11 ms·

The entire concept of "hate speech" should be thrown away.

by indy 3y ago

thr-nrg 3y ago
[dead]
nme01 3y ago
There was always some concept like this to shut people’s mouth (both for good and bad reasons). Throughout the ages it was called many names: taboo, blasphemy etc.
- detrites 3y ago
  That's an interesting insight. Indeed, the proponents of what may be modern-day equivalents, seem also to have superstition or religious-like beliefs when it comes to these topics. Also can be as hard to reason with.
unpopular42 3y ago
Wait, if we did that, how would we silence people we disagree with?
NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
It goes deeper even than that. I don't know if my childhood was typical, but for me the concept of hatred itself is narrow. Isn't it supposed to be an emotion that's especially visceral? If a person feels hatred, if they hate someone or something, shouldn't we see their jaws clench, shouldn't their blood pressure go up? Won't it be difficult for them to form coherent sentences, and so on? But today, "hate" is any time you say something someone dislikes or the politics of which they disagree with. It's nearly a meaningless word now. The entire concept of "hate" might be worth discarding.
- mbork_pl 3y ago
  Hate (like love) is not an emotion, but an act of will.
  - echelon 3y ago
    > Hate (like love) is not an emotion, but an act of will. Like cheering for a football team. The memetic encoding of who our political friends and foes are is just like a football rivalry. It's self-reinforcing and thrives on conflict and escalation. Here's a mental picture of two different people: - blue haired, sex-positive, polyamorous, anti-capitalist trans activist - wife beater-wearing hillbilly wearing a cross; "don't tread on me" bumper stickers; gun owner If you formed an association with these two and painted one of them as "unpleasant", then the virus lives inside you. It's going to take a lot of hard work (and money) to climb out of this pit. And because of the difficulty, it's unlikely to change anytime soon. (I don't know if we can do it.)
    - mbork_pl 3y ago
      I have no idea how this is relevant to my comment.
  - brabel 3y ago
    So you think you can choose rationally who you love (or hate)?
    - bt4u 3y ago
      [dead]
    - mbork_pl 3y ago
      Well, of course I can! Isn't that obvious? That's how love (and hate) work. That said, I can also choose irrationally. But the point - that I can choose - still stands.
      - brabel 3y ago
        But you're so wrong. Emotions are the opposite of rational. You have much less control over your own actions than you realize, and definitely very little over your feelings. If that were not the case, depression would just not exist. Read up on neuroscience. It may open your eyes to the reality of being human. Some articles to get started: https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/unconscious-branding/202012/our-brains-make-our-minds-we-know-it https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/unconscious-brandi... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  "Hate", like many other words similarly abused, has steadily lost meaning due to deliberate overuse and overambiguity. "Hate speech" doesn't factually exist anyway, all the sincerely objectional speech it claims to pertain to are already described since long before "hate speech" came into the lexicon: You speak lies and/or falsehoods about someone? That's libel[1] and/or slander[2] and you can be sued for it. You provoke someone into violence? Them's fightin' words and are not protected under the 1st Amendment.[3] You change your behaviour towards someone based on their race, nationality, sex, or creed? That is discrimination and illegal regardless the context or undertones.[4] --------------- [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel [2]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/slander https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/slander [3]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words [4]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/discrimination https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/discrimination
benatkin 3y ago
Nope. You don't have to go very far to look for a legitimate example of hate speech. Facebook itself. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-59558090 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-59558090 The concept is abused more than half the time, but if it were dropped another one would pop up. So getting rid of the term would only have a negative impact.
- mantas 3y ago
  We should get rid of „hate speech“ and clamp down on violence inducing speech. With a massive caveat for people participating in ongoing war. Fuck FB for banning people over using slurs or even legit historic terms towards muscovite soldiers.
mullingitover 3y ago
That seems pretty anti free speech. I agree that hate speech should end up in the trash, but people should be free to say what is on their mind (just as we’re free to put labels on it).
ClassyJacket 3y ago
Agreed, especially in this age where biological facts are considered 'hate speech'.
- AlecSchueler 3y ago
  I suspect you may have been giving more than "biological facts" or bringing them up in a way that was intended to shut down someone else's expression. Basic facts are very unlikely to be considered hateful if shared respectfully and with good reason.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    I think insisting calling someone male, when they identify as female is indeed already considered hate speech by some people. I think even by some organisations. (but since I try to stay away from such issues, I don't have a example at hand) I would consider this "rude", but not hate speech.
    - AlecSchueler 3y ago
      It's denying someone the right to assert their identity. It's like insisting on referring to someone from Tibet as Chinese.
      - Georgelemental 3y ago
        What is special about identity, that when someone asserts their identity is X then it is uniquely wrong for someone else to disagree? Is identity not just another fact about the world, about which reasonable people can have different opinions?
      - hutzlibu 3y ago
        Denying would imply for me, activly supressing someones identity. Merley saying it, is rude and offensive, but just another opinion and should maybe not put in the same bag, as hate speech, with the usual association of violence. "It's like insisting on referring to someone from Tibet as Chinese. " And this is the same. Someone saying it, is just a opinion and when the chinese government mandates it, than this is called political oppression and not hate speech.
Zen1th 3y ago
Hate speech is the difference between "I disagree with your opinion" and "You should be killed for saying this". The latter is hate speech for which its explicit goal is to exclude the victim from the debate by inciting hate on them. When done by multiple individuals, you get harassment and the very important risk of harming the victim (directly or indirectly, morally or physically). Let's say there's a group called "We Will Kill Them All", you might say that this is just words, but people live by words (politics is literally just that) and hate speech directly and explicitly encourages people to take an act on the victim and harm them. You might say that any individual could do that, but do not underestimate the power of a group binding people in hate, because this is one of the strongest bonds you can make (We v.s. Them) and peer pressure makes people ready to do much more horrible things than they'd do by themselves. One such example is the NSDAP party, many of their members wouldn't have been against the Jews if they had never interacted with this party. So do not underestimate the power of hate speech. To go back to the Facebook case here, the problem isn't the concept of "hate speech", the problem is Facebook's bad enforcement of it cuz legally there's just nothing against this.
- skellington 3y ago
  Then, should Kathy Griffin have been deplatformed when she showed a picture of her holding the severed head of a likeness of Trump? How is that not hate speech? Can I show a picture of a severed head of something looking like Nancy Pelosi? When certain political groups say "we have to get in their faces" is that an incitement to violence or at least harassment? Can I say, "in my opinion, politician X should be executed for crimes against America?" Is that incitement or just a protected statement of opinion? When Hillary called 1/2 of Trump supporters "deplorables" isn't that hate speech? I heard plenty of people say that anti-vax people should be executed or at least left to starve to death (Chomsky said something like this). Is that hate or an opinion? Hate speech is hopelessly vaguely defined and will be abused by whichever side is in power.
  - Jordrok 3y ago
    > When Hillary called 1/2 of Trump supporters "deplorables" isn't that hate speech? No, it is unequivocally, objectively not hate speech. Nowhere in there is there a threat of violence. I don't really care if it hurts your feelings. Make better choices in life.

