4 ms·

Where does it say that hate speech is about immutable characteristics? Is that your subjective personal definition? Advertisers really don't care that much (an

Where does it say that hate speech is about immutable characteristics? Is that your subjective personal definition? Advertisers really don't care that much (and I'm speaking as a 12 year adtech veteran). They play into popular culture and are being carried along with the increasingly sensitive social environment online. Also we're talking about comments, not video content, and it's futile to try and control how others react. > "It can be easily identified using a few easy qualifiers." Anyone can find anything offensive and hateful. That's the opposite of easily identified. > "Most people who have trouble defining hate speech are people who, at least partially, agree with it." Because it's subjective, according to who's defining it.

joshuamorton 6y ago
Here's the first result from Googling "hate speech": > public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation I might broaden the final bit to "immutable characteristics" instead of the specific list they provide. For the same reason, I probably wouldn't consider the comment under discussion hate speech, but I'm really curious what you find difficult about that definition. Edit: see the followups for why something that is a social construct can be immutable, since multiple people have made the same flawed response.
- f1refly 6y ago
  So google gets to decide what's hatespeech? One step closer to the cyberpunk dystopia I'd say.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    If anything, I'm saying the opposite.
  - minhazm 6y ago
    If you Google "hate speech", it shows the definition from Wikipedia, which says: > Hate speech is defined by Cambridge Dictionary as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation". So no, Google does not decide what hate speech is. They let Wikipedia decide, which happens to go with the Cambridge Dictionary's definition.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- rukittenme 6y ago
  "Immutable characteristics"? So religion, sex, race, and sexual orientation are fair game then? You must have missed the part where half of our society has declared these things as social constructs. They are mutable by definition and people can and do take advantage of this mutability. (Note: I'm not making an argument for or against mutability of these traits -- only acknowledging the arguments existence). How about we outlaw inter-group conflict? Imagine a world where Democrats and Republicans are not allowed to disagree. That will solve all of our political problems.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    > sex, race, and sexual orientation You're going to have a hard time convicing me that any of these are mutable. While the presentation of sex and sexual orientation may be mutable (someone can be female passing or straight passing) their orientation or sex itself is not. Similarly while someone can be white passing or codeswitch, their race itself cannot be changed. Mutability of presentation doesn't make the underlying thing mutable. Nor does something being a social construct make it mutable. To put it concretely, if I'm bisexual, just because I can date only opposite-gendered people doesn't mean that I'm straight. Similarly, just because race is in many ways socially constructed doesn't mean that I can stop being black or white or whatever, at least not without convincing society to change its definitions.
    - rukittenme 6y ago
      I'm not the one making the argument. Other people are. And you are missing the point. Let me ask you a question. Should your comment be censored? > You're going to have a hard time convicing me that any of these are mutable. Hate speech (and violence). > While the presentation of sex and sexual orientation may be mutable (someone can be female passing or straight passing) their orientation or sex itself is not. Transphobic. Homophobic. > Similarly while someone can be white passing or codeswitch, their race itself cannot be changed. Racist. > doesn't mean that I can stop being black or white or whatever, at least not without convincing society to change its definitions. ... proving my point? They're not objective criteria. Which means you aren't censoring "immutable characteristics". You're censoring political speech. Opinion and group identity are mutable and they are the basis for hate speech definitions. --- If you don't think you've made three hateful statements in one comment then you haven't been paying attention. This is where the political debate is. If you're ignorant of it then you have no business appointing censors.
- manigandham 6y ago
  Encouraging violence has clear rules under the 1st amendment which is covered in my original comment. What does "expressing hate" mean? Why does it matter what characteristics are used? Is it ok to "express hate" based on the clothes you wear or job you do? If you remove the characteristics, then it just says hate speech is speech that expresses hate. It's a tautological and useless definition.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    > Is it ok to "express hate" based on the clothes you wear or job you do? Morally? No I don't think we should go around expressing hate much at all. It's not productive and, well, hateful. I think the question you mean to ask is "do you believe that expressing hate based on your clothes or job should be censored to the same extent that hate based on immutable characteristics is?" The answer to that question is also no. This is mostly due to the relative dangers. Hate speech can (and does!) lead to dehumanization and discrimination. Nipping that in the bud is worth it. But creating the outgroup needed for discrimination is much more difficult if it's based on a job or an item of clothing (unless that item of clothing is something you're required to wear that identifies you with a specific immutable characteristic, like a star or pink triangle). > So hate speech is speech that expresses hate? No, you keep changing the definition. I don't. Please stop. Your definition is useless because you keep changing it to one that you feel is useless. If you refuse to use the definitions that others use, and instead you only use one that you've defined with the intent to be nearly useless, then yes, you will find the term useless. The rest of us will continue to ignore your trolling.
    - manigandham 6y ago
      I never stated a definition, only questioned them. There's been several posted, changing from immutable characteristics to others like religion, and now also including clothing. Basically any characteristic can be used to group people, in which case mentioning a list of characteristics isn't useful for the definition. So after that, you're left with "expressing hate". So please, solve for that. What does that mean exactly?
- LudwigNagasena 6y ago
  Neither race, sex, religion or sexual orientation are "immutable characteristics". As proponents of "hate speech" teach us they are all social constructs. Moreoever, proponents of hate speech often wouldn't consider "punching up" as "hate speech".
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    Something being a social construct means that when we group people by the trait, the boundaries we use are socially defined. That does not make the underlying trait mutable.
    - LudwigNagasena 6y ago
      In the framework of "hate speech" it is completely aribtrary and mutable.
      - Dylan16807 6y ago
        Race, for example, is entirely defined by genetics and interpretation. The former is not mutable, and it doesn't matter that the latter is mutable. It's like the difference between blue and green. The boundary is a social construct, but the way an object reflects light is an immutable characteristic. No matter what you classify an object as, you're making that decision based on an immutable characteristic.

