We're not discussing some random philosophical pie in the sky question. Speech that oppresses minorities deny their fundamental right to exist. Wouldn't you fight back if someone wanted to take away your life?
But can you explain why you think someone saying hateful things to someone else "denies their fundamental right to exist"?
This is a core argument that keeps getting spouted, and it's irrational nonsense.
If I said, "all programmers are terrible, lazy people and they can all go to hell", that's a terrible thing to say. But it in no way affects your right to _exist_, let alone any other right.
The burden is on you to give evidence, because it's total nonsense.
If I influence people consistently by saying that Programmers are terrible people; convince a bunch of people that it's true; then policies that target programmers are much easier to make into law.
Slavery existed in part because people thought black people were subhuman and plenty of people argued that quite publicly.
Or consider a gay child whose teachers say that gay people are going to hell? Do you think that wouldn't have an impact?
I really don't understand this idea that speech doesn't have consequences that cause disparate impact.
You said that hateful speech "denies [a person their] fundamental right to exist". You have not provided any evidence that this is true.
What you _have_ done is argued that speech has consequences and that people can influence others. (Which nobody would disagree with.)
You've also painted a theoretical picture where people go on a campaign to grow hate for a people group by spreading terrible propaganda, many buy into it, and the masses are turned against the people group. I never said this isn't possible, but it's certainly not an automatic outcome of hateful speech, and it doesn't support your assertion in question. At that point, their life is threatened because of the evil of these theoretical masses.
I hate that I have to break it to you, but the masses of civilized society are not out to kill any people group, regardless of anyone's hateful speech.
The speech is not the problem. The hearts of evil men and women are. You can't suppress speech enough to get rid of evil in the hearts of people.
Have a look through history, and you'll find many examples where this statement is absolutely not true. Is it true today? Maybe not, but it's reasonable to be worried about the direction we're going, considering where we came from.
> The speech is not the problem. The hearts of evil men and women are. You can't suppress speech enough to get rid of evil in the hearts of people.
If the heart is evil, but that evil is not expressed or carried out, is that really an issue? If speech is the manifestation of that evil, is it really meaningful to draw a distinction between the two?
You might be technically correct, but you're really just arguing semantics. And to what end?
Granted, but this is in response to a side comment of mine that was not part of my main argument.
> you're really just arguing semantics
False. I'm arguing the difference between direct, automatic outcomes of speech, and outcomes that only happen because of the evil that was already in someone's heart.
I'm really not sure what you're trying to argue any more. Where did the evil come from? Maybe it was learned by upbringing. Maybe it was born out of traumatic experiences. Nature vs. nurture and all of that.
So can you expand on what you see as the material difference between speech, the source of that speech (evil heart), the source of that evil heart (upbringing?). And how any of that makes a difference to the end result?
What do you say about someone who unintentionally and with good meaning aligns themselves with hate (e.g. the All Lives Matter folks)? The things said may not be born of evil, but the end result is just the same.
You haven't successfully clarified what exactly you're trying to argue.
Edit: I should clarify - I think it's useful to examine the evil heart, and the source of that, as it helps us understand where the speech comes from, but ultimately, none of that changes the direct or indirect result of the speech itself.
Of course not. But that's the same argument that's being made here. And it's obviously nonsense.
There's a reason that there is a legal (U.S.) precedent that allows for speech, but not directly telling people to commit violent acts. Of course I am culpable if I tell you to go kill programmers. If I didn't say that and you decide to do it, it's ridiculous to hold me responsible.
I hope that clarifies my perspective sufficiently.
It seems you are tilting at windmills. Where in this discussion has anyone claimed that words do not have effects?
Slavery has existed in every human society, everywhere in the world.
You are correct that this was the pathological, disgusting justification for keeping it, at least in the United States in the 19th century, but that isn't why it existed, not even in part.
Slavery still exists. There are more people living in slavery now than ever before in history.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Meccan_m...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Ottoman_Empire#...
But there is a cost to allowing speech to be offensive to certain races, groups, or lifestyles.
There is also a cost to restricting speech such that no one feels offended.
Which cost is higher? Which cost are you willing to pay? And furthermore, what is actually an effective plan. Is it realistic to think you can shut people up from being offensive? Is that even a workable plan?
