5 ms·

Hate speech has some fairly clear legal definitions in many places. It is speech that singles out negatively a group based on [make a list of criterion]. Typica

by Iv 7y ago

Hate speech has some fairly clear legal definitions in many places. It is speech that singles out negatively a group based on [make a list of criterion]. Typical list: gender, nationality, ethnicity, sex orientation, skin color, preferred text editor. Honestly, I have yet to find a minority that I find problematic to include to classify hate speech at a tech conference. I am super vocal about my hostility toward every religion, I just shut it up at tech conferences. And when I do talk about the religions I find stupid, I am not calling their supporters names. That's really that simple. > you're talking about censoring people based on whether they agree with your perspective. On inclusion of other people? Hell yeah. Except I am giving objective criterion to judge it. > Free speech for the purposes of saying only inoffensive things is not free speech. I agree with that sentiment. However, I see nothing of value in purely offensive speech. Once again, I am still waiting of a single example of hate speech that would be valuable to a discussion and that can't be replace by non-offensive one.

quotemstr 7y ago
Any time you give people a button labeled "make my opponent shut up", they're going to mash it all day regardless of the ostensible purpose of the button. Preventing someone attending a professional conference because he agrees with half the country on a controversial issue is simply unacceptable in a democracy regardless of what words you use to justify this behavior. Who are you to demand that people prove that speech is worthwhile before being able to speak? Why should their ability to speak depend on your evaluation of their speech's discursive worth? You're just using a lot of words to claim that you should get to decide what people are allowed to say.
- Iv 7y ago
  > Any time you give people a button labeled "make my opponent shut up", they're going to mash it all day regardless of the ostensible purpose of the button Bis repetita, that's why you don't have a button: you have a process. > Preventing someone attending a professional conference because he agrees with half the country on a controversial issue is simply unacceptable in a democracy regardless of what words you use to justify this behavior. Please don't refer to US as "the" country, some of us come from another country, maybe even a democracy with gasp different rules. And well, I agree it is certainly problematic, but the problem lies in the fact that half of your country defends hate speech. Which can be defined objectively, and has been by laws in my country (France). I used to be a fan of the first amendment, to believe in the slippery slope fallacy that it would lead to more violent censorship, that it would lead to the removal of controversial but worth content. I have yet to find a single example of that. > Who are you to demand that people prove that speech is worthwhile before being able to speak? Why should their ability to speak depend on your evaluation of their speech's discursive worth? You're just using a lot of words to claim that you should get to decide what people are allowed to say. Dude, I know I am pretty cool, but why do you think you have to ask me? Where did I propose you send me an email before speaking? Or that I set rules myself? I am merely saying that hate speech is something that can be clearly defined, that it has been in a way actually enforced by tribunals in France, that it does not lead to censorship of worthwhile content and it is applied a posteriori, not a priori. Believe it or not, we manage to have a healthy democracy while still forbidding people from wearing nazi apparel (which is still illegal in France)
  - Fellshard 7y ago
    And this process is a kangaroo court, to all appearances, until they show the evidence by which they made their judgment.
  - concordDance 7y ago
