4 ms·

This is already going down the path of "what is hate speech". Here is what I think is a pretty simple definition: Speech that explicitly or direct line implici

This is already going down the path of "what is hate speech". Here is what I think is a pretty simple definition: Speech that explicitly or direct line implicitly dehumanizes anyone. Then the arguments become pretty simple: does a statement dehumanize someone? Does it indicate that they are any less human than another? That's a much easier discussion to have.

umanwizard 8y ago
Your definition makes no sense. "We should kill people from country X" isn't hate speech by your definition - it doesn't imply anyone is any less human than anyone else.
- OmarIsmail 8y ago
  "should kill people" = "those people aren't deserving to live" = 1) either all humans are not deserving to live or 2) those specific humans are not deserving to live = if 2) country X are being dehumanized. if 1) do you consider yourself a human? A) yes, then why haven't you killed yourself? Since you haven't you think you're more deserving of life relative to everyone else and therefore are dehumanizing everyone but yourself, if 2) ok, you've publicly proclaimed that you don't think you're human which then let me add a second rule. Only humans have right to speech.
  - umanwizard 8y ago
    > if 1) do you consider yourself a human? A) yes, then why haven't you killed yourself? Since you haven't you think you're more deserving of life relative to everyone else and therefore are dehumanizing everyone but yourself, This is circular reasoning. If we've already established that I might not think all humans deserve to live, you can't claim that thinking I deserve to live means I think I'm more human than everyone else. It's perfectly possible to think someone deserves to live less than I do while still thinking they're human. Such tortured logic is hardly "direct line implicit", which is exactly why your definition doesn't work.
  - xtreme 8y ago
    According to this interpretation, arguments supporting capital punishment is hate speech and should be banned.
    - OmarIsmail 8y ago
      I'm ok with that.
      - umanwizard 8y ago
        Then you have such an extremely non-mainstream definition of hate speech that it was borderline intellectually dishonest of you not to come out with that example from the beginning. Even in Europe, which has much stricter bans on hate speech and xenophobia than the US does, and where capital punishment is banned, claiming capital punishment should be unbanned is legal.
    - chroma 8y ago
      These interpretations can also be flipped around. One could argue that not supporting capital punishment dehumanizes murder victims and their families. Then some tough on crime politician gets elected and speech against capital punishment is banned. Remember that whenever you create a tool to silence people, you are building a weapon that can be used against yourself. As recent elections have shown, sane politicians aren't always in power. The only long term solution is to build a system that works even when your enemies are in charge.
  - trolleyhacker 8y ago
    If we follow this reasoning, a statement like "Nazis deserve to die." would be hate speech.
- snackbugs 8y ago
  It does indeed imply just that. You're abstracting the impulse to eliminate other groups away from that fact that it comes from a perspective of supremacy: the idea that your type of human is more deserving of existing than a foreign human.
  - umanwizard 8y ago
    Yes, but thinking you deserve to exist more than someone else has nothing to do with whether you think they're human. My girlfriend's dog is very sweet and loyal. I think it deserves to exist more than a (human) child molester does. This doesn't mean I think dogs are human.
    - snackbugs 8y ago
      You're defining dehumanization biologically, when in usage the term is overloaded with another definition that refers to depriving others of dignity, individuality, and other positive human qualities. To say that another doesn't deserve to be recognized with those positive human qualities is at the root of saying that they don't deserve to exist.
      - umanwizard 8y ago
        If you're defining it like that then it's just as vague and subjective as "hate speech" is, so we haven't made any progress with this definition.
        snackbugs 8y ago
        You're being confronted with a truth about the clear definition of hate speech, and you're resisting moving forward because you intuitively sense the contradiction that your own belief might pose to that. This is where you need to be brave and get past that.
        umanwizard 8y ago
        Huh? That's totally out of left field and not even related to the discussion we were having. How can you possibly have any idea what my motives are for this discussion or what my own beliefs are about anything else?
ryanmonroe 8y ago
I feel that this comment dehumanized me. Therefore, you must remove it. See the issue?
- snackbugs 8y ago
