Hacker News Reader

Comment by d_e_solomon | Hacker News Reader

There's this crazy fallacy that speech doesn't cause people to change behavior.

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.

View on HN

You're sidestepping my accusation.

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.

> 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.

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?

> Have a look through history, and you'll find many examples where this statement is absolutely not true.

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.

> 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.

If I say, "programmers suck", and then you decide that you agree and you're gonna go kill a bunch of programmers... am I responsible for the murderous violent hatred in your heart?

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.

> Slavery existed in part because people thought black people were subhuman and plenty of people argued that quite publicly.

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.

It's funny (and quite stupid) how people try to define slavery and racism as a uniquely white American problem from the past, and not a human problem of the present.

Slavery still exists. There are more people living in slavery now than ever before in history.

You don't think that speech that condones, justifies, and glorifies slavery wasn't part of the reason why it continued to exist in the United States as long as it did? I find that a very odd argument.

Interesting take on history. Around these parts Ottomans captured and sold white slaves ("Slavs") and Caucasian ("from the Caucasus" - not the modern definition) people for transport across the Black Sea to be used in Turkish harems (mostly women and young boys). Ottoman slavery persisted until around WWI. Not a lot of people from African descent involved in this particular slave trade. There's even photos:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Meccan_m...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Ottoman_Empire#...

You've created a straw man and called it a crazy fallacy. No one believes that speech doesn't affect behavior.

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.

>I really don't understand this idea that speech doesn't have consequences that cause disparate impact.

It seems you are tilting at windmills. Where in this discussion has anyone claimed that words do not have effects?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com