102 ms·

I'm not a hateful person nor a supporter of them, and I haven't read the article. But can you explain why you think someone saying hateful things to someone el

I'm not a hateful person nor a supporter of them, and I haven't read the article. But can you explain why you think someone saying hateful things to someone else "denies their fundamental right to exist"? This is a core argument that keeps getting spouted, and it's irrational nonsense. If I said, "all programmers are terrible, lazy people and they can all go to hell", that's a terrible thing to say. But it in no way affects your right to _exist_, let alone any other right. The burden is on you to give evidence, because it's total nonsense.

d_e_solomon 6y ago
There's this crazy fallacy that speech doesn't cause people to change behavior. If I influence people consistently by saying that Programmers are terrible people; convince a bunch of people that it's true; then policies that target programmers are much easier to make into law. Slavery existed in part because people thought black people were subhuman and plenty of people argued that quite publicly. Or consider a gay child whose teachers say that gay people are going to hell? Do you think that wouldn't have an impact? I really don't understand this idea that speech doesn't have consequences that cause disparate impact.
- PaulStatezny 6y ago
  You're sidestepping my accusation. You said that hateful speech "denies [a person their] fundamental right to exist". You have not provided any evidence that this is true. What you _have_ done is argued that speech has consequences and that people can influence others. (Which nobody would disagree with.) You've also painted a theoretical picture where people go on a campaign to grow hate for a people group by spreading terrible propaganda, many buy into it, and the masses are turned against the people group. I never said this isn't possible, but it's certainly not an automatic outcome of hateful speech, and it doesn't support your assertion in question. At that point, their life is threatened because of the evil of these theoretical masses. I hate that I have to break it to you, but the masses of civilized society are not out to kill any people group, regardless of anyone's hateful speech. The speech is not the problem. The hearts of evil men and women are. You can't suppress speech enough to get rid of evil in the hearts of people.
  - haswell 6y ago
    > I hate that I have to break it to you, but the masses of civilized society are not out to kill any people group, regardless of anyone's hateful speech. Have a look through history, and you'll find many examples where this statement is absolutely not true. Is it true today? Maybe not, but it's reasonable to be worried about the direction we're going, considering where we came from. > The speech is not the problem. The hearts of evil men and women are. You can't suppress speech enough to get rid of evil in the hearts of people. If the heart is evil, but that evil is not expressed or carried out, is that really an issue? If speech is the manifestation of that evil, is it really meaningful to draw a distinction between the two? You might be technically correct, but you're really just arguing semantics. And to what end?
    - PaulStatezny 6y ago
      > Have a look through history, and you'll find many examples where this statement is absolutely not true. Granted, but this is in response to a side comment of mine that was not part of my main argument. > you're really just arguing semantics False. I'm arguing the difference between direct, automatic outcomes of speech, and outcomes that only happen because of the evil that was already in someone's heart.
      - haswell 6y ago
        > False. I'm arguing the difference between direct, automatic outcomes of speech, and outcomes that only happen because of the evil that was already in someone's heart. I'm really not sure what you're trying to argue any more. Where did the evil come from? Maybe it was learned by upbringing. Maybe it was born out of traumatic experiences. Nature vs. nurture and all of that. So can you expand on what you see as the material difference between speech, the source of that speech (evil heart), the source of that evil heart (upbringing?). And how any of that makes a difference to the end result? What do you say about someone who unintentionally and with good meaning aligns themselves with hate (e.g. the All Lives Matter folks)? The things said may not be born of evil, but the end result is just the same. You haven't successfully clarified what exactly you're trying to argue. Edit: I should clarify - I think it's useful to examine the evil heart, and the source of that, as it helps us understand where the speech comes from, but ultimately, none of that changes the direct or indirect result of the speech itself.
- banads 6y ago
  >I really don't understand this idea that speech doesn't have consequences that cause disparate impact. It seems you are tilting at windmills. Where in this discussion has anyone claimed that words do not have effects?
- slowmovintarget 6y ago
  > Slavery existed in part because people thought black people were subhuman and plenty of people argued that quite publicly. Slavery has existed in every human society, everywhere in the world. You are correct that this was the pathological, disgusting justification for keeping it, at least in the United States in the 19th century, but that isn't why it existed, not even in part.
  - banads 6y ago
    It's funny (and quite stupid) how people try to define slavery and racism as a uniquely white American problem from the past, and not a human problem of the present. Slavery still exists. There are more people living in slavery now than ever before in history.
  - d_e_solomon 6y ago
    You don't think that speech that condones, justifies, and glorifies slavery wasn't part of the reason why it continued to exist in the United States as long as it did? I find that a very odd argument.
- cpursley 6y ago
