We don't even need that.

We should not legislate against hate speech because we can't show it to be causal to violent actions.

That's all you need.

We should not legislate against hate speech because we can't show it to be causal to violent actions. — Terrapin Station

But we can show it to be causal to violent actions, just not to your satisfaction. And the reason the evidence we have is not sufficient for you is because of your belief in this magic force, so we do need to invoke it to explain your position. Without it, there's no explanation as to why you don't find the evidence we do have convincing that hate speech is probably causal to violent action.

Hate speech correlates with violent action.

There are only three possible scenarios I can think of.

1. The link is phsycally causal. There is a direct physical chain of causality making hate speech a cause of violent action.

2. There is no causal link between hate speech and violent action. The consistent correlation we see is just an incredible coincide caused by something else.

3. The correlation is real, but the causal chain is broken at some point by a chasm because violent action is only caused by some magical non-physical factor.

So without invoking your woo, you'd have to argue that the correlation was entirely coincidence. Is that what you're suggesting?

So without invoking your woo, you'd have to argue that the correlation was entirely coincidence. Is that what you're suggesting? — Isaac

@Terrapin Station, as far as I understand him, has the position that there are two ways an event can obtain: it's either ontologically determined or ontologically random. Free will is possible because of ontological randomness. So, if people have free will, the decisions they make are ontologically random, and therefore not caused - by anything.

Sure, so I'm asking your opinion. You don't believe that you chose to buy the books? Or are you agnostic on this issue? — Terrapin Station

Like I said, it depends what that means and what that logically entails. Until that's explored, I don't have a position on the matter, so yeah, agnostic.

Of course, I'm not going to change how I ordinarily speak, which is an ingrained habit anyway. So I'll still talk about choosing this and that.

it's either ontologically determined or ontologically random. Free will is possible because of ontological randomness. So, if people have free will, the decisions they make are ontologically random, and therefore not caused - by anything. — Echarmion

You'll have to unpack that a bit, if you want me to comment on it. I have no idea what you might mean by "ontologically random", but at a very basic level I don't see how that changes the situation. Whatever "ontological randomness" is, it is not a given that it obtains, nor is the mechanism by which it obtains any less magical woo, so all you seem to have done is move back the woo. "woo A definitely exists because it is made by woo B"

You'll have to unpack that a bit, if you want me to comment on it. I have no idea what you might mean by "ontologically random", — Isaac

"Ontologically", the way Terrapin tends to use it, means really, actually the case. So ontological randomness really is random, and does not just appear to be random because we don't know the causes.

As to the justification for the belief that such randomness exists: There is currently no explanation for why some behaviour on the microscopic scale appears random. So it's not unreasonable to conclude that the randomness observed is ontological randomness.

Edit: I want to make clear that I am just trying to clear up misunderstandings. I don't want to argue on behalf of Terrapin.

There is currently no explanation for why some behaviour on the microscopic scale appears random. So it's not unreasonable to conclude that the randomness observed is ontological randomness. — Echarmion

But it is unreasonable. At least slightly so. Its unreasonable to believe physicists when they say there appears to be randomness at a sub-atomic scale and then disbelieve them when they say, almost to a man, that this could in no way cause randomness at our scale.

But we can show it to be causal to violent actions, just not to your satisfaction. And the reason the evidence we have is not sufficient for you is because of your belief in this magic force, so we do need to invoke it to explain your position. Without it, there's no explanation as to why you don't find the evidence we do have convincing that hate speech is probably causal to violent action.

Any and all actions following hate speech, whether violent, hateful, or otherwise, begins with the listener, not the speaker. This is true of any reaction to speech.

Any and all actions following hate speech, whether violent, hateful, or otherwise, begins with the listener, not the speaker. This is true of any reaction to speech. — NOS4A2

I'll ask you the same as I asked Terrapin then. By what mechanism does it start? A violent action requires some neurological activity. This activity is in the form of electrical and chemical signals. From where did the signals arise, if not previous signals? What mechanism caused them to initiate?

I'll ask you the same as I asked Terrapin then. By what mechanism does it start? A violent action requires some neurological activity. This activity is in the form of electrical and chemical signals. From where did the signals arise, if not previous signals? What mechanism caused them to initiate?

Any reaction is self-generated. Neurological activity begins and ends at the listener.

Any reaction is self-generated. Neurological activity begins and ends at the listener. — NOS4A2

How?

How does neurological activity (which is electrical signals) begin with the listener. What causes the electrical signal?

Perhaps more relevant to our discussion. The hearing and interpretation of hate speech is also electrical signals. What barrier is in place to prevent those electrical signals from eventually causing action. Where is this barrier in the brain and how does it work?