  How is your life any harder to live because the parent comment was made? How has any positive human quality you innately have been refuted by the comment? There is a clear definition of hate speech. It's not as amorphous as you need it to be in order to protect your ego.
  - gravy 8y ago
    Is there a clear definition? Who gets to define it? Who gets to choose what definition we use?
    - snackbugs 8y ago
      There is. Many people use it. Have you ever gone out of your way to examine it? Or do you just infer it based on your internal beliefs and limited experiences?
      - gravy 8y ago
        There's no need to assume that anyone that questions it hasn't had experiences regarding it. Just the fact that there exists in your response any implication that a lack of experience may change someone's definition of "hate speech" makes it amorphous. There may be a definition, but it being "clear" is questionable. Obviously the answer is to leave it to the courts, but then you have to consider the definitions of "attack" or "intimidate" or "discomfort" and if any amount of these is "violence" and to what extent is it punishable. So I still don't think it's "clear".
        snackbugs 8y ago
        In order to make your points, you keep skating over the first principle: there is a clear definition.
macspoofing 8y ago
Yes. It's very easy to create a personal definition of what's offensive. If you were the King of the world, I'm sure it would be very easy for you to tell everyone what is and isn't good. >Speech that explicitly or direct line implicitly dehumanizes anyone. Except, you've gone nowhere. You've substituted the intrinsic ambiguity and subjectivity inherent in 'hate speech' with the same intrinsic ambiguity and subjectivity inherent in 'dehumanization' .. in fact, I have a better idea of what 'hate speech' is than what 'dehumanization' actually entails. I've seen people argue that a model in a bikini is dehumanizing.
dgellow 8y ago
I really don’t think so. You just replaced hate speech by dehumanizing speech but have the exact same situation. Same question then, what is dehumanizing speech, who defines it? The definition that you offer doesn’t seem too different to me than saying hate speech is content that you find hateful.
delbel 8y ago
Speech that outrages, offends or angers another person or group is actually the most humanizing concept available. Anger, being offended, being rude are human traits. No they are not very positive human qualities, but that doesn't make them "de-humanizing". De-humanizing is a completely different concept that can happen in a variety of situations, but one is where one group dominates society and prevents individuals from having (wrong or not) concepts that are contrarian or against their agenda. For example, falsely claiming offensive speech is de-humanizing and rejecting the ability for others to have "offensive" models of the world is in fact, a projection of de-humanizing wrongly re-wrapped as "de-humanizing" itself. There are other concepts in de-humanizing, that are beyond the scope of this. But cenosring speech or rejecting models (positive or negative) in the name of de-humanizing is actually a de-humanizing itself. Being angry is a right as a human. Imagine if we passed legislation making it against the law to be angry. That would be so outrageous and against every thing that is human we know.
EdSharkey 8y ago
"hate speech" and "dehumanizing" are implicitly political terms. Will you will agree with me that one's politics are simply deeply cherished opinions and nothing more? It appears to me that we are excluding voices from public discourse because, in the opinion of a powerful group, they have been rude. One person's rude criticism can easily become another person's hate speech.
- snackbugs 8y ago
  Unfortunately, politics directly affects the safety, health, and livelihood of everyone. People get sick die because of political decisions, and people gain great amounts of wealth because of political decisions. People maintain comfortable places in society or remain in fully employed poverty because of political decisions. There is very little in peoples' lives that aren't affected by politics. If you're in a position for politics to not affect you because it's just an abstract topic of conversation, you're part of a privileged class of people who aren't being scrutinized and blamed because of your inherent, born qualities. Congratulations.
  - EdSharkey 8y ago
    Everything in the world could be framed in-terms of power struggles, yes. Class warfare could blanket all reality and ultimately tearing down perceived unjust structures and individuals might usher in the utopia. But you've got to be a simpleton sheep to think that way. You invite the dictator-with-solutions in with that line of thinking. I am more tolerant and wise than you because I can separate political thought and speech from political action. You, apparently, cannot. I am being charitable by calling you a control freak who cannot handle having their deeply cherished opinions challenged.

umanwizard 8y ago

Your definition makes no sense. "We should kill people from country X" isn't hate speech by your definition - it doesn't imply anyone is any less human than anyone else.