Many people feel that the cost of restricting speech so that we can protect groups is vastly higher than the cost of allowing offensive speech.
Because apparently recently "words are violence" and now we even hear "silence is violence".
This is so 1789 French Revolution style.
You seem to be repeating yourself.
> the same as losing your head for being on the wrong side of the committee of public safety.
Your pattern recognition engine must have some problems. In 1789 and the following years people were vilified and arrested (and eventually killed by truckloads, but that's not the point) because they were too moderate or not extreme enough compared to the radicals leading the "new culture".
Here's what St just said in the good old 90's (1790s):
> "We must not only punish traitors, but all people who are not enthusiastic. There are only two kinds of citizens: the good and the bad. The Republic owes to the good its protection. To the bad it owes only death."
And Robespierre:
> "There are only two parties in France: the people and its enemies. We must exterminate those miserable villains who are eternally conspiring against the rights of man... We must exterminate all our enemies.” "
If you don't see any parallel with what's happening right now (the insidious dichotomy between good and bad), minus the guillotine, I am not sure what else I can tell you.
I honestly don't care about most of the political dramas of the day, but by not caring, I'm now somehow guilty of supporting the status quo! This is bonkers.
I think the difference is that laws aren't proposed or created based on programmers being lazy (to follow your analogy). However, there /are/ laws denying fundamental rights of, say, LGBT people (marriage, etc.).
That might be boiled down to "denies their fundamental right to exist" in a heated debate.
The basic position is crazy nonsense. It is so stupid that I doubt the trans people actually came up with it. They likely have a more nuanced view of their own existence - potentially even defined by their accomplishments rather than their gender. Perish the thought.
Let's say you are LGBT in a place that denies you certain medical care, marriage (and associated tax/estate benefits), denial from many stores, etc. Alongside other discrimination. Yes, you still /literally/ exist. But you also have an argument to say that your existence is not valued as much as others, and many parts of existing (see above examples) are denied to you.
It's a bit more pithy to say that your right to exist is being challenged, than having to dance around your extremely literal definition of existing.
I'm a man. I didn't make any special choice to be a man. I got labelled from birth, same as most of the other men. Someone may not like me enforcing the same standards on them as I do myself, or may think the standard unreasonable, but they aren't being valued any less if I apply a standard to them that I do to myself.
And it isn't an argument or slogan I've heard any actual trans people making; they tend to have non-metaphorical complaints.
The same standards are not being applied to different groups, that's the whole point as I understand it.
If you change your statement to "All people of color are terrible, lazy people and they can go to hell", you will rightly receive serious backlash due to the historical context, in which fundamental human rights have absolutely been denied.
Now rephrase that again to target people of Jewish descent, and it it becomes even more horrifying and closer to "denying the fundamental right to exist".
Context matters.
Are people taking some things too far? Possibly. But it's far from being a simple issue to navigate.
Edit: Please use your words, not the downvote button. I'm an open minded person and would like to understand your position if you disagree.
Apologies - I deleted examples that went too far
Do you think destroying someone's livelihood and reputation is the best way to change their views? Do you intend to punish, or to rehabilitate? Maybe you don't care about redeeming a racist (or some other deplorable) because you just want to send a message that such views are unacceptable. But all that does is create a radical with nothing left to lose.
But we also need to change peoples' hearts, so that they don't want to do that kind of stuff - so that they regard the "other" as fully human, just like they themselves are. As you say, destroying their life isn't the best way to do that. (Neither is nagging, lecturing, and berating people.) Then how do we do it? The only thing I know that can change peoples' hearts that way is the gospel of Jesus Christ. (Note well: I did not say going to church - it's not the same thing.)
Admitting this is even the case (which it isn't, as people recently are being cancelled for being just moderate, or for stuff they said when they were teenagers which is ridiculous), how can you justify having someone fired by a mob for something they SAID, therefore denying their livelihood?
It's the equivalent of burning their home, since employment is what enables people to secure long term security for themselves and their family.
So you are actively supporting denying the right to exist of people with whom you disagree with?
Go into your bosses office and use an ethnic slur and tell me what happens. Speech has consequences and hate speech rightfully has more consequences.