The entire concept of "hate speech" should be thrown away.

by indy 3y ago

The entire concept of "hate speech" should be thrown away.

thr-nrg 3y ago

[dead]

nme01 3y ago

There was always some concept like this to shut people’s mouth (both for good and bad reasons). Throughout the ages it was called many names: taboo, blasphemy etc.

detrites 3y ago
That's an interesting insight. Indeed, the proponents of what may be modern-day equivalents, seem also to have superstition or religious-like beliefs when it comes to these topics. Also can be as hard to reason with.

unpopular42 3y ago

Wait, if we did that, how would we silence people we disagree with?

NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago

It goes deeper even than that. I don't know if my childhood was typical, but for me the concept of hatred itself is narrow. Isn't it supposed to be an emotion that's especially visceral? If a person feels hatred, if they hate someone or something, shouldn't we see their jaws clench, shouldn't their blood pressure go up? Won't it be difficult for them to form coherent sentences, and so on? But today, "hate" is any time you say something someone dislikes or the politics of which they disagree with. It's nearly a meaningless word now. The entire concept of "hate" might be worth discarding.

mbork_pl 3y ago
Hate (like love) is not an emotion, but an act of will.
- echelon 3y ago
  > Hate (like love) is not an emotion, but an act of will. Like cheering for a football team. The memetic encoding of who our political friends and foes are is just like a football rivalry. It's self-reinforcing and thrives on conflict and escalation. Here's a mental picture of two different people: - blue haired, sex-positive, polyamorous, anti-capitalist trans activist - wife beater-wearing hillbilly wearing a cross; "don't tread on me" bumper stickers; gun owner If you formed an association with these two and painted one of them as "unpleasant", then the virus lives inside you. It's going to take a lot of hard work (and money) to climb out of this pit. And because of the difficulty, it's unlikely to change anytime soon. (I don't know if we can do it.)
  - mbork_pl 3y ago
    I have no idea how this is relevant to my comment.
- brabel 3y ago
  So you think you can choose rationally who you love (or hate)?
  - bt4u 3y ago
    [dead]
  - mbork_pl 3y ago
    Well, of course I can! Isn't that obvious? That's how love (and hate) work. That said, I can also choose irrationally. But the point - that I can choose - still stands.
    - brabel 3y ago
      But you're so wrong. Emotions are the opposite of rational. You have much less control over your own actions than you realize, and definitely very little over your feelings. If that were not the case, depression would just not exist. Read up on neuroscience. It may open your eyes to the reality of being human. Some articles to get started: https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/unconscious-branding/202012/our-brains-make-our-minds-we-know-it https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/unconscious-brandi... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will
Dalewyn 3y ago
"Hate", like many other words similarly abused, has steadily lost meaning due to deliberate overuse and overambiguity. "Hate speech" doesn't factually exist anyway, all the sincerely objectional speech it claims to pertain to are already described since long before "hate speech" came into the lexicon: You speak lies and/or falsehoods about someone? That's libel[1] and/or slander[2] and you can be sued for it. You provoke someone into violence? Them's fightin' words and are not protected under the 1st Amendment.[3] You change your behaviour towards someone based on their race, nationality, sex, or creed? That is discrimination and illegal regardless the context or undertones.[4] --------------- [1]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/libel [2]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/slander https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/slander [3]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words [4]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/discrimination https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/discrimination

