech crimes are not exactly legitimate (according to where you say words, they might be criminal). I believe that some words that make someone/some group possibly feel bad (intrinsically, not just to libel), are not a real harm that is in need of remedy. Even if it is something that is known to make someone feel bad, I wouldn't consider it legitimate. It's always subjective and I don't subscribe to that kind of only-use-doublespeak-watchdog thinking.

TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
I think we're in agreement then.
pluma 9y ago
That's the massive understanding I see when people who don't live in Germany complain about German censorship of speech: It's not about feelings. It's about shaping other people's opinions. If someone says "jack9 is a kiddy fiddler" the damage is not that it might make jack9 upset, the damage is that others might think it's true and take actions that harm him. If someone says "kill the kikes" the damage is not that Jewish people might be upset, the damage is that others might agree and commit violence against Jewish people. It doesn't even have to be a convincing argument, it just has to give other people the impression their hatred is socially acceptable and their violence has public support. Hate speech is like broken windows: the more a certain hateful sentiment is tolerated in society, the more socially acceptable that sentiment becomes, the more likely it becomes someone will act on it and that society will tolerate those actions too. Hitler's rise to power was not a coup d'etat. Hitler didn't overthrow the government by killing generals and politicians and installing himself as leader. Hitler rose to power by manipulating people's sentiments with language. He created scapegoats and convinced people it's okay to channel their hate and frustration towards those scapegoats. When the Nazis first called for people to be killed or that their neighbors were inferior, few thought they meant it, but saying it over and over normalised the idea. They dehumanised their victims and their future enemies. A lot of that rhetoric is normal in many places today and Trump's campaign wasn't even a special example. The rhetoric after 9/11 made Germans feel icky because it was so familiar but even then it wasn't new. Americans worry about racism and sexism, Germans worry about xenophobia -- hatred of the foreign, the different, the "other".
- pluma 9y ago
  Oh, before anyone thinks this backs up radical "SJW" sentiments: there's plenty of hatred on that side of the arena as well. Intersectionality especially has a tendency to break down into othering. Victim narratives easily lend themselves to excusing violence against "abusers". While we're going full Godwin: Nazi Germany started out as the victim of the victors of WW2 and socialist traitors. Germany's entry into WW2 literally was as the victim of Polish aggression. None of that is really true if you look at it objectively, of course, but that was the language used by nazis at the time. If you the only thing making your behaviour morally righteous is your victimhood, maybe your behaviour isn't righteous at all. I'm socialist-libertarian myself but that doesn't mean I tolerate the same damaging behaviour from "my" side.
- b6 9y ago
  > Hitler rose to power by manipulating people's sentiments with language. He created scapegoats and convinced people it's okay to channel their hate and frustration towards those scapegoats. People should have the freedom to be persuaded to believe things that you don't agree with. It's OK to have a "wrong" opinion. Let people say what they want and believe what they want. I'm stunned that I still have to defend freedom of expression.
  - novalis78 9y ago
    Exactly. And here I was thinking there was such a thing as 'being an adult' and 'education' and 'freedom of speech' - do we really want to undermine the basic tenets of the Age of Reason? Because if I am not mistaken, censorship was a widespread reality and it took a very long time and a lot of blood to crawl out from underneath it. In other words: Do you think Hitler could have been stopped by not letting 'The Stormer' publish?
    - pluma 9y ago
      I think "could X have stopped Hitler" is asking the wrong question (and it betrays the same kind of black/white thinking that is fundamental to the rhetoric I mentioned). The Treaty of Versailles was crippling the economy, the royalists felt betrayed by the social democrats who ended the Great War by surrendering, the Great Depression destabilised the banks, and so on. Even a bullet in the brain wouldn't necessarily have "stopped Hitler" at the time (the reason we talk about "stopping Hitler" is that Hitler wasn't stopped so we don't know who'd have taken his place and where that would have led the movement at the time). But this is irrelevant because 2010s Germans aren't 1920s/1930s Germans. West Germany underwent a massive process of Denazification, we entered into and established ourselves in the European Union and Germans who grew up in post-war Germany are used to the idea that incitement is a crime and racial hatred has no place in a civilised society. It's irrelevant whether criminalising incitement ("censorship") would have stopped Hitler in the 1930s because a single law doesn't instantly transform society. It's 2018 and this is not a new law. But we'll never be able to tell whether it stopped Hitler today because if we stopped him we won't know who he is because he'll never ascend to the same significance in history in the first place. It's a strawman. You also seem to be under the false presumption that you having legal "freedom of speech" means you can express anything you want without consequences. As is being pointed out all the time, freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences, just freedom from direct legal consequences. If you hold no significant political power and say something other people find disagreeable, you will be called out at best and ostracized at worst. In fact, freedom of speech might actually help those seeking to harm you because they have the righteous fury on their side. If you hold significant power, there are plenty of examples in US politics how that usually works out (though time will tell how it works out for Trump in particular). Fun side effect: dehumanising people also makes it easier to justify war. The US has been in a perpetual state of war since WW2. Do you even remember how to recognise propaganda and war rhetoric if it's been part of the mainstream since before you were born?

pluma 9y ago

There's a distinction between "shitposting" (or smack/trash talk) and actual hate speech. The lines can be blurry and I think Poe's law can lead to miscommunication in both directions, e.g. * person A might say something outlandishly racist thinking it's obvious they can't be serious * but person B actually thinks that's something perfectly reasonably to say and agrees * which person A in turn misunderstands to mean person B is in on the joke * 30 minutes later person A is wearing a Klansman hood in front of a burning cross and wondering how they ended up in that situation as it dawns on them they're surrounded by actual racists I think this is how a lot of Internet trolls felt after the US elections. Some trolls just wanted to see the world burn (so Trump is the gift that keeps on giving) but many simply didn't think Trump could win (because surely people would just go for the unlikeable but safe establishment candidate rather than the obviously outrageous joke candidate). The problem with maintaining that distinction in the digital age however is that it's very hard to tell apart the satire from the real thing. The joke works because the audience is in on it (e.g. rape jokes work because the audience and the joke teller have a mutual understanding that rape is horrible and joking about it is inappropriate -- the inappropriateness is what makes it funny) but the Internet is not the social equivalent of two friends talking smack in a pub or a comedian talking on stage in a comedy club, it's the equivalent of random people writing on a public wall or shouting in a massive crowd of strangers. When talking to friends there's a mutual understanding of what is or isn't appropriate. There are numerous social cues that can indicate something deadpan is still meant as a joke. Even an actual misunderstanding may still come around as a funny story. In a comedy club the environment sets the expectation. If the guy on stage calls to arms and rallies the crowd to overthrow the government the context makes it clear this isn't a serious attempt at rebellion but more likely a build up to some kind of punchline. But on the Internet all that context is lost. Even a conversation between friends can still likely viewed by thousands or millions of other people, so the words stand on their own. It's obviously still important to have these private exchanges but it's also obviously not appropriate to have them in public spaces where every passer-by might become a participant.