But we can show it to be causal to violent actions, just not to your satisfaction. — Isaac

All you did was mention a correlation, and that's not even plausible.

Or did you have something else you weren't sharing?

How?

How does neurological activity (which is electrical signals) begin with the listener. What causes he electrical signal?

Simple biology.

I think you’re trying to say the outside stimulus, in this case hate speech, triggers the biology. I’d say that’s true. But the sequence of events that causes the listener to act in a certain way begins with the listener.

So first, there's no way based on your comments that you're not a strong determinist.

As I mentioned, I'm not even a realist on physical laws.

We don't have to get into all of that, though. What we're you even claiming as evidence of a positive rather than a negative correlation between hate speech and violence?

All you did was mention a correlation, and that's not even plausible. — Terrapin Station

Yes. A consistent correlation without any alternative explanation and a plausible mechanism by which it could have causal influence. That is what most people find to be satisfactory evidence. Especially when what's at stake is potentially people's lives. The fact that you don't find it satisfactory only shows how you're allowing your irrational belief in these magic forces to override concern for your community's welfare.

A consistent correlation — Isaac

What consistent correlation are we referring to?

in this case hate speech, triggers the biology. I’d say that’s true. — NOS4A2

Right. So what barrier then prevents that biology from causing action?

Right. So what barrier then prevents that biology from causing action?

I’m not sure of the exact biological mechanism, but colloquially I would say it begins with the understanding. Like any outside stimulus, a word must first be understood, in this case recognized, attached with meaning, long before it is acted upon.

And here comes info on the correlation we're referring to . . . .

What consistent correlation are we referring to? — Terrapin Station

I'm not going round the houses on this, you tried this with the psychological evidence and I'm relieved that I didn't waste time on it. You ask for evidence, I search around for good links, you tell me they don't constitute evidence because of some caveat you were keeping in you pocket for the great "ah ha" moment. I'm not playing that game.

If all that held you back from agreeing that hate speech causes violent action is that you don't believe there is evidence of correlation, then look it up to your satisfaction. You can Google just as well as I can. If you've already done so, fine, I'm hardly likely to come up with the killer paper that convinces you otherwise.

If you want to argue philosophy I'm happy to continue. If you want me to muster evidence to prove things which we both know are uncontoversially held by many people who have already done such research, just so you can dismiss it, then I'm afraid I don't have the stomach for it.

I'm not here to act as your intro to social psychology.

If you don't want to tell me what correlation you're even referring to, then I really couldn't care less.

I'm not about to buy that there really is a correlation when you won't even bother showing a correlation that you're referring to. You can make all of the cliched excuses you like. I'm sure you'll write another 100 posts or whatever telling me how you're not going to waste your time.

That will make it really believable that there's a correlation.

As I said. I'm more than happy to write another 100 post from my own thoughts. I enjoy thinking of arguments and looking for flaws. I do not enjoy researching good quality links especially when I know full well the request is disingenuous. I'm not here to win, I'm here to enjoy myself. I'm here to discuss philosophy, not hand-hold a student who hasn't even done the most basic empirical research.

If all that held you back from agreeing that hate speech causes violent action is that you don't believe there is evidence of correlation, then look it up to your satisfaction. — Isaac

This is one of the most stupid of the cliched tactics. What in the world would be MY motivation to look up something that you're claiming that I think is bullshit?

As I said. I'm more than happy to write another 100 post from my own thoughts — Isaac

No shit? lol

Yeah, this isn't from the stock objection sheet of someone who can't support a bullshit claim they made up. I could write the rest of your responses for you if you like. I know how the dance goes.

So what do you do for work, Isaac? Some sort of computer programming, engineering, IT work or something?

The problem for me is people are beginning to blur the line between word and deed, so much so that they are conflating speech with violence. That’s dangerous territory. So I think it is important for us to, at the very least, see if it is even possible.

I know I'm going to regret this, and I shouldn't let you bait me, but here is the standard work on the causes of hate crime from the Human Right Commission. It's pretty exhaustive if you're actually interested. It cites more than a dozen researched examples.

Here is a more up to date paper focussing on Germany.
Lets have a mature debate, and don't make me regret this please.



I'm retired, but I used to work as a consultant on ethics in risk assessment. Among other things. Is this relevant for some reason?

The problem for me is people are beginning to blur the line between word and deed, so much so that they are conflating speech with violence. That’s dangerous territory. So I think it is important for us to, at the very least, see if it is even possible. — NOS4A2

But people can only blur lines if they were clear beforehand.