OmarIsmail 8y ago
"should kill people" = "those people aren't deserving to live" = 1) either all humans are not deserving to live or 2) those specific humans are not deserving to live = if 2) country X are being dehumanized. if 1) do you consider yourself a human? A) yes, then why haven't you killed yourself? Since you haven't you think you're more deserving of life relative to everyone else and therefore are dehumanizing everyone but yourself, if 2) ok, you've publicly proclaimed that you don't think you're human which then let me add a second rule. Only humans have right to speech.
- umanwizard 8y ago
  > if 1) do you consider yourself a human? A) yes, then why haven't you killed yourself? Since you haven't you think you're more deserving of life relative to everyone else and therefore are dehumanizing everyone but yourself, This is circular reasoning. If we've already established that I might not think all humans deserve to live, you can't claim that thinking I deserve to live means I think I'm more human than everyone else. It's perfectly possible to think someone deserves to live less than I do while still thinking they're human. Such tortured logic is hardly "direct line implicit", which is exactly why your definition doesn't work.
- xtreme 8y ago
  According to this interpretation, arguments supporting capital punishment is hate speech and should be banned.
  - OmarIsmail 8y ago
    I'm ok with that.
    - umanwizard 8y ago
      Then you have such an extremely non-mainstream definition of hate speech that it was borderline intellectually dishonest of you not to come out with that example from the beginning. Even in Europe, which has much stricter bans on hate speech and xenophobia than the US does, and where capital punishment is banned, claiming capital punishment should be unbanned is legal.
  - chroma 8y ago
    These interpretations can also be flipped around. One could argue that not supporting capital punishment dehumanizes murder victims and their families. Then some tough on crime politician gets elected and speech against capital punishment is banned. Remember that whenever you create a tool to silence people, you are building a weapon that can be used against yourself. As recent elections have shown, sane politicians aren't always in power. The only long term solution is to build a system that works even when your enemies are in charge.
- trolleyhacker 8y ago
  If we follow this reasoning, a statement like "Nazis deserve to die." would be hate speech.
snackbugs 8y ago
It does indeed imply just that. You're abstracting the impulse to eliminate other groups away from that fact that it comes from a perspective of supremacy: the idea that your type of human is more deserving of existing than a foreign human.
- umanwizard 8y ago
  Yes, but thinking you deserve to exist more than someone else has nothing to do with whether you think they're human. My girlfriend's dog is very sweet and loyal. I think it deserves to exist more than a (human) child molester does. This doesn't mean I think dogs are human.
  - snackbugs 8y ago
    You're defining dehumanization biologically, when in usage the term is overloaded with another definition that refers to depriving others of dignity, individuality, and other positive human qualities. To say that another doesn't deserve to be recognized with those positive human qualities is at the root of saying that they don't deserve to exist.
    - umanwizard 8y ago
      If you're defining it like that then it's just as vague and subjective as "hate speech" is, so we haven't made any progress with this definition.
      - snackbugs 8y ago
        You're being confronted with a truth about the clear definition of hate speech, and you're resisting moving forward because you intuitively sense the contradiction that your own belief might pose to that. This is where you need to be brave and get past that.
        umanwizard 8y ago
        Huh? That's totally out of left field and not even related to the discussion we were having. How can you possibly have any idea what my motives are for this discussion or what my own beliefs are about anything else?

ryanmonroe 8y ago

I feel that this comment dehumanized me. Therefore, you must remove it. See the issue?

