It boils down to whether or not there are standards that are more objective that can be applied. — Relativist
I know that's what you were asking for. I'm interested in why. — Isaac
Are you really so naive as to think that social sciences are capable of delivering unequivocal proofs of forces in social dynamics? I doubt that.
So you knew full well that whatever I was able to find by way of evidence would be arguable. — Isaac
To those who argue both that hate speech is not causal to action, and that eroding free speech is bad for society, I'm wondering in what way is erosion of free speech meant to be bad. — Isaac
I'm challenging that there's the correlation that you're claiming there is. — Terrapin Station
That doesn't mean that any arbitrary claim about a correlation would necessarily be accepted simply because someone made it. We have to critically examine the methodology. — Terrapin Station
But why should your "challenge" be given the time of day? — S
Not allowing people to say/express whatever they feel like saying is bad in my opinion. — Terrapin Station
I'd never be saying anything like it "should." It's just a matter of whether you care whether I agree with something, whether you care if I have a particular view, etc.
Of course, I'd find it odd that someone keeps responding to me and apparently trying to convince me of something if they on the other hand say that they don't care whether I agree or have the same view, but people can be odd. <shrugs> Normally I'd expect folks who don't care if I agree to just ignore me. — Terrapin Station
Absolutely any claim I forward will have flaws in its methodology. — Isaac
Why? Is this just a foundational feeling you have — Isaac
Why? Is this just a foundational feeling you have, or do you have some reason to think its bad. It seems like a really odd thing to decide is bad on the face of it. — Isaac
You don't think whether your "challenge" is reasonable or warranted should be a matter of concern? — S
An experiment is set up where we have, say, 500 people in an auditorium who are exposed to hate speech — Terrapin Station
monitor those 500 people for a set period of time, let's say a week, and we note how many of them engaged in violent incidents — Terrapin Station
This isn't the only example that I'd say has no methodological problems for stating a correlation. — Terrapin Station
Do you think that I might be challenging something where I don't feel that it's reasonable or warranted? — Terrapin Station
No, but that's the problem. Do Flat Earthers not also feel that they're reasonable and warranted in their "challenges"? — S
An experiment is set up where we have, say, 500 people in an auditorium who are exposed to hate speech
— Terrapin Station
Immediately that would fail the ethical standards. I can assure you of that because I have been partly responsible for writing them.
monitor those 500 people for a set period of time, let's say a week, and we note how many of them engaged in violent incidents
— Terrapin Station
We cannot risk inciting criminal action. Again, this would not get past the ethics board.
This isn't the only example that I'd say has no methodological problems for stating a correlation.
— Terrapin Station
Good. So seeing as the first one wouldn't even get off the ground, perhaps you could move on to the next possibility. — Isaac
It's not that unusual of a stance. It's the basis of libertarianism for example. — Terrapin Station
But even if it did go ahead, and even if no one committed any hate crime afterwards, that wouldn't prove anything of relevance. — S
Individual liberty, even in libertarianism, is weighed against imposing restrictions on the liberty of others. — Isaac
If it even so much as frightened a person into feeling they did not have the liberty to walk down the street, it should be dropped. — Isaac
Of course I wouldn't say that it "proves" anything, since that's a category error anyway. — Terrapin Station
I'd simply say that there's not a problem with the methodology. — Terrapin Station
If only 1 in 5,000 people are violent after exposure to hate speech, then it would much more strongly suggest that exposure to hate speech does NOT cause violence but the opposite. — Terrapin Station
Yes, I didn't get to mentioning the low sample size. — Isaac
That's not standard libertarianism. It's something you're making up/based on your own views rather. — Terrapin Station
Of course you'd say that, because you're too entrenched in your position to acknowledge any faults with it. — S
No, it wouldn't. It would suggest that it causes violence for approximately every 1 in 5,000 people, — S
Are you suggesting standard libertarianism doesn't weight individual freedoms against the restriction of liberty of others? — Isaac
Whatever I suggest you're going to say has methodological problems — Terrapin Station
Yes. Almost certainly I will. That's the point I've been trying to make. — Isaac
The actual experiment - not an easy one to either set up or perform using surveys and interviews - would be better if it compared groups of people who have been exposed to groups not exposed. So, even if most people exposed did not commit violence, if there was an increase in violence by those exposed we now have a correlation between exposure to hate speech and increased numbers of violent acts. Or we get another result. I haven't heard anyone argue that listening to hate speech, even regularly, lead to the majority of people committing acts of violence (against those besmirched or demonized by the hate speech). I think most on that side of the debate think that it increases the number of violent attacks. I suppose if there is a systematic hate speech propaganda system in place: we can all come up with historical examples: then some would argue that a majority would commit acts of violence or to approve or not disapprove of them. But in general I don't think they are expecting a hate speaker at a rally leading to 51% of the audience committing hate crimes.If there's a correlation between hate speech and nonviolence so that 4,999 out of 5,000 people exposed to hate speech are not violent, then why can't we conclude that hate speech causes nonviolence? I thought that significant correlations were supposed to suggest causality, no? — Terrapin Station
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.