|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Jul 23, 2020 8:31:10 GMT -5
I think it's a major line to cross from "let's ban stuff that is likely to cause imminent and unnecessary harm" to "I just don't like that, so no one gets to say it". Nice. So, do you draw that line between "let's ban stuff that is likely to cause imminent and unnecessary harm" and "let's ban stuff that is likely to cause longterm and unnecessary harm"? Because "I just don't like that, so no one gets to say it" isn't the argument anyone is going to put forward.
|
|
|
Post by bobtheinquisitor on Jul 23, 2020 15:25:53 GMT -5
Look here sporto, how are we supposed to harm the people we don't like long term if we can't say anything that will obviously lead to long term harm?
|
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 629
|
Post by carlo87 on Jul 25, 2020 18:01:46 GMT -5
Of course a lot of speech is restricted. I think it's a major line to cross from "let's ban stuff that is likely to cause imminent and unnecessary harm" to "I just don't like that, so no one gets to say it". That's basically where I draw the line. Sounds like everyone is in agreement, then. I don't know of anyone serious who is advocating the government rule any harmless speech unlawful just because they don't like it. You've never heard anyone say that Free Speech doesn't cover hate speech before?
|
|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Jul 26, 2020 10:50:53 GMT -5
I have heard so, but since hate speech is not harmless, it doesn't contradict what CommieCanUCK just wrote. You somehow ignored my message, which was very relevant toward what you just wrote, about "speech likely to cause longterm and unnecessary harm". What is your position on "speech likely to cause longterm and unnecessary harm", Carlo87?
|
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 629
|
Post by carlo87 on Jul 26, 2020 15:46:52 GMT -5
Define "long-term and unnecessary harm". If someone wants to have their anti-Semitic Arian brotherhood website, or have a KKK rally, or the Fuck Canadians Parade yeah, I'm fine with that. Well, I'm not fine with it exactly, I disagree with what they'd be saying, but support their right to say it. I also disagree that hate speech causes undue harm.
Now, there is some grey area that I would be willing to discuss. Examples: There is erotic literature that involves illegal activity, like the book Lolita that involves a woman sexually abusing a minor. Not my cup of tea, but I don't think it should be banned. A NAMBLA website advocating for legalization of pedophilia (yuck) once again, okay. Website sharing non-fiction stories of pedophilia, this is likely where I'd draw the line. A hypothetical website with instructions on how-to kiddy rape, yeah, that's definitely well-beyond the line for me.
|
|
semipotentwalrus
Ye Olde King of OT
A somewhat powerful marine mammal.
Posts: 980
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Jul 26, 2020 16:20:49 GMT -5
Why, though? What differentiates "how to seduce 12-year-olds" from "how to gas the infidels", harm-wise, other than pedophilia being the ultimate taboo in our respective societies?
|
|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Jul 26, 2020 18:55:55 GMT -5
Define "long-term and unnecessary harm". Well, you seemed fine with "imminent and unnecessary harm" not being explicitly defined. Basically, the same except without the "imminent" part I guess? I also disagree that hate speech causes undue harm. Do you agree or disagre that people arguing that we should be more racist/sexist/... can sometime manage to actually convince people? If yes, do you agree that people acting on those believes can cause undue harm? If yes, why do you believe this harm wasn't caused partially by the original speech?
|
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 629
|
Post by carlo87 on Jul 27, 2020 4:30:20 GMT -5
Define "long-term and unnecessary harm". Well, you seemed fine with "imminent and unnecessary harm" not being explicitly defined. Basically, the same except without the "imminent" part I guess? I also disagree that hate speech causes undue harm. Do you agree or disagre that people arguing that we should be more racist/sexist/... can sometime manage to actually convince people? If yes, do you agree that people acting on those believes can cause undue harm? If yes, why do you believe this harm wasn't caused partially by the original speech? Arguing racist things can lead people to be racist. This is not to be confused with a call to action on those racist thoughts. One is fine, the other is not. You, yourself, have stated plenty of derogatory things about certain groups in this forum. Your speech by your own standards should be banned. There is also the distinction of one having direct impact on someone, and the other not.
And just to go down the Rabbit Hole, in the discussion on what constitutes "racism" and if you can be racist against something that isn't a race, even semipotentwalrus conceded that "police" are a race. If that's true than many of the protestors seen lately are racists spouting hate speech.
|
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 629
|
Post by carlo87 on Jul 27, 2020 4:34:57 GMT -5
Why, though? What differentiates "how to seduce 12-year-olds" from "how to gas the infidels", harm-wise, other than pedophilia being the ultimate taboo in our respective societies? Your inferring that I would support one and not the other. This is wrong. "How to gas the infidels", if it's an actual instruction manual, would be as much of a call to action as "how to seduce 12 year-olds".
|
|
semipotentwalrus
Ye Olde King of OT
A somewhat powerful marine mammal.
