9 ms·

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 explici

by 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.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
  I would love to see a source showing Noam Chomsky advocating that antivaxers should be executed or "left to starve".
  - denton-scratch 3y ago
    They probably meant something like this (no call for executions!) https://news.yahoo.com/noam-chomsky-unvaccinated-remove-themselves-171900487.html https://news.yahoo.com/noam-chomsky-unvaccinated-remove-them...
    - mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
      Seems like all he really said was that people who refuse to get vaccinated should take responsibility for the fact that they're objectively a threat to other people and that dealing with the consequences of their own actions is ultimately their problem. Interpreting that as him saying they should starve is certainly... creative.
      - lumb63 3y ago
        > "How can we get food to them?" Chomsky told YouTube's Primo Radical on Sunday. "Well, that's actually their problem." What if a majority group, maybe white Americans, decided that a minority group, maybe one with a high crime rate, like African Americans [1], was dangerous and should be segregated from society, and said that access to food was their problem to figure out? That they were a high-crime group, and it was dangerous to society if they continued to operate in it? I imagine you would be singing a different tune if those were the groups in discussion. [1]: https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-releases-2020-incident-based-data https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-releases-2020-in...
        denton-scratch 3y ago
        Chomsky is arguing that unvaccinated people are a danger to those they come into contact with. Not a potential danger - a real danger. It's not like having brown skin; you can't choose not to have brown skin. People are free to not be vaccinated; and other people are free to shun them. That's his point, the way I read it.
- kristopolous 3y ago
  > should Kathy Griffin have been deplatformed when she showed a picture of her holding the severed head of a likeness of Trump She was. Fired almost immediately. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kathy-griffin-fired-cnn-over-gruesome-photo-trump-n766716 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kathy-griffin-fired-cnn... > When Hillary called 1/2 of Trump supporters "deplorables" isn't that hate speech? She apologized as soon as it happened https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basket_of_deplorables https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basket_of_deplorables > anti-vax people should be executed or at least left to starve to death (Chomsky said something like this) Incorrect. He called for classic quarantining which is exactly what happened before vaccines. https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/noam-chomsky-calls-for-unvaccinated-to-be-isolated-from-society-b2182947.html https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/noam-chomsky-calls-for... > Hate speech is hopelessly vaguely defined Incorrect! Most organizations have reached wildly close consensus on the matter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
  - rgoulter 3y ago
    > > Hate speech is hopelessly vaguely defined > Incorrect! Most organizations have reached wildly close consensus on the matter That wikipedia article indicates: """Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".""" There was a bill in Florida which: """The legislation would prohibit individuals from making people “feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin.”""" https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/19/us/florida-education-critical-race-theory-bill/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/19/us/florida-education-crit... Absent any other context, "hate speech is animosity/disparagement towards ... race" is consistent with what the bill protects against: "don't make people feel distress on account of race". The concerns are ostensibly in the same direction. I suspect those opposed to the Florida bill would really prefer a more narrow interpretation of 'hate speech', and those in favour would prefer a broader interpretation.
    - kristopolous 3y ago
hayst4ck 3y ago
I agree-ish with you, but I think it would help if you made it clear why: "We should kill all the Russians in Ukraine" is different than "we should kill the russians who don't think we are a country." (When does context matter?) I also think it would help if you made it clear if there is a distinction between "We should kill all the Jews" and "we should kill all the people who want/are planning to kill all the Jews." (When does precedence matter?) I would assert that your definiton should probably be changed to speech used to oppress. Violence inciting speech against the oppressed seems like hate speech, but I don't think I'm on board with violence inciting speech against opressors being classified as hate speech. Of course the opressors always see themselves as the oppressed so that muddies things even more. What is your test for whether something is hate speech or not?
- ShroudedNight 3y ago
  > "We should kill all the Russians in Ukraine" is different than "we should kill the russians who don't think we are a country." I think you dropped some nuance. Killing all Russians who are in Ukraine in an effort to violently coerce Ukrainians and their government to comply with the will of the Russian government is different from both "We should kill all the Russians in Ukraine" and "We should kill the Russians who don't think we are a country"
  - hayst4ck 3y ago
    Yes, I was not being careful enough. "We should kill all the Russians in Ukraine" -> "We should kill all the Russians invading Ukraine." is probably the right phrasing for the question I was asking.
    - hutzlibu 3y ago
      Yes and this is a important distinction, as there are many russians in the ukraine not supporting the invasion. They happen to live there. And they feel threatened with such statements, as they are sadly way too common.
      - 3y ago
laratied 3y ago
[dead]

