5 ms·

Hate-speech laws exist because people are programmable. Try and tell me your opinions are your own and the books and media you consume do not own some portion

Hate-speech laws exist because people are programmable. Try and tell me your opinions are your own and the books and media you consume do not own some portion of them. Hate-speech laws exist to prevent the programming of people to systematically hate and exterminate other people, a lesson that has been learned many times over in history.

trentnix 7y ago
If hate-speech laws exist to deal with people that are programmed, wouldn't it also follow that hate-speech laws might exist because programmed people want to control the speech of others? It would go like this: hate speech is first yelling fire in a theater, then it's espousing bigotry, then it's holding the wrong opinions, until it's finally speaking ill of the Party. That's also a lesson that has been learned many times over in history.
- streb-lo 7y ago
  We're all programmable, sure. And I think it's important for their to be competing voices such that we don't end up in the Party. But some level of social cohesion is desirable, and I think starting at the level of 'not allowed to advocate for the rape and murder of peoples' is a reasonable step towards ensuring less people think that is viable.
  - luckylion 7y ago
    And to attain that social cohesion, outlawing wrongthink is certainly a way. It is allowed to advocate doing harm to people, it's just that you have to be selective. You can't do it to protected classes, but unprotected groups are just fine, which is why I believe the moral case for hate speech laws typically falls flat. If it was about morals, it would target everybody equally. It doesn't, so it isn't.
    - streb-lo 7y ago
      That's not true at all. Maybe in America, I have no idea, but where I'm from its applied equally.
      - trentnix 7y ago
        where I'm from its applied equally Weren't you saying about people being programmable? Every society throughout history has struggled with administering justice equally. Every single one.
        streb-lo 7y ago
        So we should stop trying? The reality is both ends of the spectrum are undesirable. To move too far in either direction ends in murder and destruction.
      - luckylion 7y ago
        I've found it to typically not be applied equally, neither in the US nor in Europe (which makes sense, since it's designed to protect marginalized groups). For a quick test, replace some words, i.e. "all X are ..." and make it "all Y are ...", switch minorities and majorities around - you'll be able to tell whether it's considered hate speech then. #YesAllXYZ
        streb-lo 7y ago
        Can you provide me with an example?
        luckylion 7y ago
        "Kill all men". There's plenty of generalizations, insults and derogatory statements against groups, it's just not a problem if those groups aren't perceived as oppressed. Change a word or two and voila: hate speech.
        streb-lo 7y ago
- shadowgovt 7y ago
  Too far down that philosophical rabbit-hole you find "There's no such thing as good and evil," which is a philosophy a person can have but not one I'd want to see a country's government embrace as a core tenant. It'd be a pretty shitty place to live for anyone who doesn't have the money or power to enforce their will.
  - trentnix 7y ago
    And too far down the other hole is the ambiguity of definitions and other postmodern gobbledygook that will eventually expand the umbrella of what we call 'hate speech' far beyond what we might both agree is reasonable. It's probably already happened. That's an awful place to live as well.
    - streb-lo 7y ago
      The postmodern gobbleygook in this case is the notion that there are no bad opinions and all speech is valid.
      - trentnix 7y ago
        And you can't successfully legislative bad opinions and the validity of speech. Because an opinion being bad or speech being valid isn't something the government should concern themselves with.
        shadowgovt 7y ago
        Remind me again why the US prosecutes ownership and transmission of child pornography?
        streb-lo 7y ago
        Why not? There are time-tested slippery slopes in both directions here so the best approach is a cautious one where shades of grey are debated and disputed.
- bayesian_horse 7y ago
  You should see Hate-Speech more like nuclear chain reaction and laws against that as neutron traps.
josteink 7y ago
> Hate-speech laws exist because people are programmable. And some people would like to have us programmed with their opinion unchallenged, rather than have their view face opposing arguments in a fair and open debate. Once you compromise on free speech for some views, it’s all a slippery down-hill slope from there.
- streb-lo 7y ago
  Once you allow someone to advertise murder as a solution to a problem it's all down-hill from there.
  - 1000units 7y ago
    And yet you personally contribute funds to your nation's military, I presume.
    - 1000units 7y ago
      Who do we kill with that? Just who you say is okay? And we can't talk about it? Hmm, you know. I don't think I like this arrangement. It already seems like you don't like me.
- 1000units 7y ago
  This is entirely correct. As rhetorical advice, I recommend against calling things a "slippery slope". This causes alarm bells to ring in a pedant's mind, and they frantically search Wikipedia's catalog of Fallacious Reasoning for an appropriate article to copy-paste or internally justify downvoting you instead of authentically engaging with the argument.
rcoveson 7y ago
> ...people are programmable. This particular cynicism justifies far too much. A liberal (as in liberty) society must trust the super-majority of its population to agree on and uphold its ethical foundations. Policing hate speech weakens one of those foundations no matter how you justify it, but if you justify it by saying "people are programmable and so can't be trusted to hear what hateful people have to say," it weakens it enormously. A huge percentage of our speech is attempted "programming." Political debate, religious preaching, even mathematical models of the universe are attempts to get others to think about something a certain way. But it would be unethical to ban any of those things, because people aren't "programmable," they're suggestible.
- streb-lo 7y ago
  > A huge percentage of our speech is attempted "programming." I absolutely agree. I'm not saying ban hate speech because its programming -- I'm saying ban it because it's evil and effective. It's morally reprehensible to defend the existence of advocating for racial superiority when we have witnessed hundreds of times where that leads to genocide.
  - rcoveson 7y ago
    I don't think that follows so clearly. We defend many rights that could lead to disaster. You could try to drum up a following to amend the constitution and make the country into whatever you wanted it to be, and you could do so legally. If you succeeded, it could be a total disaster. And yet somehow it's still right that we defend the right for you to do so. > It's morally reprehensible to defend the existence of advocating for racial superiority... This really is a slippery slope. Let's agree that it's morally reprehensible to advocate for racial superiority. Let's not argue that it's morally reprehensible to defend the right of somebody else to advocate for racial superiority. When we are faced with assailing what is supposed to be as close as possible to an unassailable right for pragmatic reasons, neither side of the argument is clearly moral or immoral. Or, rather, both sides are somewhat immoral. If we as a society come to the conclusion that hate speech is so dangerous that it is worth reducing the right to free speech to prevent it, then let's at least do so with a heavy heart. Political decisions that pit a great good against another great good are terrible. Don't make them more terrible by accusing those on either side of being morally reprehensible.
1000units 7y ago
Hate-speech laws are ridiculous. They only have their cheerleaders because some people hate Nazis more than they love what Nazis threatened to destroy. Never made sense to me.