Posts: 980
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Jul 27, 2020 6:32:41 GMT -5
You'd (generic you) have to jump through a lot of strange hoops to argue that police is a race. You can't generalise about police based on phenotype, and one isn't born and raised as a police officer. The extension of racism to culture in academic discourse hinges on the fact that the same type or arguments are made, assuming that there are traits that are inherent to races*/cultures and, crucially, that these traits cannot change. Nazi Germany didn't try to re-educate the Jews or Romani because in Nazi ideology this is impossible. Compare and contrast this to the current situation in the US where people are demanding the police change their behaviour. Demanding such a change is not compatible with racism, because a racist conceptualization of police violence would leave no possibility of change.
*I really, really dislike the English discourse on racism because it keeps talking about "races" as if they were anything other than nebulous social constructs. In English the definition of racism is arguing that some races are inherently better than others; in Swedish it is the division of humankind into arbitrary races in the first place. I'd thus argue, entirely unironically, that the English definition of racism is racist in and of itself.
|
|
semipotentwalrus
Ye Olde King of OT
A somewhat powerful marine mammal.
Posts: 980
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Jul 27, 2020 8:32:31 GMT -5
Double post, but sue me, it's my thread! From where I'm looking at it, banning "how to gas the infidels" while permitting "should we gas the infidels?" is ass backwards; the former would not be a problem without the latter, while the latter remains a threat to society even without the former. A society built on values of freedom, humanism and liberty cannot continue existing if discourse directly undermining those values is allowed to spread; it's Popper's paradox of tolerance. "Wait, you crazy odobenian madman!" you might say, "how does this make us any different from China, or Nazi Germany, or any other hell-hole from history? They, too, would insist that their particular view of society is the just one, and that they are justified in whatever draconian measures they take to secure that state!" To which I would respond that the difference between a society build on liberty and humanism and other models is that such a society excludes the fewest amount of human beings from reaping the benefits of society (which, incidentally, is why I think nationalism and conservatism can go fuck off). In the ideal society of a humanist society people get along not because they are homogenous, but because they have created a modus videndi. In a totalitarian state's ideal society, everyone thinks the same, with social harmony created because everyone who doesn't is gone.
|
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 629
|
Post by carlo87 on Jul 27, 2020 11:19:46 GMT -5
You'd (generic you) have to jump through a lot of strange hoops to argue that police is a race. You can't generalise about police based on phenotype, and one isn't born and raised as a police officer. The extension of racism to culture in academic discourse hinges on the fact that the same type or arguments are made, assuming that there are traits that are inherent to races*/cultures and, crucially, that these traits cannot change. Nazi Germany didn't try to re-educate the Jews or Romani because in Nazi ideology this is impossible. Compare and contrast this to the current situation in the US where people are demanding the police change their behaviour. Demanding such a change is not compatible with racism, because a racist conceptualization of police violence would leave no possibility of change. It seems like a strange line to draw that you can be racist to Muslims if they were raised Muslim, but not if they converted later in life.
|
|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Jul 27, 2020 14:09:56 GMT -5
Arguing racist things can lead people to be racist. This is not to be confused with a call to action on those racist thoughts. Arguing racist things can lead people to be racist. Glad to see we agree on that. Believing in racist thought can lead people acting on those belief and committing racist acts. Do you disagree with that part? About the rest of your post, I'd just say this: I disagree with your general principle that we should ban only speech that lead to imminent harm. That doesn't mean I believe we should ban all derogatory speech. I didn't provide any grand governing idea of what speech should be and what speech shouldn't be banned. I don't think I have one. I'll argue on specifics if you want though.
|
|
carlo87
Ye Olde King of OT
Posts: 629
|
Post by carlo87 on Jul 27, 2020 14:40:25 GMT -5
Arguing racist things can lead people to be racist. This is not to be confused with a call to action on those racist thoughts. Arguing racist things can lead people to be racist. Glad to see we agree on that. Believing in racist thought can lead people acting on those belief and committing racist acts. Do you disagree with that part? About the rest of your post, I'd just say this: I disagree with your general principle that we should ban only speech that lead to imminent harm. That doesn't mean I believe we should ban all derogatory speech. I didn't provide any grand governing idea of what speech should be and what speech shouldn't be banned. I don't think I have one. I'll argue on specifics if you want though. I think that we agree on more than we both realize. I would say that believing racist ideologies makes you predisposed to act on them, not that they can, in and of themselves, cause harmful action. Stirring any ideological pot will make some individual feel like they need to take action.
I also think that you're right in that defining any exact definition of what should and should not be allowed is incredibly hard. I too think it's best on a case by case basis. I think on 95% of issues we'd agree, but that there might be a little grey area of where we'd disagree. That's just a personal test though, and if we are talking about a legal standard it gets much harder as you have to set a firm standard, and rarely does one size fit all. No matter where a legal standard is set it will at some point either stomp on a person's rights or let the crazy run wild.
|
|
|
Post by Least censored on the planet! on Jul 27, 2020 15:37:36 GMT -5
Yeah, that's why having platforms like Twitter and Facebook act is better than just relying on a law: if something isn't allowed on social media, it's way less restrictive than being literally punished by the law, but much more restrictive than being allowed there. It gives a middle ground instead of all or nothing.
|
|