5 ms·

Little Johnny knows the rules in the house. If he calls his sister Betty the C word, that is VERY bad and Betty can hit him with a stick, take his toys and make

Little Johnny knows the rules in the house. If he calls his sister Betty the C word, that is VERY bad and Betty can hit him with a stick, take his toys and make him be sent to his room. But everyone knows that being called a d@#k is harmless, so Betty calls Johnny that all the time. When he calls her a d@#k she just laughs and says 'I am a girl - do you even know what d@#k means?' Funnily enough, Johnny seems to call Betty the C word whenever he gets a new toy that Betty wants to play with. Never mind, he'll learn. Even though Johnny is sometimes quiet for no reason and seems to have become withdrawn, this is a good and fair set of rules and everyone is much happier with them, even Johnny, that little d@#k.

wolverine876 5y ago
I don't want to try to guess your point; could you state it?
- Dracophoenix 5y ago
  The point is double standards exist.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    That's a broad statement! But in relation to hate speech, see my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27608017 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27608017
    - Dracophoenix 5y ago
      The purpose of my statement was to summarize the preceding poster's hypothetical example into its barest premise. Any particular claim of broadness you gleaned from my one sentence is for you to prove. As far as your assessment of hate speech is concerned, I read it and was about to compose similar arguments to those of Andy_G11. I have little to add. As far as what I personally think about your premise that certain speech from certain individuals should be classified differently whether in law or in general society, it's bunk. I don't know how you think any such law would functionally work in a world with free press, mass publishing, the Internet, etc. and, even if followed, I don't see how "hate speech" laws won't be abused to silence individuals. If you want to see how laws like this that "work" in practice, look up lèse-majesté.
- Andy_G11 5y ago
  Laws that cannot be applied equally to everyone are subject to abuse; the concept of 'hate speech' (defined here https://www.rightsforpeace.org/hate-speech https://www.rightsforpeace.org/hate-speech as communication that ‘attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender, or other identity factor’) is subjective. For example, is the word 'Karen' hate speech? It is used derogatively against white women (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_(pejorative) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_(pejorative): "the term was increasingly being used in media and on social media as a general-purpose term for middle class white women"). It seems to fit the definition - pejorative, discriminatory, based on colour, gender (and economic class?)... But it is the fashion for this term to be in widespread use and for it to be applied generally to dismiss and demean this demographic (The Guardian even calling 2020 the Year of the Karen). Introducing rules based on subjective standards will make it impossible for them to be impartially applied. It is difficult enough apply laws even in cases where it should be far easier to judge rights violations (workplace bullying, rape, domestic abuse). Subjective rules will be open to abuse.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    Thanks. (Some caveats: To talk about the elephant in the room, we both know we are engaging in an old debate about double-standards and 'reverse discrimination'. Let's not pretend it's some novel thing we're proposing. Also, I don't know about the credibility of the first citation's definition of hate speech, and I think Wikipedia has little credibility (no idea why I'm suddenly seeing so many people citing it on HN) - it might as well have been written by you or me. So I'm not commenting on those.) Some points: * There are degrees to threats and danger, of course; communication depends on words, context, emotion, the parties involved, etc. Every insult is not a threat and does not rise to the level of hate speech in a significant way. Perhaps we should use the term 'threatening hate speech', to distinguish it for these purposes. * There is a clear standard necessary to 'threatening hate speech' that is omitted from the reverse discrimination argument: The vulnerability of the target. To reuse an example I gave in another comment, if a Swede is locked in a room with 30 Norwegians and says, 'Norwegian scum should die', people might back away a bit but it's not much threat. But if a Norwegian says 'Swedish scum should die', that's a threatening and dangerous situation for the Swede. In U.S. law, this standard is expressed as 'protected classes' (afaik). Hate speech is only a double-standard if we omit this factor. The consequences to vulnerable people are very well established and very dangerous, arguably the worst events of human history; we can't just ignore that because we lack the perfect solution. Doing nothing is not the null hypothesis, it's an alternative with clearly worse results. * Subjective judgments are less desirable than objective measures, but that's life; the world is just too complicated and in almost every case we don't have time for scientific accuracy. It's a theoretical argument to require objectivity; reality, as everyone can't help but observe, requires and uses endless judgment. That doesn't make all judgments good or equal (another theoretical argument). Note, for example, that courts have a complicated system designed to output good subjective judgments by judge and jury; they expect and accept subjectivity. But to the extent a rule requires subjective judgment (which is every rule, as every one has edge cases), I agree that it would be better to do it objectively, we should do that where possible, and that we have to be careful.

wolverine876 5y ago

I don't want to try to guess your point; could you state it?

