10 ms·

Does action include hateful speech? Not being facetious just genuinely wanting to know. I've always found it difficult to dissociate views vs actions when it co

Does action include hateful speech? Not being facetious just genuinely wanting to know. I've always found it difficult to dissociate views vs actions when it comes to espoousing a hateful view.

Kalium 7y ago
Someone, at some point, probably regardes some of your views as hateful. With that in mind, how much would you like to be subject to prior restraint based on someone else's internal emotional understanding of your views? Generally it's worth dividing hateful words from hateful actions. Saying something racist in hateful, and might have political or social consequences, but wise societies are aware that getting into the game of policing speech is a mess. Attacking someone for being the wrong race is much more clear-cut, and society generally has an interest in discouraging violence to begin with.
- dragontamer 7y ago
  > Someone, at some point, probably regardes some of your views as hateful. With that in mind, how much would you like to be subject to prior restraint based on someone else's internal emotional understanding of your views? How does ME accepting tolerance cause the OTHER guy to be tolerant as well? I don't swing the first punch during fights, but I'll absolutely punch back. That doesn't change the fact that fights happen to break out. One day, you will find yourself up against an intolerant person, and your only defense is to also be intolerant against them. That's just the facts.
  - Kalium 7y ago
    > One day, you will find yourself up against an intolerant person, and your only defense is to also be intolerant against them. For me, that day was a long time ago. And that was not - and is not - my defense. That's just the facts.
    - dragontamer 7y ago
      > For me, that day was a long time ago. And that was not - and is not - my defense. Please share your experience. Did you run away? Did you actually change their opinion? Here's my story: for a month, a man with an anti-Asian sign would be marching around and pointing his "Go back to China" sign at me. (My parents are Filipino and I'm born in America) What do you expect me to do, walk out and have a reasonable discussion with the guy? No. You call the police and get that man out of my life. No one has to tolerate this kind of hate. And no amount of reasonable discussion can convince a crazy man to tolerate others. Deal with the problem. Get them out, kick them out. I'm not going to wax-philosophical and think "oh, he's demonstrating his freedom of speech / 1st amendment rights". Nah, he's trespassing on private property and I want him out of my workplace. True story. This is how you deal with problems. "Tolerating" the hate only makes it fester and get worse. Hoping for the man to stop marching (after he's been marching for literally weeks) is the height of insanity. --------- Look, we've got Christchurch mosque shootings and El Paso shootings. There's a hateful philosophy which is GROWING. Its pretty clear to me that "tolerance" has lost the fight. There's literal blood in the streets now, as the hate is beginning to fester and spread even further. We can work to slow down the hate today, or we can sit still and "tolerate" it for the years to come, hoping it goes away by itself.
  - manfredo 7y ago
    > One day, you will find yourself up against an intolerant person, and your only defense is to also be intolerant against them. No, being a tolerant person means tolerating people even when you find their views wrong, immoral, or heinous. There's nothing impressive about tolerating the views you like and not tolerating the views you don't. When you find an intolerant person, the right thing to do is to tolerate them. Let them see that you are willing to accept them, even if they are not willing to accept you. That is how views are changed. This notion that the defense against intolerance is to be intolerant yourself is how society sinks into tit for tat tribalism.
    - dragontamer 7y ago