    > And well, I agree it is certainly problematic, but the problem lies in the fact that half of your country defends hate speech What definition of hate speech are you using and what event does it apply to? On a related note, here's some statements that may or may not be hate speech: 1. Africans are stupid and criminal, we shouldn't let them into the country. 2. Transsexuals are crazy people. They need medicine, not coddling. 3. Muslims have evil beliefs and blow people up and I don't want them in my country. 4. Homos are unnatural, spreading disease and sickness. We need to keep our children away from them so they don't catch the gay. I've written all four to imply a large amount of ignorance and strong emotional motivations, but they are nonetheless a crude attempt to express a public policy and a reason for it. Should they be banned? Should they also be banned if written in the form of an eloquent 80 page paper with precise terminology, strong citations from numerous studies and polls and a grounding in commonly accepted principles in political science and ethics (assume such a thing were possible)?
    - Iv 7y ago
      Yes, all these 4 statements would fall under hate speech laws in France. And yes, people have tried to turn these prejudice into eloquent pages with precise terminology or into stand up comedy and have been shut down for it. Shockingly, France is not a den of conformism yet. It is in the US that Charlie Hebdo covers are censored and where people "agree to disagree" instead of exploring their disagreements.
lliamander 7y ago
> Once again, I am still waiting of a single example of hate speech that would be valuable to a discussion and that can't be replace by non-offensive one. So, you want people to make some statements that, depending upon their country of origin, might result in criminal or social penalties (including losing their job) because if the those statements were ever tied back to them it might be seen as endorsing "hate speech"? You realize how freaking insane that is, right? You claim to be inviting argument, and yet you endorse a system which would penalize people for accepting that invitation. Listen, if you really need an example or two of meaningful ideas that might qualify, I'll provide. But it ultimately doesn't matter whether you consider them a valuable contribution to the discussion, what matters is whether other people have the right express what matters to them. If they don't, then the root of these problems can never be addressed.
- Natanael_L 7y ago
  So you would let yourself be treated by a doctor that is open with wanting people like you to die? You want police that have stated they hate people like you? You'd trust a cleaner that despise you? I will let you state your opinion, but you don't get to demand immunity from consequences. Some opinions are genuinely indefensible.
  - lliamander 7y ago
    > I will let you state your opinion, but you don't get to demand immunity from consequences. Oh, you'll let me? How magnanimous. How about: * Nobody asked you. * Who do you think you are that I would need your permission? * I wasn't asking permission. I was asking for a indication of interest in genuine conversation. Something you clearly lack. * What opinions I hold regarding controversial issues are my own. What I was offering was examples of (potentially) prohibited things some people believe that are more nuanced than the cartoon bigotry.
    - Natanael_L 7y ago
      * whatever. Didn't say I consider myself as some benevolent dictator. It just means it doesn't seem bad enough on its own to require proactive intervention. * see above * your misinterpretation of my comment almost seems deliberate, so "no u" * while they surely are your own, you don't get to demand that other people must ignore their own concerns if they belive your opinions make you untrustworthy or dangerous to them. I am allowed to base my own opinions about you on what opinions you say that you have. And I am allowed to refuse to associate with you. If you openly tell people that you want people like me dead, I will never let you do any job for me where my life might be at risk (like medical jobs or similar). You don't get to demand undeserved trust.