by Zen1th 3y ago

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.
mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
I would love to see a source showing Noam Chomsky advocating that antivaxers should be executed or "left to starve".
- denton-scratch 3y ago
  They probably meant something like this (no call for executions!) https://news.yahoo.com/noam-chomsky-unvaccinated-remove-themselves-171900487.html https://news.yahoo.com/noam-chomsky-unvaccinated-remove-them...
  - mtlmtlmtlmtl 3y ago
    Seems like all he really said was that people who refuse to get vaccinated should take responsibility for the fact that they're objectively a threat to other people and that dealing with the consequences of their own actions is ultimately their problem. Interpreting that as him saying they should starve is certainly... creative.
    - lumb63 3y ago
      > "How can we get food to them?" Chomsky told YouTube's Primo Radical on Sunday. "Well, that's actually their problem." What if a majority group, maybe white Americans, decided that a minority group, maybe one with a high crime rate, like African Americans [1], was dangerous and should be segregated from society, and said that access to food was their problem to figure out? That they were a high-crime group, and it was dangerous to society if they continued to operate in it? I imagine you would be singing a different tune if those were the groups in discussion. [1]: https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-releases-2020-incident-based-data https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-releases/fbi-releases-2020-in...
      - denton-scratch 3y ago
        Chomsky is arguing that unvaccinated people are a danger to those they come into contact with. Not a potential danger - a real danger. It's not like having brown skin; you can't choose not to have brown skin. People are free to not be vaccinated; and other people are free to shun them. That's his point, the way I read it.
kristopolous 3y ago
> should Kathy Griffin have been deplatformed when she showed a picture of her holding the severed head of a likeness of Trump She was. Fired almost immediately. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kathy-griffin-fired-cnn-over-gruesome-photo-trump-n766716 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/kathy-griffin-fired-cnn... > When Hillary called 1/2 of Trump supporters "deplorables" isn't that hate speech? She apologized as soon as it happened https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basket_of_deplorables https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basket_of_deplorables > anti-vax people should be executed or at least left to starve to death (Chomsky said something like this) Incorrect. He called for classic quarantining which is exactly what happened before vaccines. https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/noam-chomsky-calls-for-unvaccinated-to-be-isolated-from-society-b2182947.html https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/noam-chomsky-calls-for... > Hate speech is hopelessly vaguely defined Incorrect! Most organizations have reached wildly close consensus on the matter https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
- rgoulter 3y ago
  > > Hate speech is hopelessly vaguely defined > Incorrect! Most organizations have reached wildly close consensus on the matter That wikipedia article indicates: """Hate speech is "usually thought to include communications of animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, colour, national origin, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation".""" There was a bill in Florida which: """The legislation would prohibit individuals from making people “feel discomfort, guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on account of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin.”""" https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/19/us/florida-education-critical-race-theory-bill/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2022/01/19/us/florida-education-crit... Absent any other context, "hate speech is animosity/disparagement towards ... race" is consistent with what the bill protects against: "don't make people feel distress on account of race". The concerns are ostensibly in the same direction. I suspect those opposed to the Florida bill would really prefer a more narrow interpretation of 'hate speech', and those in favour would prefer a broader interpretation.
  - kristopolous 3y ago

hayst4ck 3y ago

I agree-ish with you, but I think it would help if you made it clear why: "We should kill all the Russians in Ukraine" is different than "we should kill the russians who don't think we are a country." (When does context matter?) I also think it would help if you made it clear if there is a distinction between "We should kill all the Jews" and "we should kill all the people who want/are planning to kill all the Jews." (When does precedence matter?) I would assert that your definiton should probably be changed to speech used to oppress. Violence inciting speech against the oppressed seems like hate speech, but I don't think I'm on board with violence inciting speech against opressors being classified as hate speech. Of course the opressors always see themselves as the oppressed so that muddies things even more. What is your test for whether something is hate speech or not?

ShroudedNight 3y ago
> "We should kill all the Russians in Ukraine" is different than "we should kill the russians who don't think we are a country." I think you dropped some nuance. Killing all Russians who are in Ukraine in an effort to violently coerce Ukrainians and their government to comply with the will of the Russian government is different from both "We should kill all the Russians in Ukraine" and "We should kill the Russians who don't think we are a country"
- hayst4ck 3y ago
  Yes, I was not being careful enough. "We should kill all the Russians in Ukraine" -> "We should kill all the Russians invading Ukraine." is probably the right phrasing for the question I was asking.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    Yes and this is a important distinction, as there are many russians in the ukraine not supporting the invasion. They happen to live there. And they feel threatened with such statements, as they are sadly way too common.
    - 3y ago

laratied 3y ago

[dead]