4 ms·

> 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

by 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.

by Iv 7y ago

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.