3 ms·

So impeding the speech of two people is a better outcome than impeding the speech of none? I don't get it. >the situation in America where everyone is a fuckin

by vadfa 5y ago

So impeding the speech of two people is a better outcome than impeding the speech of none? I don't get it. >the situation in America where everyone is a fucking edgelord in their spare time So don't read them, as easy as that.

hnbad 5y ago
I'm just going to leave this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P55t6eryY3g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P55t6eryY3g
noduerme 5y ago
> So impeding the speech of two people is a better outcome than impeding the speech of none? I don't get it. I mean, it's not a better strategy and it's not right - what I'm trying to say is that impeding one person's speech leads to impeding another person's speech, and that's how you end up with totalitarianism, regardless of who's in control. The trouble is that whoever speaks loudest never respects the mechanism that allowed them to speak in the first place, or extends that right to anyone else. So as to what leads to a better outcome, I'd say the results aren't in yet.
gherkinnn 5y ago
> So don't read them, as easy as that. If only I knew the content of something before I read it. I would have to limit my internet use to Signal conversations with my dog to avoid most of tech’s poison machine.
- vadfa 5y ago
  That is a good idea, it is what I did. I don't visit any social networks, I don't read the news, and I stop talking to those who send me information that I'm not interested in.
  - soco 5y ago
    Yet here you are commenting along everybody else on HN. Unfortunately real world situations are not that black and white so they cannot be solved with such black and white solutions...
rexreed 5y ago
> So don't read them, as easy as that. Hate speech and radicalizing speech isn't meant for those that aren't reading or listening to that speech, but rather to motivate those who do listen to act out the things that the speakers are saying. The speakers hide behind "I didn't do anything, I just said something" and count on those who take their words into their heart and convert them into action. This is the danger of hate speech. It's not enough for good people to just ignore. It requires more effort to prevent the talking from being doing. If the term "hate speech" doesn't sit well, I prefer to use the term "rhetorical violence". Basically, rhetorical violence is speech using the imagery and terminology of violence intended to inspire violent thoughts in others. The video posted below by another commenter shows how radicalizing speech is used to motivate others to commit acts that the speaker themselves would not commit or would claim not to support. In essence, the speakers are claiming the rights to rhetorical violence while being disconnected from actual violence that the speech might incite, inspire, or support.
- vadfa 5y ago
  We already have laws against violence.
  - rexreed 5y ago
    We also have laws against threatening violence.
  - csee 5y ago
    Reality doesn't fit so neatly into these categories that you're trying to construct, where speech is perfectly harmless unless it's direct incitement to violence and then suddenly it's harmful. That might be how the legal system works but it's not how reality works. Motivating radicals and spewing racism might not be direct incitement to violence, but history shows that it can have significant negative consequences. The causal pathway is usually non-linear and hard to attribute. But, behind many genocides is racial hate speech that's been allowed to fester for years. Behind many lone wolf terrorist attacks is propaganda, even if nobody directly incited it. I'm not arguing for or against any specific hate speech law here. Just trying to point out there's a grey area that your categorical thinking isn't good at addressing.

by vadfa 5y ago

hnbad 5y ago

I'm just going to leave this here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P55t6eryY3g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P55t6eryY3g

noduerme 5y ago

> So impeding the speech of two people is a better outcome than impeding the speech of none? I don't get it. I mean, it's not a better strategy and it's not right - what I'm trying to say is that impeding one person's speech leads to impeding another person's speech, and that's how you end up with totalitarianism, regardless of who's in control. The trouble is that whoever speaks loudest never respects the mechanism that allowed them to speak in the first place, or extends that right to anyone else. So as to what leads to a better outcome, I'd say the results aren't in yet.

gherkinnn 5y ago

> So don't read them, as easy as that. If only I knew the content of something before I read it. I would have to limit my internet use to Signal conversations with my dog to avoid most of tech’s poison machine.

vadfa 5y ago
That is a good idea, it is what I did. I don't visit any social networks, I don't read the news, and I stop talking to those who send me information that I'm not interested in.
- soco 5y ago
  Yet here you are commenting along everybody else on HN. Unfortunately real world situations are not that black and white so they cannot be solved with such black and white solutions...

rexreed 5y ago

> So don't read them, as easy as that. Hate speech and radicalizing speech isn't meant for those that aren't reading or listening to that speech, but rather to motivate those who do listen to act out the things that the speakers are saying. The speakers hide behind "I didn't do anything, I just said something" and count on those who take their words into their heart and convert them into action. This is the danger of hate speech. It's not enough for good people to just ignore. It requires more effort to prevent the talking from being doing. If the term "hate speech" doesn't sit well, I prefer to use the term "rhetorical violence". Basically, rhetorical violence is speech using the imagery and terminology of violence intended to inspire violent thoughts in others. The video posted below by another commenter shows how radicalizing speech is used to motivate others to commit acts that the speaker themselves would not commit or would claim not to support. In essence, the speakers are claiming the rights to rhetorical violence while being disconnected from actual violence that the speech might incite, inspire, or support.

vadfa 5y ago
We already have laws against violence.
- rexreed 5y ago
  We also have laws against threatening violence.
- csee 5y ago
  Reality doesn't fit so neatly into these categories that you're trying to construct, where speech is perfectly harmless unless it's direct incitement to violence and then suddenly it's harmful. That might be how the legal system works but it's not how reality works. Motivating radicals and spewing racism might not be direct incitement to violence, but history shows that it can have significant negative consequences. The causal pathway is usually non-linear and hard to attribute. But, behind many genocides is racial hate speech that's been allowed to fester for years. Behind many lone wolf terrorist attacks is propaganda, even if nobody directly incited it. I'm not arguing for or against any specific hate speech law here. Just trying to point out there's a grey area that your categorical thinking isn't good at addressing.