5 ms·

Constant dehumanization of people does not eventually lead to physical violence? someone somewhere must believe that they should do something about these bad p

Constant dehumanization of people does not eventually lead to physical violence? someone somewhere must believe that they should do something about these bad people. your argument at best is in bad faith

totony 6y ago
>your argument at best is in bad faith I disagree (although this was a question more than an argument) >Constant dehumanization of people does not eventually lead to physical violence? What it might lead to is irrelevant, the act of speech does not impede anything and a lot of things have the potential to lead to violence, yet legalizing it is arbitrary at best
- mariusor 6y ago
  I would say that the right to human dignity is being impinged upon by most of the *phobic types of discourse. [edit] A citation: https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.asp...
  - totony 6y ago
    This is a good point, but in my understanding of dignity was more of a physical "no slave" than a mental "respect." I'm having trouble finding a good definition of that. Edit: i also understood the basic rights to be a property of the system rather than the actions of people; e.g. you should be free whatever people think of you; right to happiness whatever enemies you have, etc. If words can deprive you of dignity, then it seems as though the system is not giving you the feeling of safety in your rights that you should be expecting. This seems like a more logical application of the rights; since you cannot force respect out of others but can force the system to honor its promises.
    - mariusor 6y ago
      It is a property of the system in as much as the system supports the individual in keeping its right. Think in terms of property and theft, and what system does to people stealing. I agree it's not a foolproof comparison, but I think the same principles apply. On the other hand the problem is not about "thinking" hateful things (and there is a distinction about hateful and respectful that you seem to gloss over) but saying those things with the specific intention of lowering a person's (or group of persons) sense of self and dignity.
- joepie91_ 6y ago
  > the act of speech does not impede anything It absolutely does. It leads to a climate of fear for those affected by it, especially once it becomes widespread.
  - totony 6y ago
    If it becomes widespread; freedom of speech is irrelevent because the executive power bows down to populism. I agree with words being able to elicit strong emotional response in people, but I disagree that this should serve as a basis for legislation. I do not think it is a strong enough basis to risk affecting the spread of ideas and discourse.

totony 6y ago

>your argument at best is in bad faith I disagree (although this was a question more than an argument) >Constant dehumanization of people does not eventually lead to physical violence? What it might lead to is irrelevant, the act of speech does not impede anything and a lot of things have the potential to lead to violence, yet legalizing it is arbitrary at best

mariusor 6y ago
I would say that the right to human dignity is being impinged upon by most of the *phobic types of discourse. [edit] A citation: https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.asp...
- totony 6y ago
  This is a good point, but in my understanding of dignity was more of a physical "no slave" than a mental "respect." I'm having trouble finding a good definition of that. Edit: i also understood the basic rights to be a property of the system rather than the actions of people; e.g. you should be free whatever people think of you; right to happiness whatever enemies you have, etc. If words can deprive you of dignity, then it seems as though the system is not giving you the feeling of safety in your rights that you should be expecting. This seems like a more logical application of the rights; since you cannot force respect out of others but can force the system to honor its promises.
  - mariusor 6y ago
    It is a property of the system in as much as the system supports the individual in keeping its right. Think in terms of property and theft, and what system does to people stealing. I agree it's not a foolproof comparison, but I think the same principles apply. On the other hand the problem is not about "thinking" hateful things (and there is a distinction about hateful and respectful that you seem to gloss over) but saying those things with the specific intention of lowering a person's (or group of persons) sense of self and dignity.
joepie91_ 6y ago
> the act of speech does not impede anything It absolutely does. It leads to a climate of fear for those affected by it, especially once it becomes widespread.
- totony 6y ago
  If it becomes widespread; freedom of speech is irrelevent because the executive power bows down to populism. I agree with words being able to elicit strong emotional response in people, but I disagree that this should serve as a basis for legislation. I do not think it is a strong enough basis to risk affecting the spread of ideas and discourse.