6 ms·

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 coh

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
        Can you provide me of an example where kill all men is not identified as hate speech?
        luckylion 7y ago
        This sounds too much like you moving the goal post along, and I've had those conversations before; I did not find them fruitful. Next up "can you provide a case number where 'kill all $foo' was classified as hate speech by a federal judge who's first name starts with an E". You can google that sentence, you can read defenses of it and make up your mind. I'm not that passionate about changing a single opinion that I'm going to waste time chasing after your ever expanding requirements.
        streb-lo 7y ago
        Why bother replying if you're not going to be charitable in my assumptions? I had never heard of the term but I would certainly agree that it's hate speech. It seems to me that it was a twitter hashtag that some people thought was funny. I don't agree with it but I also think that an equivalent hashtag #killallwomen would have an equally hard time being brought before a judge.
        luckylion 7y ago

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
        Can you provide me of an example where kill all men is not identified as hate speech?
        luckylion 7y ago
        This sounds too much like you moving the goal post along, and I've had those conversations before; I did not find them fruitful. Next up "can you provide a case number where 'kill all $foo' was classified as hate speech by a federal judge who's first name starts with an E". You can google that sentence, you can read defenses of it and make up your mind. I'm not that passionate about changing a single opinion that I'm going to waste time chasing after your ever expanding requirements.
        streb-lo 7y ago
        Why bother replying if you're not going to be charitable in my assumptions? I had never heard of the term but I would certainly agree that it's hate speech. It seems to me that it was a twitter hashtag that some people thought was funny. I don't agree with it but I also think that an equivalent hashtag #killallwomen would have an equally hard time being brought before a judge.
        luckylion 7y ago