6 ms·

>banning homophobia is merely banning violent censorship of lgbt people. 'violent'? If I say "I don't like gays". How is that violent? If we have freedom of

>banning homophobia is merely banning violent censorship of lgbt people. 'violent'? If I say "I don't like gays". How is that violent? If we have freedom of speech that applies to everyone. LGBT or homophobic. Each have the same right to speech, neither has the right to threaten with violence. Redefining speech you don't like as 'violent' isn't right though.

onion2k 4y ago
If I say "I don't like gays". How is that violent? Speech can cause a physical reaction just as much as a punch in the face can. If someone says they hate you for existing that's violence. This is a good explaination https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/14/opinion/sunday/when-is-speech-violence.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/14/opinion/sunday/when-is-sp... Also "Redefining speech you don't like as 'violent' isn't right though." That's exactly what you're doing with the word 'violence' in your post. You're claiming it doesn't have a meaning that it definitely does, in the literal look-it-up-in-a-dictionary sense.
- intimidated 4y ago
  How about this: "I hate evil people. You are evil unless you pay me reparations." Should the state jail someone for saying that?
  - onion2k 4y ago
    Yes. It's literally a crime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimidation#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimidation#United_States Note that the way you phrased that, "You are evil unless you pay me reparations." makes it so that the person isn't considered evil if they pay. That is significantly different to "You are evil therefore you pay me reparations.", in which the burden of proof of evilness is not based on payment. The person is still considered evil if they pay; they pay because they accept that and want to make things right. That's important.
    - intimidated 4y ago
      Then "You are evil unless you stop having sex with men." should pass the sniff test.
    - staticman2 4y ago
      Your link doesn't support your assertion that the phrase "I hate evil people. You are evil unless you pay me reparations." meets the definition of the crime of intimidation.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- nerdawson 4y ago
  > When is speech violence? When you need to justify physical assault. Speech is not violence. Silence is not violence. Using those terms is a convenient way to escalate a situation and rationalise an attack.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- topynate 4y ago
  I read the piece. Leaving aside the weighty issue of whether Milo Yiannopoulos' presence can violently shorten people's telomeres or methylate their CpG sites, there's the question of whether broadening a definition licenses broadening a prohibition. People who accept without question that the govt should stop interpersonal violence in the narrow sense may well not accept at all that it should stop it in its broader senses. Think about the friar's famous line from Romeo and Juliet, "These violent desires have violent ends". "Violent" has two different meanings in this line. It should be clear to anyone that the violence of Romeo and Juliet's love or sexual attraction for each other is not susceptible to the same legal sanction as the clan warfare that erupts in its consequence. The common law prohibition of violence pertains to physical violence. Defining speech as "illegally violent" is absolutely a redefinition.
- causi 4y ago
  Speech can cause a release of hormones that make you feel negative emotions. That is not violence any more than causing the same effect by, for example, teaching someone about how their ancestors committed a genocide is violence. You do not have a right to not hear things that make you unhappy.
  - hackerlight 4y ago
    Excessively loud noise in residential areas is banned because it releases hormones that make you feel bad. Although there's less room for such a ban to go wrong, obviously. I agree that the label "violence" is manipulative. Using the label "harm" instead would be more accurate.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      Excessive loud noise is not an example of free speech. It also does physically damage one, like damaging your hearing.
      - hackerlight 4y ago
        I know it isn't. I'm saying there's precedent for things being banned merely because of a stress response. And the kinds of noise that get banned aren't just ones that damage your hearing.
        filoleg 4y ago
        Physical hearing damage is something I would hardly refer to as just "stress response".
        hackerlight 4y ago
        And I just said it is not only sounds that damage hearing that are banned. If I am stomping on my floor for six hours straight and propagating noise pollution to my downstairs neighbor, I am getting a police visit. No hearing damage perpetrated.
- benj111 4y ago