trentnix 7y ago

If hate-speech laws exist to deal with people that are programmed, wouldn't it also follow that hate-speech laws might exist because programmed people want to control the speech of others? It would go like this: hate speech is first yelling fire in a theater, then it's espousing bigotry, then it's holding the wrong opinions, until it's finally speaking ill of the Party. That's also a lesson that has been learned many times over in history.

streb-lo 7y ago
We're all programmable, sure. And I think it's important for their to be competing voices such that we don't end up in the Party. But some level of social cohesion is desirable, and I think starting at the level of 'not allowed to advocate for the rape and murder of peoples' is a reasonable step towards ensuring less people think that is viable.
- luckylion 7y ago
  And to attain that social cohesion, outlawing wrongthink is certainly a way. It is allowed to advocate doing harm to people, it's just that you have to be selective. You can't do it to protected classes, but unprotected groups are just fine, which is why I believe the moral case for hate speech laws typically falls flat. If it was about morals, it would target everybody equally. It doesn't, so it isn't.
  - streb-lo 7y ago
    That's not true at all. Maybe in America, I have no idea, but where I'm from its applied equally.
    - trentnix 7y ago
      where I'm from its applied equally Weren't you saying about people being programmable? Every society throughout history has struggled with administering justice equally. Every single one.
      - streb-lo 7y ago
        So we should stop trying? The reality is both ends of the spectrum are undesirable. To move too far in either direction ends in murder and destruction.
    - luckylion 7y ago
      I've found it to typically not be applied equally, neither in the US nor in Europe (which makes sense, since it's designed to protect marginalized groups). For a quick test, replace some words, i.e. "all X are ..." and make it "all Y are ...", switch minorities and majorities around - you'll be able to tell whether it's considered hate speech then. #YesAllXYZ
      - streb-lo 7y ago
        Can you provide me with an example?
        luckylion 7y ago
        "Kill all men". There's plenty of generalizations, insults and derogatory statements against groups, it's just not a problem if those groups aren't perceived as oppressed. Change a word or two and voila: hate speech.
        streb-lo 7y ago
shadowgovt 7y ago
Too far down that philosophical rabbit-hole you find "There's no such thing as good and evil," which is a philosophy a person can have but not one I'd want to see a country's government embrace as a core tenant. It'd be a pretty shitty place to live for anyone who doesn't have the money or power to enforce their will.
- trentnix 7y ago
  And too far down the other hole is the ambiguity of definitions and other postmodern gobbledygook that will eventually expand the umbrella of what we call 'hate speech' far beyond what we might both agree is reasonable. It's probably already happened. That's an awful place to live as well.
  - streb-lo 7y ago
    The postmodern gobbleygook in this case is the notion that there are no bad opinions and all speech is valid.
    - trentnix 7y ago
      And you can't successfully legislative bad opinions and the validity of speech. Because an opinion being bad or speech being valid isn't something the government should concern themselves with.
      - shadowgovt 7y ago
        Remind me again why the US prosecutes ownership and transmission of child pornography?
      - streb-lo 7y ago
        Why not? There are time-tested slippery slopes in both directions here so the best approach is a cautious one where shades of grey are debated and disputed.
bayesian_horse 7y ago
You should see Hate-Speech more like nuclear chain reaction and laws against that as neutron traps.

