3 ms·

>What is any less hateful about them? Has anyone suggested otherwise? Seriously, has anyone made the argument that a death threat is ok? This is the typical r

by chez17 14y ago

>What is any less hateful about them? Has anyone suggested otherwise? Seriously, has anyone made the argument that a death threat is ok? This is the typical response of "look the other side does it to!". On top of it, the tweet you linked to has nothing to do with racism, just stupid partisanship. If you're so concerned about that, write your own blog post. >The problem I have with the lack of objectivity on racism is that it's actually counter-productive to solving the problem. You brought up a tweet that has literally nothing to do with racism, how does that counteract your claims of 'lack of objectivity'?

DigitalJack 14y ago
Nobody calls a death threat "hate speech." That is implicitly suggesting that the people who use the term "hate speech" don't consider it hateful. Now if you queried someone directly, they would of course say it's hateful (I would think). So what that ends up suggesting is the term "hate speech" is really just a short-hand for racially derogatory statements. AKA racist comments. People have decided the term racist and racism are too detached and not emotionally impactful, so now we have "hate speech" which is more forceful. It does, unfortunately, seem to imply that somehow threatening someone with death is less hateful than racism. Now, the post you were replying to seems to be a reaction to the post which uses racist tweets and hate tweets interchangably. That apparently stuck in his craw, so to speak, because there were plenty of other very hateful tweets going on during this election that had nothing to do with racism, yet they are excluded from a post discussing "hate tweets."
- rauljara 14y ago
  >People have decided the term racist and racism are too detached and not emotionally impactful, so now we have "hate speech" which is more forceful. This isn't why the term hate speech came about. The term hate speech came about in order to have a word applies not only to racism, but also to sexism, anti-semitism, homophobic language, etc. It is an umbrella term that refers to speech that is directed towards people solely based on the (usually immutable) group to which they belong. It is not a synonym for hateful speech. Hateful is its own term. E.g. "I going to kill white people because I hate them so much" == hate speech (and also hateful). "I'm going to kill that guy because I hate him so much" == hateful (but not hate speech). For the record, I come down firmly on the side that both are wrong. But bringing up one when the conversation was originally about the other tends to lead to derailment.
- pessimizer 14y ago
  Semantic wanking. If a conversation about Free Software was filled with discussion of Visual Studio Express, it would be just as silly as this. "Hate Speech" was a term cooked up to bundle homophobic, racist, and anti-religious speech together. It means whatever the people who came up with it and publicized it want it to mean, and pretending that one doesn't know in order to have a strawman debate for you is a waste of everyone's time. (Not that I don't find the term distasteful. I find the idea of criminalizing both internal states and speech pretty vile.)
crusso 14y ago
Seriously, has anyone made the argument that a death threat is ok? Arguments made by omission can be just as powerful as those made by commission. This is the typical response of "look the other side does it to!". That's entirely my point. That "typical response" is not logically unfounded. It's a rationale for behavior based upon the correct perception of hypocrisy. This is why intellectual integrity is IMPORTANT. Intellectual integrity eliminates such justifications. Hypocritical approaches to racism will prevent us from ever really putting it in a context that will make it unarguably immoral.
- Karunamon 14y ago
  > It's a rationale for behavior based upon the correct perception of hypocrisy. "The other side does it too" is not a rationale. It didn't work with your mom when you were 6, and it doesn't work in the real world either.
  - crusso 14y ago
    You're confusing an excuse your mom didn't like with an actual rationale. A rationale is a reason for someone to do something. It's empirically the reason given for this kind of behavior in many situations. We may not like that reason or think it's fundamentally the most mature way to behave - but it's still a reason. If you're saying it's illogical, it's not, game theory says that this kind of self-protective behavior is very logical when competing with other actors that are also being self-protective.

by chez17 14y ago

DigitalJack 14y ago

Nobody calls a death threat "hate speech." That is implicitly suggesting that the people who use the term "hate speech" don't consider it hateful. Now if you queried someone directly, they would of course say it's hateful (I would think). So what that ends up suggesting is the term "hate speech" is really just a short-hand for racially derogatory statements. AKA racist comments. People have decided the term racist and racism are too detached and not emotionally impactful, so now we have "hate speech" which is more forceful. It does, unfortunately, seem to imply that somehow threatening someone with death is less hateful than racism. Now, the post you were replying to seems to be a reaction to the post which uses racist tweets and hate tweets interchangably. That apparently stuck in his craw, so to speak, because there were plenty of other very hateful tweets going on during this election that had nothing to do with racism, yet they are excluded from a post discussing "hate tweets."

rauljara 14y ago
>People have decided the term racist and racism are too detached and not emotionally impactful, so now we have "hate speech" which is more forceful. This isn't why the term hate speech came about. The term hate speech came about in order to have a word applies not only to racism, but also to sexism, anti-semitism, homophobic language, etc. It is an umbrella term that refers to speech that is directed towards people solely based on the (usually immutable) group to which they belong. It is not a synonym for hateful speech. Hateful is its own term. E.g. "I going to kill white people because I hate them so much" == hate speech (and also hateful). "I'm going to kill that guy because I hate him so much" == hateful (but not hate speech). For the record, I come down firmly on the side that both are wrong. But bringing up one when the conversation was originally about the other tends to lead to derailment.
pessimizer 14y ago
Semantic wanking. If a conversation about Free Software was filled with discussion of Visual Studio Express, it would be just as silly as this. "Hate Speech" was a term cooked up to bundle homophobic, racist, and anti-religious speech together. It means whatever the people who came up with it and publicized it want it to mean, and pretending that one doesn't know in order to have a strawman debate for you is a waste of everyone's time. (Not that I don't find the term distasteful. I find the idea of criminalizing both internal states and speech pretty vile.)

crusso 14y ago

Seriously, has anyone made the argument that a death threat is ok? Arguments made by omission can be just as powerful as those made by commission. This is the typical response of "look the other side does it to!". That's entirely my point. That "typical response" is not logically unfounded. It's a rationale for behavior based upon the correct perception of hypocrisy. This is why intellectual integrity is IMPORTANT. Intellectual integrity eliminates such justifications. Hypocritical approaches to racism will prevent us from ever really putting it in a context that will make it unarguably immoral.

Karunamon 14y ago
> It's a rationale for behavior based upon the correct perception of hypocrisy. "The other side does it too" is not a rationale. It didn't work with your mom when you were 6, and it doesn't work in the real world either.
- crusso 14y ago
  You're confusing an excuse your mom didn't like with an actual rationale. A rationale is a reason for someone to do something. It's empirically the reason given for this kind of behavior in many situations. We may not like that reason or think it's fundamentally the most mature way to behave - but it's still a reason. If you're saying it's illogical, it's not, game theory says that this kind of self-protective behavior is very logical when competing with other actors that are also being self-protective.