And you define what "hate speech" is and how severe the "consequences" are supposed to be. If you feel that something that was said about you is hate speech and you feel that only beating up the person would be an adequate consequence, then by all means, go for it?
I don't follow this at all. Of course people can get fired for things they say. This happens all the time in cases that have nothing to do with hate speech or other controversial issues.
But we don't.
I don't agree with the new definition of racist. There was a time not long ago that dressing up as a black person for Halloween was maybe insensitive but it was not considered racist. Especially since only the people who saw you were affected. (Now everyone can see everything)
Racist used to mean that you thought one race was superior or that one race was inferior. Now it means saying anything or doing anything that any segment of only one race's population considers offensive.
Many on one side of the political aisle will stone-face claim that it is not possible to be racist towards white people because they are the majority. That indicates that the definition has changed.
So, yes... we are discussing a philosophical pie in the sky because that's where the terms are being defined.
A lot of people have been murdered on as a result of hate speech. Emit Till, Michael Donald, James Byrd are a few.
Also, the Rwandan Genocide, historical Pogroms, lynchings, arguably the holocaust.
It's pretty hard to get humans to murder their neightbors without inciting speech.
Eh, I'm not so sure about that. En masse, with coordination? Maybe, but speech is mostly about coordination at that stage.
Would you say that everybody ever saying something untruthful or hatefull about the GOP is responsible for some lunatic storming the base ball practice of some GOP members of Congress with a gun and shooting at them?
Speech is certainly involved in the actual act of a pogrom, but it's not the driving force (unless your definition of speech gets really vague and everything ever said since the beginning of time is part of "the speech"). You don't have pogroms without previous animosity. Somebody saying something might spark the fire, but the wood has been there all along, soaked in gasoline.
That presumes the victimized communities have done anything to warrant violence. In the case of anti-jewish pogroms the inciting factor was often speech by newspapers and officials. How should we account for anti-semitic newspapers that made a good business of concocting lies about the crimes done by Jewish people in the community?
Consider the Kishinev pogrom where "the Bessarabetz paper insinuated that children had been murdered by the Jewish community for the purpose of using their blood in the preparation of matzo for Passover"[1].
No, it doesn't at all. It says that there is animosity, but not why it's there or whether it's valid or not. You might hate your neighbor because he's more successful than you, makes you feel inadequate with his good deeds, because he's literally Hitler or because he just so happens to look like somebody that wronged you. The fact that you hate him says nothing about whether that's justified. But your hate makes you susceptible to all kinds of suggestions for terrible actions against your neighbor. All it takes is for somebody to suggest burning down his house, or telling your that he has attacked another victim (or posted the wrong thing on Twitter to stay on topic!)
> In the case of anti-jewish pogroms to inciting factor is speech by newspapers and officials.
Doubtful. We'd have to look at the very first pogroms. If you're looking at the last 150 years, you're closing your eyes to the fact that pogroms against Jews were recurring events and anti-semitism was always around.
That's a problem, because you'll be surprised how these peaceful neighbors can turn into violent murderers practically over night. When you consider that they weren't peaceful neighbors right up until they became murderers, but that there was just a light cover over the hate for a while, there are much fewer unexplainable actions.
The rumors are the spark that I mentioned. The long-existing anti-semitism is the wood pile that is ready to be set ablaze.
Which arrives at the question, how does anti-semitism propagate through societies? It doesn't spring from nothing. What are the mechanisms that keeps the idea alive? Are all societies susceptible? Someone must be doing the work of keeping that wood pile dry and ready to catch light.
> Are all societies susceptible?
Given that we've seen some level of exterminatory warfare all over the place in history (I'm sure there's huge amounts that we don't know about because the victims have been annihilated), and it's not unheard of among other mammals as well, my money is on yes.
That some small nations did not wage war against their much larger and much stronger neighbors is not a counter example: the fact that chickens don't hunt wolves doesn't mean they're not predators, they'll happily eat worms, and will eat a mouse if they can catch it.
Shouldn't then societies try to structure themselves against this tendency?
We haven't tried adding empathogens to the water supply, maybe that's a good way to do it.