  >in the literal look-it-up-in-a-dictionary sense violence vī′ə-ləns noun 1. Behavior or treatment in which physical force is exerted for the purpose of causing damage or injury. 2. Intense force or great power, as in natural phenomena. 3. Extreme or powerful emotion or expression Which? Because it isn't physical force. And I don't think 3 applies as that tends not to be directed at anyone, and there's no requirement for the 'expression' to be hateful. Further. That means saying "I hate homophobes" is also violence. So we can't say that either. And then we're on a slippery slope where if you say anything that anyone disagrees with is violence.
  - anon84873628 4y ago
    In the last paragraph you're ignoring the part where the protected categories are based on a logical analysis of the problems in society. Homophobes aren't a protected class because they aren't systematically persecuted for something outside their control.
    - trention 4y ago
      >Homophobes aren't a protected class because they aren't systematically persecuted for something outside their control. You cannot assert that if you cannot demonstrate that homophobia is 0% genetic (I am using "genetic" loosely here). In reality, like most complex human traits, it's partially genetic and partially environmental, hence it is outside the control of at least a subset of those exhibiting it.
      - anon84873628 4y ago
        So what? Being a serial murderer could be outside the control of at least a subset of serial murderers, but that doesn't mean we don't make laws about it. Society is still built on the axiom of free will, whether it is true or not. You're also skipping over the "systematically persecuted" part. I guess you could say the modern liberal distaste of homophobes is "systematic", but it's such a weird example to choose given the paradox of tolerance.
- seti0Cha 4y ago
  Can't read that article because it's paywalled, but you seem to be implying that provoking a physical reaction in someone else is tantamount to an assault. Is that really what you are saying? Is this not an inevitable part of interacting with each other?
  - hackerlight 4y ago
    That is the argument, yes. That speech can cause harm because we have a social nervous system and chronic stress can shorten life span. A better argument is to appeal to the history of genocide. There's a causal connection between speech and culture on the one hand, and genocide on the other.
    - benj111 4y ago
      But aren't we trying to break the causal link by banning incitement to violence? Surely the discussion is about whether to move one step back on the causality chain.
      - hackerlight 4y ago
        That's not enough to break the causal link. If you have a culture where everyone hates Jews due to memes propagated by speech, then you get 40 percent of people wanting to vote for a Hitler, who then brings the violence part after he's in power. Or you get lone wolf terrorists that are motivated by speech that isn't technically incitement.
        benj111 4y ago
        What speech laws were in place in Weimar Germany? What was Hitler advocating for before he took power? Without that this isn't the evidence you say it is. Lone wolf terrorists seems a better example. I assume you're referring to school shooters. The problem is that's an issue of the US, not of speech laws. To me it seems more like the psychology of people jumping off golden gate bridge.
- snovv_crash 4y ago
  What if what you just said about violence causes a physical reaction in someone? Should we cancel you for it?
- dataduck 4y ago
  Speech can cause a physical reaction equivalent to violence? That sounds less like a rational claim and more like the... > onion2k Oh, I see what you did there. Come on people, don't feed the trolls.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    I don't get it.
    - Strom 4y ago
      The Onion is a well known source of purposely incorrect information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Onion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Onion
- ch4s3 4y ago
  > Speech can cause a physical reaction just as much as a punch in the face can This is farcical on it's face. There is simply no evidence that being offended or made a little uncomfortable is going to hurt you. You do after all have great power to control your own mental state, emotions, and reaction to negative externalities. This is a cornerstone of some of the oldest philosophical traditions in the world and well supported by experimentation. Cultivating a mindset of fragility only hurts yourself. But being called bad names will never hurt you like being physically beaten, words can't break bones or rupture your internal organs.
- _-david-_ 4y ago
  According to the article some forms of "adversity" can be violence. You disagree with my view and expressed it. If I make the claim your post caused my blood to boil, that could be considered a symptom of inflammation mentioned in the article. As the article points out, that can shorten my life and as such is tantamount to violence. Therefore you have committed an act of violence towards me. I would ask you to please turn yourself into the appropriate authorities and inform me of the court date so I can testify against you.

