3 ms·

This is a weird article, as others pointed out. I found the part about hate speech and intolerance particularly nonsensical: (1) Western Europe has (more? stric

This is a weird article, as others pointed out. I found the part about hate speech and intolerance particularly nonsensical: (1) Western Europe has (more? stricter?) laws against hate speech than the U.S. (2) There are more cases of hate crime (i.e. violations of these stricter laws) in Europe. (3) Therefore, there is more intolerance in Europe than in the U.S. It's like saying no one was ever charged in the UK for driving on the left side of the road, therefore UK drivers are superior.

wilsocr88 5y ago
The point of the bit about Western Europe was to point out that hate crime laws in practice achieve the exact opposite of their intended goal: They make societies more bigoted. The US, which doesn't legislate against hate speech, has less hate crime than countries that do. The point is to figure out what works, not "keep trying what we expected to work, but it didn't, but we've already sunken the cost of believing it, so we might as well keep trying."
- bernulli 5y ago
  I understand what the author is claiming. What I am saying is that the argument does not show that at all: if, for the same action, you will be charged in country A (because of stricter hate crime laws) but not in country B, then, obviously, there will be more charges brought against people for violating this in country A than in country B (because it's not a crime in country B!). It's like comparing two countries about their drug laws. Clearly, when certain drugs are illegal in country A but not in country B, people will only be charged because of drug use in country A. But this does not mean that there is less drug use in country B - for all we know, everyone in country B could be using that drug 24/7 - it's just not a violation of the law, and thus does not lead to more charges.

3 ms·

This is a weird article, as others pointed out. I found the part about hate speech and intolerance particularly nonsensical: (1) Western Europe has (more? stric

by bernulli 5y ago

wilsocr88 5y ago
The point of the bit about Western Europe was to point out that hate crime laws in practice achieve the exact opposite of their intended goal: They make societies more bigoted. The US, which doesn't legislate against hate speech, has less hate crime than countries that do. The point is to figure out what works, not "keep trying what we expected to work, but it didn't, but we've already sunken the cost of believing it, so we might as well keep trying."
- bernulli 5y ago
  I understand what the author is claiming. What I am saying is that the argument does not show that at all: if, for the same action, you will be charged in country A (because of stricter hate crime laws) but not in country B, then, obviously, there will be more charges brought against people for violating this in country A than in country B (because it's not a crime in country B!). It's like comparing two countries about their drug laws. Clearly, when certain drugs are illegal in country A but not in country B, people will only be charged because of drug use in country A. But this does not mean that there is less drug use in country B - for all we know, everyone in country B could be using that drug 24/7 - it's just not a violation of the law, and thus does not lead to more charges.