  Interesting take on history. Around these parts Ottomans captured and sold white slaves ("Slavs") and Caucasian ("from the Caucasus" - not the modern definition) people for transport across the Black Sea to be used in Turkish harems (mostly women and young boys). Ottoman slavery persisted until around WWI. Not a lot of people from African descent involved in this particular slave trade. There's even photos: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Meccan_merchant_and_his_Circassian_slave.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Meccan_m... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Ottoman_Empire#Ottoman_Sexual_Slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Ottoman_Empire#...
- frogpelt 6y ago
  You've created a straw man and called it a crazy fallacy. No one believes that speech doesn't affect behavior. But there is a cost to allowing speech to be offensive to certain races, groups, or lifestyles. There is also a cost to restricting speech such that no one feels offended. Which cost is higher? Which cost are you willing to pay? And furthermore, what is actually an effective plan. Is it realistic to think you can shut people up from being offensive? Is that even a workable plan? Many people feel that the cost of restricting speech so that we can protect groups is vastly higher than the cost of allowing offensive speech.
threatofrain 6y ago
When engaged in public speech the burden is not on anyone to give evidence. The burden is on the people to act independently to any messaging or advertising if they should wish to be so burdened or unburdened.
- d_e_solomon 6y ago
  Ahh, so it's cool then that I advocate to employers that people who say racist things should be fired; and it's the employers responsibility to duly way that so as not be burdened or unburdened? "Cancel culture" is fine by your argument then.
ekianjo 6y ago
> This is a core argument that keeps getting spouted, and it's irrational nonsense. Because apparently recently "words are violence" and now we even hear "silence is violence". This is so 1789 French Revolution style.
- cpursley 6y ago
  The is more Cultural Revolution than French Revolution. Either way, it's a dangerous development that poses serious risk to free societies.
  - d_e_solomon 6y ago
    Yes, massive starvation and death due to inept industrial policies is the same as getting fired from your job for advocating hate speech. Next you'll tell me I'm literally hitler.
    - cpursley 6y ago
      I don't think you understand what the Cultural Revolution was: "His students beat him to death during the Cultural Revolution. The school called it a suicide: https://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-china-cultural-revolution-suicides-snap-story.html https://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-china-cultural-revo... See any similarities?
      - d_e_solomon 6y ago
        Can you see how firing somebody because they use hate speech isn't the same thing as killing someone because they are a Russian language professor?
        banads 6y ago
        Can you see how the former is a link in the same "chain of destruction"[1] as the latter? [1]https://youtu.be/c8N0TDsjpkE https://youtu.be/c8N0TDsjpkE You may be disinclined to watch this short video, but perhaps you would be surprised to see that it actually gives strong credence to the problems which you are seemingly arguing against, and which I too care deeply about.
ziddoap 6y ago
Just my 2c, I have no foot in the game. I think the difference is that laws aren't proposed or created based on programmers being lazy (to follow your analogy). However, there /are/ laws denying fundamental rights of, say, LGBT people (marriage, etc.). That might be boiled down to "denies their fundamental right to exist" in a heated debate.
- roenxi 6y ago
  If I insisted on labelling all women as men they'd have a right to exist. Men and women both have a right to exist and a valuable place in society. The basic position is crazy nonsense. It is so stupid that I doubt the trans people actually came up with it. They likely have a more nuanced view of their own existence - potentially even defined by their accomplishments rather than their gender. Perish the thought.
  - ziddoap 6y ago
    You are taking an extremely literal position on the word "exist", which may be where your disconnect is coming from. Let's say you are LGBT in a place that denies you certain medical care, marriage (and associated tax/estate benefits), denial from many stores, etc. Alongside other discrimination. Yes, you still /literally/ exist. But you also have an argument to say that your existence is not valued as much as others, and many parts of existing (see above examples) are denied to you. It's a bit more pithy to say that your right to exist is being challenged, than having to dance around your extremely literal definition of existing.
    - roenxi 6y ago
      > But you also have an argument to say that your existence is not valued as much as others, and many parts of existing (see above examples) are denied to you. I'm a man. I didn't make any special choice to be a man. I got labelled from birth, same as most of the other men. Someone may not like me enforcing the same standards on them as I do myself, or may think the standard unreasonable, but they aren't being valued any less if I apply a standard to them that I do to myself. And it isn't an argument or slogan I've heard any actual trans people making; they tend to have non-metaphorical complaints.
haswell 6y ago
There's a difference between making a glaringly preposterous claim about programmers, and buying into or participating in systematic hatred against certain groups. If you change your statement to "All people of color are terrible, lazy people and they can go to hell", you will rightly receive serious backlash due to the historical context, in which fundamental human rights have absolutely been denied. Now rephrase that again to target people of Jewish descent, and it it becomes even more horrifying and closer to "denying the fundamental right to exist". Context matters. Are people taking some things too far? Possibly. But it's far from being a simple issue to navigate. Edit: Please use your words, not the downvote button. I'm an open minded person and would like to understand your position if you disagree.