josteink 7y ago

> Hate-speech laws exist because people are programmable. And some people would like to have us programmed with their opinion unchallenged, rather than have their view face opposing arguments in a fair and open debate. Once you compromise on free speech for some views, it’s all a slippery down-hill slope from there.

streb-lo 7y ago
Once you allow someone to advertise murder as a solution to a problem it's all down-hill from there.
- 1000units 7y ago
  And yet you personally contribute funds to your nation's military, I presume.
  - 1000units 7y ago
    Who do we kill with that? Just who you say is okay? And we can't talk about it? Hmm, you know. I don't think I like this arrangement. It already seems like you don't like me.
1000units 7y ago
This is entirely correct. As rhetorical advice, I recommend against calling things a "slippery slope". This causes alarm bells to ring in a pedant's mind, and they frantically search Wikipedia's catalog of Fallacious Reasoning for an appropriate article to copy-paste or internally justify downvoting you instead of authentically engaging with the argument.

rcoveson 7y ago

> ...people are programmable. This particular cynicism justifies far too much. A liberal (as in liberty) society must trust the super-majority of its population to agree on and uphold its ethical foundations. Policing hate speech weakens one of those foundations no matter how you justify it, but if you justify it by saying "people are programmable and so can't be trusted to hear what hateful people have to say," it weakens it enormously. A huge percentage of our speech is attempted "programming." Political debate, religious preaching, even mathematical models of the universe are attempts to get others to think about something a certain way. But it would be unethical to ban any of those things, because people aren't "programmable," they're suggestible.

streb-lo 7y ago
> A huge percentage of our speech is attempted "programming." I absolutely agree. I'm not saying ban hate speech because its programming -- I'm saying ban it because it's evil and effective. It's morally reprehensible to defend the existence of advocating for racial superiority when we have witnessed hundreds of times where that leads to genocide.
- rcoveson 7y ago
  I don't think that follows so clearly. We defend many rights that could lead to disaster. You could try to drum up a following to amend the constitution and make the country into whatever you wanted it to be, and you could do so legally. If you succeeded, it could be a total disaster. And yet somehow it's still right that we defend the right for you to do so. > It's morally reprehensible to defend the existence of advocating for racial superiority... This really is a slippery slope. Let's agree that it's morally reprehensible to advocate for racial superiority. Let's not argue that it's morally reprehensible to defend the right of somebody else to advocate for racial superiority. When we are faced with assailing what is supposed to be as close as possible to an unassailable right for pragmatic reasons, neither side of the argument is clearly moral or immoral. Or, rather, both sides are somewhat immoral. If we as a society come to the conclusion that hate speech is so dangerous that it is worth reducing the right to free speech to prevent it, then let's at least do so with a heavy heart. Political decisions that pit a great good against another great good are terrible. Don't make them more terrible by accusing those on either side of being morally reprehensible.

1000units 7y ago

Hate-speech laws are ridiculous. They only have their cheerleaders because some people hate Nazis more than they love what Nazis threatened to destroy. Never made sense to me.