      > When you find an intolerant person, the right thing to do is to tolerate them. Let them see that you are willing to accept them, even if they are not willing to accept you. That is how views are changed. https://i.imgur.com/wmA0ZeV.png https://i.imgur.com/wmA0ZeV.png If the opponent is more charismatic than you, you will lose this fight. There are some very intolerant people out there who are more charismatic than you, and are better able to recruit supporters to their cause. > This notion that the defense against intolerance is to be intolerant yourself is how society sinks into tit for tat tribalism. This notion that YOU are more charming than the "intolerant" people is naive. What if the other guy is more charming, and manages to rile up crowds better than you can? There's a reason why Obama signed papers to just kill Anwar Al-Awlaki with a drone strike. At some point, you just stop playing the "tolerance" game and gotta get your hands dirty. The idea that we can teach tolerance to everyone else is naive and counterproductive at this age.
      - manfredo 7y ago
        If your opponent has view you consider intolerant, and the majority of society agrees with them you're saying the right thing to do is use suppression to enforce your minority view on the rest of society. Do you really realize what you're saying here? Under this logic if I think abortion is murder, and I consider everyone who supports abortion is intolerant then I am justified in suppressing pro-abortion speech even if the majority of society is pro-choice. The end result of your line of thinking is civil war. Coexistence with people who have values and morals different from each others becomes impossible when people's response to views they find wrong is to be intolerant toward those views.
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  I'm genuinely struggling to understand here, because on one hand you talk about tolerance being a difficult thing where we should tolerate the viewpoints of others. On the other hand you're expressing that saying somethign hateful might have political and social consequences. But I was under the impression that, in your view, saying hateful things and recieving a social consequence as a result of your hate is a sign of an intolerant society.
  - Kalium 7y ago
    Political and social consequences as distinct from legal or physical ones. Voters don't always like their candidates being hateful. I tend to drop racist friends. I still think racists deserve emergency medical care and effective fire departments, though.
    - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
      Right, so in this case, is it okay that racists are fired or similar? How does this relate to the tolerating of other viewpoints in this case?
      - Kalium 7y ago
        I'm quite certain I work with some racists - my employer is too large and diverse for the number to be zero. As long as they keep their mouths shut in the office, I'm more concerned with whether or not they're good at their jobs.
        SolaceQuantum 7y ago
        That wasn't my question, though.
        Kalium 7y ago
        If they keep their mouths shut and are good at their jobs, I don't see why they should be fired for their private views. If they want to run their racist mouth at work, they might be fired for it.
jimbokun 7y ago
Pretty much every political position is considered "hate speech" by people on one side of an issue or the other. The term has been over used so much it's losing much of its meaning. > I've always found it difficult to dissociate views vs actions when it comes to espoousing a hateful view. Views: giving a speech arguing abortion should be illegal Actions: blowing up an abortion clinic I find it very troubling so many participants in this discussion having difficulty distinguishing between speech and action, and why they should not be treated as the same thing.
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  So, if my view is that trans women should be called men, and I call a trans woman at my work a man, is this speech or an action? This is where I'm having difficulty distinguishing speech and action.
  - jimbokun 7y ago
    In the US? Would be protected free speech, and the government cannot make any laws about it. For your company, though, they could fire you for violating their internal policies. To categorize the speech, I would say it's just being an asshole. Even if you believe biological sex is assigned at birth and is immutable, going out of your way to not address someone the way they wish to be addressed is just being intentionally rude. But even then, it's still speech.
    - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
      So is it okay that the company does not tolerate that view, even if that view is only expressed through speech? We're not in the context of a government, only an employer. Is that fine?
      - jimbokun 7y ago
        That is the way the US Constitution works, yes.

