Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by benj111 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

benj111

>in the literal look-it-up-in-a-dictionary sense

violence vī′ə-ləns noun

1. Behavior or treatment in which physical force is exerted for the purpose of causing damage or injury.

2. Intense force or great power, as in natural phenomena.

3. Extreme or powerful emotion or expression

Which? Because it isn't physical force. And I don't think 3 applies as that tends not to be directed at anyone, and there's no requirement for the 'expression' to be hateful.

Further. That means saying "I hate homophobes" is also violence. So we can't say that either. And then we're on a slippery slope where if you say anything that anyone disagrees with is violence.

View on HN

In the last paragraph you're ignoring the part where the protected categories are based on a logical analysis of the problems in society. Homophobes aren't a protected class because they aren't systematically persecuted for something outside their control.

>Homophobes aren't a protected class because they aren't systematically persecuted for something outside their control.

You cannot assert that if you cannot demonstrate that homophobia is 0% genetic (I am using "genetic" loosely here). In reality, like most complex human traits, it's partially genetic and partially environmental, hence it is outside the control of at least a subset of those exhibiting it.

So what? Being a serial murderer could be outside the control of at least a subset of serial murderers, but that doesn't mean we don't make laws about it. Society is still built on the axiom of free will, whether it is true or not.

You're also skipping over the "systematically persecuted" part. I guess you could say the modern liberal distaste of homophobes is "systematic", but it's such a weird example to choose given the paradox of tolerance.

>So what?

This is exactly the type of reaction I expect from modern leftists when they are proven factually wrong and logically inconsistent. Thanks for being an epitome.

>You're also skipping over the "systematically persecuted" part

Homophobia is a crime in the EU. So much for not being "systematically persecuted". Homophobes fit that description far better than homosexuals today.

It should be completely irrelevant whether something is outside of one's control. The persecution of someone for something arbitrary is the morally wrong thing here.

And choice doesn't really exist, which is why I find that requirement so distasteful. I didn't really choose to have my political views. I didn't choose to like the color green. It's the culmination of my genetics, life experiences and so on and that's just how I turned out.

I agree with you about free will, but we still run society as if it exists. If that's the argument we're going with then we literally shouldn't punish anyone for anything.

Free will isn't required for a justification for law enforcement.

Deterrence, rehabilitation and other reasons still apply with or without free will.

All that changes is the mindset. You're no longer a perpetrator with agency. You're a broken machine and we need to fix you or isolate you from society so you don't do more damage.

If something is violence, it's violence. You could say violence towards homophobes is ok because they aren't a protected class. But if you make the case that hate speech is violence, then it's violence regardless of who it's directed at.

I wasn't really arguing the "hate speech == violence" position, which is pretty silly. That doesn't mean hate speech shouldn't be an add-on offense to other crimes though. Or the idea that all targets of "hate speech" are equal. (Because it's only true "hate speech" if the targets are protected).

This is kinda like the question, "can white people experience racism?" One school of thought says no, because (in the USA) non-white people cannot wield the psychological threat of systematic persecution against white people. You could offend a white person, or be prejudiced against them, but not really "commit racism". Partly this is just a semantic argument about what "racism" means - it is not merely a superficial difference in race between parties, but rather an encapsulation of the historical and systemic forces at play. Racism is a more powerful tool for white people than it is for others.

Do people argue that white people can't experience racism?!?

If a black person applies for a job and doesn't get it because of his race, that's racism. The same applies to a white person. The same power dynamic is at play.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com