4 ms·

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 t

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.
    - PaulStatezny 6y ago
      If I say, "programmers suck", and then you decide that you agree and you're gonna go kill a bunch of programmers... am I responsible for the murderous violent hatred in your heart? Of course not. But that's the same argument that's being made here. And it's obviously nonsense. There's a reason that there is a legal (U.S.) precedent that allows for speech, but not directly telling people to commit violent acts. Of course I am culpable if I tell you to go kill programmers. If I didn't say that and you decide to do it, it's ridiculous to hold me responsible. I hope that clarifies my perspective sufficiently.

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.
  - PaulStatezny 6y ago
    If I say, "programmers suck", and then you decide that you agree and you're gonna go kill a bunch of programmers... am I responsible for the murderous violent hatred in your heart? Of course not. But that's the same argument that's being made here. And it's obviously nonsense. There's a reason that there is a legal (U.S.) precedent that allows for speech, but not directly telling people to commit violent acts. Of course I am culpable if I tell you to go kill programmers. If I didn't say that and you decide to do it, it's ridiculous to hold me responsible. I hope that clarifies my perspective sufficiently.