Does action include hateful speech? Not being facetious just genuinely wanting to know. I've always found it difficult to dissociate views vs actions when it comes to espoousing a hateful view.

Kalium 7y ago

Someone, at some point, probably regardes some of your views as hateful. With that in mind, how much would you like to be subject to prior restraint based on someone else's internal emotional understanding of your views? Generally it's worth dividing hateful words from hateful actions. Saying something racist in hateful, and might have political or social consequences, but wise societies are aware that getting into the game of policing speech is a mess. Attacking someone for being the wrong race is much more clear-cut, and society generally has an interest in discouraging violence to begin with.

dragontamer 7y ago
> Someone, at some point, probably regardes some of your views as hateful. With that in mind, how much would you like to be subject to prior restraint based on someone else's internal emotional understanding of your views? How does ME accepting tolerance cause the OTHER guy to be tolerant as well? I don't swing the first punch during fights, but I'll absolutely punch back. That doesn't change the fact that fights happen to break out. One day, you will find yourself up against an intolerant person, and your only defense is to also be intolerant against them. That's just the facts.
- Kalium 7y ago
  > One day, you will find yourself up against an intolerant person, and your only defense is to also be intolerant against them. For me, that day was a long time ago. And that was not - and is not - my defense. That's just the facts.
  - dragontamer 7y ago
    > For me, that day was a long time ago. And that was not - and is not - my defense. Please share your experience. Did you run away? Did you actually change their opinion? Here's my story: for a month, a man with an anti-Asian sign would be marching around and pointing his "Go back to China" sign at me. (My parents are Filipino and I'm born in America) What do you expect me to do, walk out and have a reasonable discussion with the guy? No. You call the police and get that man out of my life. No one has to tolerate this kind of hate. And no amount of reasonable discussion can convince a crazy man to tolerate others. Deal with the problem. Get them out, kick them out. I'm not going to wax-philosophical and think "oh, he's demonstrating his freedom of speech / 1st amendment rights". Nah, he's trespassing on private property and I want him out of my workplace. True story. This is how you deal with problems. "Tolerating" the hate only makes it fester and get worse. Hoping for the man to stop marching (after he's been marching for literally weeks) is the height of insanity. --------- Look, we've got Christchurch mosque shootings and El Paso shootings. There's a hateful philosophy which is GROWING. Its pretty clear to me that "tolerance" has lost the fight. There's literal blood in the streets now, as the hate is beginning to fester and spread even further. We can work to slow down the hate today, or we can sit still and "tolerate" it for the years to come, hoping it goes away by itself.
- manfredo 7y ago
  > One day, you will find yourself up against an intolerant person, and your only defense is to also be intolerant against them. No, being a tolerant person means tolerating people even when you find their views wrong, immoral, or heinous. There's nothing impressive about tolerating the views you like and not tolerating the views you don't. When you find an intolerant person, the right thing to do is to tolerate them. Let them see that you are willing to accept them, even if they are not willing to accept you. That is how views are changed. This notion that the defense against intolerance is to be intolerant yourself is how society sinks into tit for tat tribalism.
  - dragontamer 7y ago
    > When you find an intolerant person, the right thing to do is to tolerate them. Let them see that you are willing to accept them, even if they are not willing to accept you. That is how views are changed. https://i.imgur.com/wmA0ZeV.png https://i.imgur.com/wmA0ZeV.png If the opponent is more charismatic than you, you will lose this fight. There are some very intolerant people out there who are more charismatic than you, and are better able to recruit supporters to their cause. > This notion that the defense against intolerance is to be intolerant yourself is how society sinks into tit for tat tribalism. This notion that YOU are more charming than the "intolerant" people is naive. What if the other guy is more charming, and manages to rile up crowds better than you can? There's a reason why Obama signed papers to just kill Anwar Al-Awlaki with a drone strike. At some point, you just stop playing the "tolerance" game and gotta get your hands dirty. The idea that we can teach tolerance to everyone else is naive and counterproductive at this age.
    - manfredo 7y ago
      If your opponent has view you consider intolerant, and the majority of society agrees with them you're saying the right thing to do is use suppression to enforce your minority view on the rest of society. Do you really realize what you're saying here? Under this logic if I think abortion is murder, and I consider everyone who supports abortion is intolerant then I am justified in suppressing pro-abortion speech even if the majority of society is pro-choice. The end result of your line of thinking is civil war. Coexistence with people who have values and morals different from each others becomes impossible when people's response to views they find wrong is to be intolerant toward those views.
SolaceQuantum 7y ago
I'm genuinely struggling to understand here, because on one hand you talk about tolerance being a difficult thing where we should tolerate the viewpoints of others. On the other hand you're expressing that saying somethign hateful might have political and social consequences. But I was under the impression that, in your view, saying hateful things and recieving a social consequence as a result of your hate is a sign of an intolerant society.
- Kalium 7y ago
  Political and social consequences as distinct from legal or physical ones. Voters don't always like their candidates being hateful. I tend to drop racist friends. I still think racists deserve emergency medical care and effective fire departments, though.
  - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
    Right, so in this case, is it okay that racists are fired or similar? How does this relate to the tolerating of other viewpoints in this case?
    - Kalium 7y ago
      I'm quite certain I work with some racists - my employer is too large and diverse for the number to be zero. As long as they keep their mouths shut in the office, I'm more concerned with whether or not they're good at their jobs.
      - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
        That wasn't my question, though.
        Kalium 7y ago
        If they keep their mouths shut and are good at their jobs, I don't see why they should be fired for their private views. If they want to run their racist mouth at work, they might be fired for it.

jimbokun 7y ago

Pretty much every political position is considered "hate speech" by people on one side of an issue or the other. The term has been over used so much it's losing much of its meaning. > I've always found it difficult to dissociate views vs actions when it comes to espoousing a hateful view. Views: giving a speech arguing abortion should be illegal Actions: blowing up an abortion clinic I find it very troubling so many participants in this discussion having difficulty distinguishing between speech and action, and why they should not be treated as the same thing.

SolaceQuantum 7y ago
So, if my view is that trans women should be called men, and I call a trans woman at my work a man, is this speech or an action? This is where I'm having difficulty distinguishing speech and action.
- jimbokun 7y ago
  In the US? Would be protected free speech, and the government cannot make any laws about it. For your company, though, they could fire you for violating their internal policies. To categorize the speech, I would say it's just being an asshole. Even if you believe biological sex is assigned at birth and is immutable, going out of your way to not address someone the way they wish to be addressed is just being intentionally rude. But even then, it's still speech.
  - SolaceQuantum 7y ago
    So is it okay that the company does not tolerate that view, even if that view is only expressed through speech? We're not in the context of a government, only an employer. Is that fine?
    - jimbokun 7y ago
      That is the way the US Constitution works, yes.