by Iv 7y ago

quotemstr 7y ago

Any time you give people a button labeled "make my opponent shut up", they're going to mash it all day regardless of the ostensible purpose of the button. Preventing someone attending a professional conference because he agrees with half the country on a controversial issue is simply unacceptable in a democracy regardless of what words you use to justify this behavior. Who are you to demand that people prove that speech is worthwhile before being able to speak? Why should their ability to speak depend on your evaluation of their speech's discursive worth? You're just using a lot of words to claim that you should get to decide what people are allowed to say.

Iv 7y ago
> Any time you give people a button labeled "make my opponent shut up", they're going to mash it all day regardless of the ostensible purpose of the button Bis repetita, that's why you don't have a button: you have a process. > Preventing someone attending a professional conference because he agrees with half the country on a controversial issue is simply unacceptable in a democracy regardless of what words you use to justify this behavior. Please don't refer to US as "the" country, some of us come from another country, maybe even a democracy with gasp different rules. And well, I agree it is certainly problematic, but the problem lies in the fact that half of your country defends hate speech. Which can be defined objectively, and has been by laws in my country (France). I used to be a fan of the first amendment, to believe in the slippery slope fallacy that it would lead to more violent censorship, that it would lead to the removal of controversial but worth content. I have yet to find a single example of that. > Who are you to demand that people prove that speech is worthwhile before being able to speak? Why should their ability to speak depend on your evaluation of their speech's discursive worth? You're just using a lot of words to claim that you should get to decide what people are allowed to say. Dude, I know I am pretty cool, but why do you think you have to ask me? Where did I propose you send me an email before speaking? Or that I set rules myself? I am merely saying that hate speech is something that can be clearly defined, that it has been in a way actually enforced by tribunals in France, that it does not lead to censorship of worthwhile content and it is applied a posteriori, not a priori. Believe it or not, we manage to have a healthy democracy while still forbidding people from wearing nazi apparel (which is still illegal in France)
- Fellshard 7y ago
  And this process is a kangaroo court, to all appearances, until they show the evidence by which they made their judgment.
- concordDance 7y ago
  > And well, I agree it is certainly problematic, but the problem lies in the fact that half of your country defends hate speech What definition of hate speech are you using and what event does it apply to? On a related note, here's some statements that may or may not be hate speech: 1. Africans are stupid and criminal, we shouldn't let them into the country. 2. Transsexuals are crazy people. They need medicine, not coddling. 3. Muslims have evil beliefs and blow people up and I don't want them in my country. 4. Homos are unnatural, spreading disease and sickness. We need to keep our children away from them so they don't catch the gay. I've written all four to imply a large amount of ignorance and strong emotional motivations, but they are nonetheless a crude attempt to express a public policy and a reason for it. Should they be banned? Should they also be banned if written in the form of an eloquent 80 page paper with precise terminology, strong citations from numerous studies and polls and a grounding in commonly accepted principles in political science and ethics (assume such a thing were possible)?
  - Iv 7y ago
    Yes, all these 4 statements would fall under hate speech laws in France. And yes, people have tried to turn these prejudice into eloquent pages with precise terminology or into stand up comedy and have been shut down for it. Shockingly, France is not a den of conformism yet. It is in the US that Charlie Hebdo covers are censored and where people "agree to disagree" instead of exploring their disagreements.

lliamander 7y ago

> Once again, I am still waiting of a single example of hate speech that would be valuable to a discussion and that can't be replace by non-offensive one. So, you want people to make some statements that, depending upon their country of origin, might result in criminal or social penalties (including losing their job) because if the those statements were ever tied back to them it might be seen as endorsing "hate speech"? You realize how freaking insane that is, right? You claim to be inviting argument, and yet you endorse a system which would penalize people for accepting that invitation. Listen, if you really need an example or two of meaningful ideas that might qualify, I'll provide. But it ultimately doesn't matter whether you consider them a valuable contribution to the discussion, what matters is whether other people have the right express what matters to them. If they don't, then the root of these problems can never be addressed.

Natanael_L 7y ago
So you would let yourself be treated by a doctor that is open with wanting people like you to die? You want police that have stated they hate people like you? You'd trust a cleaner that despise you? I will let you state your opinion, but you don't get to demand immunity from consequences. Some opinions are genuinely indefensible.
- lliamander 7y ago
  > I will let you state your opinion, but you don't get to demand immunity from consequences. Oh, you'll let me? How magnanimous. How about: * Nobody asked you. * Who do you think you are that I would need your permission? * I wasn't asking permission. I was asking for a indication of interest in genuine conversation. Something you clearly lack. * What opinions I hold regarding controversial issues are my own. What I was offering was examples of (potentially) prohibited things some people believe that are more nuanced than the cartoon bigotry.
  - Natanael_L 7y ago
    * whatever. Didn't say I consider myself as some benevolent dictator. It just means it doesn't seem bad enough on its own to require proactive intervention. * see above * your misinterpretation of my comment almost seems deliberate, so "no u" * while they surely are your own, you don't get to demand that other people must ignore their own concerns if they belive your opinions make you untrustworthy or dangerous to them. I am allowed to base my own opinions about you on what opinions you say that you have. And I am allowed to refuse to associate with you. If you openly tell people that you want people like me dead, I will never let you do any job for me where my life might be at risk (like medical jobs or similar). You don't get to demand undeserved trust.