snackbugs 8y ago
How is your life any harder to live because the parent comment was made? How has any positive human quality you innately have been refuted by the comment? There is a clear definition of hate speech. It's not as amorphous as you need it to be in order to protect your ego.
- gravy 8y ago
  Is there a clear definition? Who gets to define it? Who gets to choose what definition we use?
  - snackbugs 8y ago
    There is. Many people use it. Have you ever gone out of your way to examine it? Or do you just infer it based on your internal beliefs and limited experiences?
    - gravy 8y ago
      There's no need to assume that anyone that questions it hasn't had experiences regarding it. Just the fact that there exists in your response any implication that a lack of experience may change someone's definition of "hate speech" makes it amorphous. There may be a definition, but it being "clear" is questionable. Obviously the answer is to leave it to the courts, but then you have to consider the definitions of "attack" or "intimidate" or "discomfort" and if any amount of these is "violence" and to what extent is it punishable. So I still don't think it's "clear".
      - snackbugs 8y ago
        In order to make your points, you keep skating over the first principle: there is a clear definition.

macspoofing 8y ago

Yes. It's very easy to create a personal definition of what's offensive. If you were the King of the world, I'm sure it would be very easy for you to tell everyone what is and isn't good. >Speech that explicitly or direct line implicitly dehumanizes anyone. Except, you've gone nowhere. You've substituted the intrinsic ambiguity and subjectivity inherent in 'hate speech' with the same intrinsic ambiguity and subjectivity inherent in 'dehumanization' .. in fact, I have a better idea of what 'hate speech' is than what 'dehumanization' actually entails. I've seen people argue that a model in a bikini is dehumanizing.

dgellow 8y ago

I really don’t think so. You just replaced hate speech by dehumanizing speech but have the exact same situation. Same question then, what is dehumanizing speech, who defines it? The definition that you offer doesn’t seem too different to me than saying hate speech is content that you find hateful.

delbel 8y ago

Speech that outrages, offends or angers another person or group is actually the most humanizing concept available. Anger, being offended, being rude are human traits. No they are not very positive human qualities, but that doesn't make them "de-humanizing". De-humanizing is a completely different concept that can happen in a variety of situations, but one is where one group dominates society and prevents individuals from having (wrong or not) concepts that are contrarian or against their agenda. For example, falsely claiming offensive speech is de-humanizing and rejecting the ability for others to have "offensive" models of the world is in fact, a projection of de-humanizing wrongly re-wrapped as "de-humanizing" itself. There are other concepts in de-humanizing, that are beyond the scope of this. But cenosring speech or rejecting models (positive or negative) in the name of de-humanizing is actually a de-humanizing itself. Being angry is a right as a human. Imagine if we passed legislation making it against the law to be angry. That would be so outrageous and against every thing that is human we know.

EdSharkey 8y ago

"hate speech" and "dehumanizing" are implicitly political terms. Will you will agree with me that one's politics are simply deeply cherished opinions and nothing more? It appears to me that we are excluding voices from public discourse because, in the opinion of a powerful group, they have been rude. One person's rude criticism can easily become another person's hate speech.

snackbugs 8y ago
Unfortunately, politics directly affects the safety, health, and livelihood of everyone. People get sick die because of political decisions, and people gain great amounts of wealth because of political decisions. People maintain comfortable places in society or remain in fully employed poverty because of political decisions. There is very little in peoples' lives that aren't affected by politics. If you're in a position for politics to not affect you because it's just an abstract topic of conversation, you're part of a privileged class of people who aren't being scrutinized and blamed because of your inherent, born qualities. Congratulations.
- EdSharkey 8y ago
  Everything in the world could be framed in-terms of power struggles, yes. Class warfare could blanket all reality and ultimately tearing down perceived unjust structures and individuals might usher in the utopia. But you've got to be a simpleton sheep to think that way. You invite the dictator-with-solutions in with that line of thinking. I am more tolerant and wise than you because I can separate political thought and speech from political action. You, apparently, cannot. I am being charitable by calling you a control freak who cannot handle having their deeply cherished opinions challenged.