d_e_solomon 6y ago

There's this crazy fallacy that speech doesn't cause people to change behavior. If I influence people consistently by saying that Programmers are terrible people; convince a bunch of people that it's true; then policies that target programmers are much easier to make into law. Slavery existed in part because people thought black people were subhuman and plenty of people argued that quite publicly. Or consider a gay child whose teachers say that gay people are going to hell? Do you think that wouldn't have an impact? I really don't understand this idea that speech doesn't have consequences that cause disparate impact.

PaulStatezny 6y ago
You're sidestepping my accusation. You said that hateful speech "denies [a person their] fundamental right to exist". You have not provided any evidence that this is true. What you _have_ done is argued that speech has consequences and that people can influence others. (Which nobody would disagree with.) You've also painted a theoretical picture where people go on a campaign to grow hate for a people group by spreading terrible propaganda, many buy into it, and the masses are turned against the people group. I never said this isn't possible, but it's certainly not an automatic outcome of hateful speech, and it doesn't support your assertion in question. At that point, their life is threatened because of the evil of these theoretical masses. I hate that I have to break it to you, but the masses of civilized society are not out to kill any people group, regardless of anyone's hateful speech. The speech is not the problem. The hearts of evil men and women are. You can't suppress speech enough to get rid of evil in the hearts of people.
- haswell 6y ago
  > I hate that I have to break it to you, but the masses of civilized society are not out to kill any people group, regardless of anyone's hateful speech. Have a look through history, and you'll find many examples where this statement is absolutely not true. Is it true today? Maybe not, but it's reasonable to be worried about the direction we're going, considering where we came from. > The speech is not the problem. The hearts of evil men and women are. You can't suppress speech enough to get rid of evil in the hearts of people. If the heart is evil, but that evil is not expressed or carried out, is that really an issue? If speech is the manifestation of that evil, is it really meaningful to draw a distinction between the two? You might be technically correct, but you're really just arguing semantics. And to what end?
  - PaulStatezny 6y ago
    > Have a look through history, and you'll find many examples where this statement is absolutely not true. Granted, but this is in response to a side comment of mine that was not part of my main argument. > you're really just arguing semantics False. I'm arguing the difference between direct, automatic outcomes of speech, and outcomes that only happen because of the evil that was already in someone's heart.
    - haswell 6y ago
      > False. I'm arguing the difference between direct, automatic outcomes of speech, and outcomes that only happen because of the evil that was already in someone's heart. I'm really not sure what you're trying to argue any more. Where did the evil come from? Maybe it was learned by upbringing. Maybe it was born out of traumatic experiences. Nature vs. nurture and all of that. So can you expand on what you see as the material difference between speech, the source of that speech (evil heart), the source of that evil heart (upbringing?). And how any of that makes a difference to the end result? What do you say about someone who unintentionally and with good meaning aligns themselves with hate (e.g. the All Lives Matter folks)? The things said may not be born of evil, but the end result is just the same. You haven't successfully clarified what exactly you're trying to argue. Edit: I should clarify - I think it's useful to examine the evil heart, and the source of that, as it helps us understand where the speech comes from, but ultimately, none of that changes the direct or indirect result of the speech itself.
banads 6y ago
>I really don't understand this idea that speech doesn't have consequences that cause disparate impact. It seems you are tilting at windmills. Where in this discussion has anyone claimed that words do not have effects?
slowmovintarget 6y ago
> Slavery existed in part because people thought black people were subhuman and plenty of people argued that quite publicly. Slavery has existed in every human society, everywhere in the world. You are correct that this was the pathological, disgusting justification for keeping it, at least in the United States in the 19th century, but that isn't why it existed, not even in part.
- banads 6y ago
  It's funny (and quite stupid) how people try to define slavery and racism as a uniquely white American problem from the past, and not a human problem of the present. Slavery still exists. There are more people living in slavery now than ever before in history.
- d_e_solomon 6y ago
  You don't think that speech that condones, justifies, and glorifies slavery wasn't part of the reason why it continued to exist in the United States as long as it did? I find that a very odd argument.
cpursley 6y ago
Interesting take on history. Around these parts Ottomans captured and sold white slaves ("Slavs") and Caucasian ("from the Caucasus" - not the modern definition) people for transport across the Black Sea to be used in Turkish harems (mostly women and young boys). Ottoman slavery persisted until around WWI. Not a lot of people from African descent involved in this particular slave trade. There's even photos: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Meccan_merchant_and_his_Circassian_slave.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Meccan_m... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Ottoman_Empire#Ottoman_Sexual_Slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Ottoman_Empire#...
frogpelt 6y ago
You've created a straw man and called it a crazy fallacy. No one believes that speech doesn't affect behavior. But there is a cost to allowing speech to be offensive to certain races, groups, or lifestyles. There is also a cost to restricting speech such that no one feels offended. Which cost is higher? Which cost are you willing to pay? And furthermore, what is actually an effective plan. Is it realistic to think you can shut people up from being offensive? Is that even a workable plan? Many people feel that the cost of restricting speech so that we can protect groups is vastly higher than the cost of allowing offensive speech.