onion2k 4y ago

If I say "I don't like gays". How is that violent? Speech can cause a physical reaction just as much as a punch in the face can. If someone says they hate you for existing that's violence. This is a good explaination https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/14/opinion/sunday/when-is-speech-violence.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/14/opinion/sunday/when-is-sp... Also "Redefining speech you don't like as 'violent' isn't right though." That's exactly what you're doing with the word 'violence' in your post. You're claiming it doesn't have a meaning that it definitely does, in the literal look-it-up-in-a-dictionary sense.

intimidated 4y ago
How about this: "I hate evil people. You are evil unless you pay me reparations." Should the state jail someone for saying that?
- onion2k 4y ago
  Yes. It's literally a crime. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimidation#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimidation#United_States Note that the way you phrased that, "You are evil unless you pay me reparations." makes it so that the person isn't considered evil if they pay. That is significantly different to "You are evil therefore you pay me reparations.", in which the burden of proof of evilness is not based on payment. The person is still considered evil if they pay; they pay because they accept that and want to make things right. That's important.
  - intimidated 4y ago
    Then "You are evil unless you stop having sex with men." should pass the sniff test.
  - staticman2 4y ago
    Your link doesn't support your assertion that the phrase "I hate evil people. You are evil unless you pay me reparations." meets the definition of the crime of intimidation.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nerdawson 4y ago
> When is speech violence? When you need to justify physical assault. Speech is not violence. Silence is not violence. Using those terms is a convenient way to escalate a situation and rationalise an attack.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
topynate 4y ago
I read the piece. Leaving aside the weighty issue of whether Milo Yiannopoulos' presence can violently shorten people's telomeres or methylate their CpG sites, there's the question of whether broadening a definition licenses broadening a prohibition. People who accept without question that the govt should stop interpersonal violence in the narrow sense may well not accept at all that it should stop it in its broader senses. Think about the friar's famous line from Romeo and Juliet, "These violent desires have violent ends". "Violent" has two different meanings in this line. It should be clear to anyone that the violence of Romeo and Juliet's love or sexual attraction for each other is not susceptible to the same legal sanction as the clan warfare that erupts in its consequence. The common law prohibition of violence pertains to physical violence. Defining speech as "illegally violent" is absolutely a redefinition.
causi 4y ago
Speech can cause a release of hormones that make you feel negative emotions. That is not violence any more than causing the same effect by, for example, teaching someone about how their ancestors committed a genocide is violence. You do not have a right to not hear things that make you unhappy.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  Excessively loud noise in residential areas is banned because it releases hormones that make you feel bad. Although there's less room for such a ban to go wrong, obviously. I agree that the label "violence" is manipulative. Using the label "harm" instead would be more accurate.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    Excessive loud noise is not an example of free speech. It also does physically damage one, like damaging your hearing.
    - hackerlight 4y ago
      I know it isn't. I'm saying there's precedent for things being banned merely because of a stress response. And the kinds of noise that get banned aren't just ones that damage your hearing.
      - filoleg 4y ago
        Physical hearing damage is something I would hardly refer to as just "stress response".
        hackerlight 4y ago
        And I just said it is not only sounds that damage hearing that are banned. If I am stomping on my floor for six hours straight and propagating noise pollution to my downstairs neighbor, I am getting a police visit. No hearing damage perpetrated.
benj111 4y ago
>in the literal look-it-up-in-a-dictionary sense violence vī′ə-ləns noun 1. Behavior or treatment in which physical force is exerted for the purpose of causing damage or injury. 2. Intense force or great power, as in natural phenomena. 3. Extreme or powerful emotion or expression Which? Because it isn't physical force. And I don't think 3 applies as that tends not to be directed at anyone, and there's no requirement for the 'expression' to be hateful. Further. That means saying "I hate homophobes" is also violence. So we can't say that either. And then we're on a slippery slope where if you say anything that anyone disagrees with is violence.
- anon84873628 4y ago
  In the last paragraph you're ignoring the part where the protected categories are based on a logical analysis of the problems in society. Homophobes aren't a protected class because they aren't systematically persecuted for something outside their control.
  - trention 4y ago
    >Homophobes aren't a protected class because they aren't systematically persecuted for something outside their control. You cannot assert that if you cannot demonstrate that homophobia is 0% genetic (I am using "genetic" loosely here). In reality, like most complex human traits, it's partially genetic and partially environmental, hence it is outside the control of at least a subset of those exhibiting it.
    - anon84873628 4y ago
      So what? Being a serial murderer could be outside the control of at least a subset of serial murderers, but that doesn't mean we don't make laws about it. Society is still built on the axiom of free will, whether it is true or not. You're also skipping over the "systematically persecuted" part. I guess you could say the modern liberal distaste of homophobes is "systematic", but it's such a weird example to choose given the paradox of tolerance.
seti0Cha 4y ago
Can't read that article because it's paywalled, but you seem to be implying that provoking a physical reaction in someone else is tantamount to an assault. Is that really what you are saying? Is this not an inevitable part of interacting with each other?
- hackerlight 4y ago
  That is the argument, yes. That speech can cause harm because we have a social nervous system and chronic stress can shorten life span. A better argument is to appeal to the history of genocide. There's a causal connection between speech and culture on the one hand, and genocide on the other.
  - benj111 4y ago
    But aren't we trying to break the causal link by banning incitement to violence? Surely the discussion is about whether to move one step back on the causality chain.
    - hackerlight 4y ago
      That's not enough to break the causal link. If you have a culture where everyone hates Jews due to memes propagated by speech, then you get 40 percent of people wanting to vote for a Hitler, who then brings the violence part after he's in power. Or you get lone wolf terrorists that are motivated by speech that isn't technically incitement.
      - benj111 4y ago
        What speech laws were in place in Weimar Germany? What was Hitler advocating for before he took power? Without that this isn't the evidence you say it is. Lone wolf terrorists seems a better example. I assume you're referring to school shooters. The problem is that's an issue of the US, not of speech laws. To me it seems more like the psychology of people jumping off golden gate bridge.
snovv_crash 4y ago
What if what you just said about violence causes a physical reaction in someone? Should we cancel you for it?
dataduck 4y ago
Speech can cause a physical reaction equivalent to violence? That sounds less like a rational claim and more like the... > onion2k Oh, I see what you did there. Come on people, don't feed the trolls.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  I don't get it.
  - Strom 4y ago
    The Onion is a well known source of purposely incorrect information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Onion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Onion
ch4s3 4y ago
> Speech can cause a physical reaction just as much as a punch in the face can This is farcical on it's face. There is simply no evidence that being offended or made a little uncomfortable is going to hurt you. You do after all have great power to control your own mental state, emotions, and reaction to negative externalities. This is a cornerstone of some of the oldest philosophical traditions in the world and well supported by experimentation. Cultivating a mindset of fragility only hurts yourself. But being called bad names will never hurt you like being physically beaten, words can't break bones or rupture your internal organs.
_-david-_ 4y ago
According to the article some forms of "adversity" can be violence. You disagree with my view and expressed it. If I make the claim your post caused my blood to boil, that could be considered a symptom of inflammation mentioned in the article. As the article points out, that can shorten my life and as such is tantamount to violence. Therefore you have committed an act of violence towards me. I would ask you to please turn yourself into the appropriate authorities and inform me of the court date so I can testify against you.