Dracophoenix 5y ago
The point is double standards exist.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  That's a broad statement! But in relation to hate speech, see my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27608017 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27608017
  - Dracophoenix 5y ago
    The purpose of my statement was to summarize the preceding poster's hypothetical example into its barest premise. Any particular claim of broadness you gleaned from my one sentence is for you to prove. As far as your assessment of hate speech is concerned, I read it and was about to compose similar arguments to those of Andy_G11. I have little to add. As far as what I personally think about your premise that certain speech from certain individuals should be classified differently whether in law or in general society, it's bunk. I don't know how you think any such law would functionally work in a world with free press, mass publishing, the Internet, etc. and, even if followed, I don't see how "hate speech" laws won't be abused to silence individuals. If you want to see how laws like this that "work" in practice, look up lèse-majesté.
Andy_G11 5y ago
Laws that cannot be applied equally to everyone are subject to abuse; the concept of 'hate speech' (defined here https://www.rightsforpeace.org/hate-speech https://www.rightsforpeace.org/hate-speech as communication that ‘attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender, or other identity factor’) is subjective. For example, is the word 'Karen' hate speech? It is used derogatively against white women (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_(pejorative) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_(pejorative): "the term was increasingly being used in media and on social media as a general-purpose term for middle class white women"). It seems to fit the definition - pejorative, discriminatory, based on colour, gender (and economic class?)... But it is the fashion for this term to be in widespread use and for it to be applied generally to dismiss and demean this demographic (The Guardian even calling 2020 the Year of the Karen). Introducing rules based on subjective standards will make it impossible for them to be impartially applied. It is difficult enough apply laws even in cases where it should be far easier to judge rights violations (workplace bullying, rape, domestic abuse). Subjective rules will be open to abuse.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  Thanks. (Some caveats: To talk about the elephant in the room, we both know we are engaging in an old debate about double-standards and 'reverse discrimination'. Let's not pretend it's some novel thing we're proposing. Also, I don't know about the credibility of the first citation's definition of hate speech, and I think Wikipedia has little credibility (no idea why I'm suddenly seeing so many people citing it on HN) - it might as well have been written by you or me. So I'm not commenting on those.) Some points: * There are degrees to threats and danger, of course; communication depends on words, context, emotion, the parties involved, etc. Every insult is not a threat and does not rise to the level of hate speech in a significant way. Perhaps we should use the term 'threatening hate speech', to distinguish it for these purposes. * There is a clear standard necessary to 'threatening hate speech' that is omitted from the reverse discrimination argument: The vulnerability of the target. To reuse an example I gave in another comment, if a Swede is locked in a room with 30 Norwegians and says, 'Norwegian scum should die', people might back away a bit but it's not much threat. But if a Norwegian says 'Swedish scum should die', that's a threatening and dangerous situation for the Swede. In U.S. law, this standard is expressed as 'protected classes' (afaik). Hate speech is only a double-standard if we omit this factor. The consequences to vulnerable people are very well established and very dangerous, arguably the worst events of human history; we can't just ignore that because we lack the perfect solution. Doing nothing is not the null hypothesis, it's an alternative with clearly worse results. * Subjective judgments are less desirable than objective measures, but that's life; the world is just too complicated and in almost every case we don't have time for scientific accuracy. It's a theoretical argument to require objectivity; reality, as everyone can't help but observe, requires and uses endless judgment. That doesn't make all judgments good or equal (another theoretical argument). Note, for example, that courts have a complicated system designed to output good subjective judgments by judge and jury; they expect and accept subjectivity. But to the extent a rule requires subjective judgment (which is every rule, as every one has edge cases), I agree that it would be better to do it objectively, we should do that where possible, and that we have to be careful.