benatkin 3y ago

Nope. You don't have to go very far to look for a legitimate example of hate speech. Facebook itself. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-59558090 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-59558090 The concept is abused more than half the time, but if it were dropped another one would pop up. So getting rid of the term would only have a negative impact.

mantas 3y ago
We should get rid of „hate speech“ and clamp down on violence inducing speech. With a massive caveat for people participating in ongoing war. Fuck FB for banning people over using slurs or even legit historic terms towards muscovite soldiers.

mullingitover 3y ago

That seems pretty anti free speech. I agree that hate speech should end up in the trash, but people should be free to say what is on their mind (just as we’re free to put labels on it).

ClassyJacket 3y ago

Agreed, especially in this age where biological facts are considered 'hate speech'.

AlecSchueler 3y ago
I suspect you may have been giving more than "biological facts" or bringing them up in a way that was intended to shut down someone else's expression. Basic facts are very unlikely to be considered hateful if shared respectfully and with good reason.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  I think insisting calling someone male, when they identify as female is indeed already considered hate speech by some people. I think even by some organisations. (but since I try to stay away from such issues, I don't have a example at hand) I would consider this "rude", but not hate speech.
  - AlecSchueler 3y ago
    It's denying someone the right to assert their identity. It's like insisting on referring to someone from Tibet as Chinese.
    - Georgelemental 3y ago
      What is special about identity, that when someone asserts their identity is X then it is uniquely wrong for someone else to disagree? Is identity not just another fact about the world, about which reasonable people can have different opinions?
    - hutzlibu 3y ago
      Denying would imply for me, activly supressing someones identity. Merley saying it, is rude and offensive, but just another opinion and should maybe not put in the same bag, as hate speech, with the usual association of violence. "It's like insisting on referring to someone from Tibet as Chinese. " And this is the same. Someone saying it, is just a opinion and when the chinese government mandates it, than this is called political oppression and not hate speech.

Zen1th 3y ago

Hate speech is the difference between "I disagree with your opinion" and "You should be killed for saying this". The latter is hate speech for which its explicit goal is to exclude the victim from the debate by inciting hate on them. When done by multiple individuals, you get harassment and the very important risk of harming the victim (directly or indirectly, morally or physically). Let's say there's a group called "We Will Kill Them All", you might say that this is just words, but people live by words (politics is literally just that) and hate speech directly and explicitly encourages people to take an act on the victim and harm them. You might say that any individual could do that, but do not underestimate the power of a group binding people in hate, because this is one of the strongest bonds you can make (We v.s. Them) and peer pressure makes people ready to do much more horrible things than they'd do by themselves. One such example is the NSDAP party, many of their members wouldn't have been against the Jews if they had never interacted with this party. So do not underestimate the power of hate speech. To go back to the Facebook case here, the problem isn't the concept of "hate speech", the problem is Facebook's bad enforcement of it cuz legally there's just nothing against this.

skellington 3y ago
Then, should Kathy Griffin have been deplatformed when she showed a picture of her holding the severed head of a likeness of Trump? How is that not hate speech? Can I show a picture of a severed head of something looking like Nancy Pelosi? When certain political groups say "we have to get in their faces" is that an incitement to violence or at least harassment? Can I say, "in my opinion, politician X should be executed for crimes against America?" Is that incitement or just a protected statement of opinion? When Hillary called 1/2 of Trump supporters "deplorables" isn't that hate speech? I heard plenty of people say that anti-vax people should be executed or at least left to starve to death (Chomsky said something like this). Is that hate or an opinion? Hate speech is hopelessly vaguely defined and will be abused by whichever side is in power.
- Jordrok 3y ago
  > When Hillary called 1/2 of Trump supporters "deplorables" isn't that hate speech? No, it is unequivocally, objectively not hate speech. Nowhere in there is there a threat of violence. I don't really care if it hurts your feelings. Make better choices in life.