threatofrain 6y ago

When engaged in public speech the burden is not on anyone to give evidence. The burden is on the people to act independently to any messaging or advertising if they should wish to be so burdened or unburdened.

d_e_solomon 6y ago
Ahh, so it's cool then that I advocate to employers that people who say racist things should be fired; and it's the employers responsibility to duly way that so as not be burdened or unburdened? "Cancel culture" is fine by your argument then.

ekianjo 6y ago

> This is a core argument that keeps getting spouted, and it's irrational nonsense. Because apparently recently "words are violence" and now we even hear "silence is violence". This is so 1789 French Revolution style.

cpursley 6y ago
The is more Cultural Revolution than French Revolution. Either way, it's a dangerous development that poses serious risk to free societies.
- d_e_solomon 6y ago
  Yes, massive starvation and death due to inept industrial policies is the same as getting fired from your job for advocating hate speech. Next you'll tell me I'm literally hitler.
  - cpursley 6y ago
    I don't think you understand what the Cultural Revolution was: "His students beat him to death during the Cultural Revolution. The school called it a suicide: https://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-china-cultural-revolution-suicides-snap-story.html https://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-china-cultural-revo... See any similarities?
    - d_e_solomon 6y ago
      Can you see how firing somebody because they use hate speech isn't the same thing as killing someone because they are a Russian language professor?
      - banads 6y ago
        Can you see how the former is a link in the same "chain of destruction"[1] as the latter? [1]https://youtu.be/c8N0TDsjpkE https://youtu.be/c8N0TDsjpkE You may be disinclined to watch this short video, but perhaps you would be surprised to see that it actually gives strong credence to the problems which you are seemingly arguing against, and which I too care deeply about.

ziddoap 6y ago

Just my 2c, I have no foot in the game. I think the difference is that laws aren't proposed or created based on programmers being lazy (to follow your analogy). However, there /are/ laws denying fundamental rights of, say, LGBT people (marriage, etc.). That might be boiled down to "denies their fundamental right to exist" in a heated debate.

roenxi 6y ago
If I insisted on labelling all women as men they'd have a right to exist. Men and women both have a right to exist and a valuable place in society. The basic position is crazy nonsense. It is so stupid that I doubt the trans people actually came up with it. They likely have a more nuanced view of their own existence - potentially even defined by their accomplishments rather than their gender. Perish the thought.
- ziddoap 6y ago
  You are taking an extremely literal position on the word "exist", which may be where your disconnect is coming from. Let's say you are LGBT in a place that denies you certain medical care, marriage (and associated tax/estate benefits), denial from many stores, etc. Alongside other discrimination. Yes, you still /literally/ exist. But you also have an argument to say that your existence is not valued as much as others, and many parts of existing (see above examples) are denied to you. It's a bit more pithy to say that your right to exist is being challenged, than having to dance around your extremely literal definition of existing.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    > But you also have an argument to say that your existence is not valued as much as others, and many parts of existing (see above examples) are denied to you. I'm a man. I didn't make any special choice to be a man. I got labelled from birth, same as most of the other men. Someone may not like me enforcing the same standards on them as I do myself, or may think the standard unreasonable, but they aren't being valued any less if I apply a standard to them that I do to myself. And it isn't an argument or slogan I've heard any actual trans people making; they tend to have non-metaphorical complaints.

haswell 6y ago

There's a difference between making a glaringly preposterous claim about programmers, and buying into or participating in systematic hatred against certain groups. If you change your statement to "All people of color are terrible, lazy people and they can go to hell", you will rightly receive serious backlash due to the historical context, in which fundamental human rights have absolutely been denied. Now rephrase that again to target people of Jewish descent, and it it becomes even more horrifying and closer to "denying the fundamental right to exist". Context matters. Are people taking some things too far? Possibly. But it's far from being a simple issue to navigate. Edit: Please use your words, not the downvote button. I'm an open minded person and would like to understand your position if you disagree.