joshuamorton 6y ago

Here's the first result from Googling "hate speech": > public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation I might broaden the final bit to "immutable characteristics" instead of the specific list they provide. For the same reason, I probably wouldn't consider the comment under discussion hate speech, but I'm really curious what you find difficult about that definition. Edit: see the followups for why something that is a social construct can be immutable, since multiple people have made the same flawed response.

f1refly 6y ago
So google gets to decide what's hatespeech? One step closer to the cyberpunk dystopia I'd say.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  If anything, I'm saying the opposite.
- minhazm 6y ago
  If you Google "hate speech", it shows the definition from Wikipedia, which says: > Hate speech is defined by Cambridge Dictionary as "public speech that expresses hate or encourages violence towards a person or group based on something such as race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation". So no, Google does not decide what hate speech is. They let Wikipedia decide, which happens to go with the Cambridge Dictionary's definition.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
rukittenme 6y ago
"Immutable characteristics"? So religion, sex, race, and sexual orientation are fair game then? You must have missed the part where half of our society has declared these things as social constructs. They are mutable by definition and people can and do take advantage of this mutability. (Note: I'm not making an argument for or against mutability of these traits -- only acknowledging the arguments existence). How about we outlaw inter-group conflict? Imagine a world where Democrats and Republicans are not allowed to disagree. That will solve all of our political problems.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  > sex, race, and sexual orientation You're going to have a hard time convicing me that any of these are mutable. While the presentation of sex and sexual orientation may be mutable (someone can be female passing or straight passing) their orientation or sex itself is not. Similarly while someone can be white passing or codeswitch, their race itself cannot be changed. Mutability of presentation doesn't make the underlying thing mutable. Nor does something being a social construct make it mutable. To put it concretely, if I'm bisexual, just because I can date only opposite-gendered people doesn't mean that I'm straight. Similarly, just because race is in many ways socially constructed doesn't mean that I can stop being black or white or whatever, at least not without convincing society to change its definitions.
  - rukittenme 6y ago
    I'm not the one making the argument. Other people are. And you are missing the point. Let me ask you a question. Should your comment be censored? > You're going to have a hard time convicing me that any of these are mutable. Hate speech (and violence). > While the presentation of sex and sexual orientation may be mutable (someone can be female passing or straight passing) their orientation or sex itself is not. Transphobic. Homophobic. > Similarly while someone can be white passing or codeswitch, their race itself cannot be changed. Racist. > doesn't mean that I can stop being black or white or whatever, at least not without convincing society to change its definitions. ... proving my point? They're not objective criteria. Which means you aren't censoring "immutable characteristics". You're censoring political speech. Opinion and group identity are mutable and they are the basis for hate speech definitions. --- If you don't think you've made three hateful statements in one comment then you haven't been paying attention. This is where the political debate is. If you're ignorant of it then you have no business appointing censors.
manigandham 6y ago
Encouraging violence has clear rules under the 1st amendment which is covered in my original comment. What does "expressing hate" mean? Why does it matter what characteristics are used? Is it ok to "express hate" based on the clothes you wear or job you do? If you remove the characteristics, then it just says hate speech is speech that expresses hate. It's a tautological and useless definition.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  > Is it ok to "express hate" based on the clothes you wear or job you do? Morally? No I don't think we should go around expressing hate much at all. It's not productive and, well, hateful. I think the question you mean to ask is "do you believe that expressing hate based on your clothes or job should be censored to the same extent that hate based on immutable characteristics is?" The answer to that question is also no. This is mostly due to the relative dangers. Hate speech can (and does!) lead to dehumanization and discrimination. Nipping that in the bud is worth it. But creating the outgroup needed for discrimination is much more difficult if it's based on a job or an item of clothing (unless that item of clothing is something you're required to wear that identifies you with a specific immutable characteristic, like a star or pink triangle). > So hate speech is speech that expresses hate? No, you keep changing the definition. I don't. Please stop. Your definition is useless because you keep changing it to one that you feel is useless. If you refuse to use the definitions that others use, and instead you only use one that you've defined with the intent to be nearly useless, then yes, you will find the term useless. The rest of us will continue to ignore your trolling.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    I never stated a definition, only questioned them. There's been several posted, changing from immutable characteristics to others like religion, and now also including clothing. Basically any characteristic can be used to group people, in which case mentioning a list of characteristics isn't useful for the definition. So after that, you're left with "expressing hate". So please, solve for that. What does that mean exactly?
LudwigNagasena 6y ago
Neither race, sex, religion or sexual orientation are "immutable characteristics". As proponents of "hate speech" teach us they are all social constructs. Moreoever, proponents of hate speech often wouldn't consider "punching up" as "hate speech".
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  Something being a social construct means that when we group people by the trait, the boundaries we use are socially defined. That does not make the underlying trait mutable.
  - LudwigNagasena 6y ago
    In the framework of "hate speech" it is completely aribtrary and mutable.
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      Race, for example, is entirely defined by genetics and interpretation. The former is not mutable, and it doesn't matter that the latter is mutable. It's like the difference between blue and green. The boundary is a social construct, but the way an object reflects light is an immutable characteristic. No matter what you classify an object as, you're making that decision based on an immutable characteristic.