They will be dealt with, but will they be dealt with sufficiently or will it be too late to reprimand these instigators?In the process of forbidding these, free speech is put on the slippery slope that I have described. As such, let the instigators instigate. When they resort to violence, they break the law and should be dealt with as such. — Tzeentch
Perhaps, there is a necessary risk involved with freedom.People can have heated debate about anything. The fragile ego will find ways to express itself. If people were to desire freedom from contention, then perhaps everyone should lose their tongue at birth. No, in order for free speech to be worth anything, we must risk contention and offense, and deal with it like adults, instead of like children.
In the words of Descartes: "Whenever anybody has offended me, I try to raise my soul so high that the offense cannot reach it."
The safety of the people may be safeguarded by an effective police force and justice system. — Tzeentch
It is no longer about Freedom of Speech, but Freely Speaking.How? — Tzeentch
One's wisdom is irrelevant, to the degree of violence or kindness.I will rephrase my point;
If one's intellect propels one to violent action, one may not be as wise as they think they are. — Tzeentch
They are the same. Pain felt here or there, is all generated in the mind.Firstly, I do not like the comparison between physical and psychological pain. Physical pain is, for most, an involuntary response that physiologically bypasses the intellect. Offense is a voluntary response. — Tzeentch
How would one make sub-optimal use of one's freedom if one is truly free?As to your question; why allow people to rub proverbial salt?
Humanity is imperfect, and as such it is only expected that some will make sub-optimal use of their freedoms.
But the real question here is, how come someone perceives words as being so powerful as to be like salt upon wounds?
Again, whatever is being said can be true, in which case it should be accepted no matter how much it hurts and one should be grateful instead of offended. — Tzeentch
If it is false or opinion, then what is there to be offended about? The disposition of the other? If one thinks the offender is so totally wrong in their beliefs, wouldn't pity be a much more appropriate emotion rather than indignation? Seek to make him see the error of his ways rather than silence him.
If some offender is being purposefully hurtful, why put any value in his words? Much like with a high-school bully, ask oneself how his situation came to be, and soon enough one will find pity or compassion more suitable emotions than anger and indignation.
Finally, when one feels offended, it should cause a moment of self-reflection, because apparently one is not as confident about their beliefs as they tell themselves they are. Wouldn't one's response be otherwise to laugh? When someone tells me the earth is flat, I do not get offended, for I know it to be wrong. So why do I get offended now? — Tzeentch
Why wouldn't it simply take a claim that you asked someone to hook up with you and they turned you down? — Terrapin Station
All we need for rape is a claim that it happened. — Terrapin Station
Why are you continuing to pursue this when we both know that it's a stupid idea, not at all comparable to hate speech? — S
In the process of forbidding these, free speech is put on the slippery slope that I have described. — Tzeentch
there's a simple cost-benefit analysis that can be done with hate speech, — S
Just following shamshir's reasoning. — Terrapin Station
Why couldn't you do a "what if" in the same vein about any arbitrary thing? — Terrapin Station
The moral of the story would be to reject both extreme censorship and free speech fanaticism, and support a reasonable balance between the two extremes.
Those uncompromising ideologies routinely and visciously censored views they despised. — NOS4A2
This is a joke surely? How is that I understand what you say and not some other unrelated thing?
If you say "imagine a blue elephant" how is that I imagine a blue elephant? Coincidence? Come on!
Of course they did. Any half-wit dictator could work out the necessity of doing that. The point is that in absolutely no historical case did the process start with a tiny imposition on the right to free speech. At all times they started with an uncompromising faith in some ideology.
The suppression of civil rights was one of the first thing Hitler did with the Reichstag Fire Decree. — NOS4A2
Yes. I'm pretty sure that the suppression of opposition speech was the first thing Hitler did after some other thing he did. That's basically how things progress. One thing after another. My claim was that Hitler's rise to power did not start with suppressing hate speech. Which is what you are implying could happen. It has never happened.
How can only some words be the necessary cause of you imagining an elephant but the same words in a different language are not? — NOS4A2
You hear the words, you interpret the meaning, you think of an elephant, all of which are actions performed by you, not me. — NOS4A2
Yes, and the first one in the chain is you speak the words. Why is the chain starting with me hearing the words. In order for me to hear the words it is necessary that you speak them.
And the answer is that you could apply the same reasoning, but in the case of hate speech there's a sensible basis for banning it, — S
where any reaction to any outer stimulus begins. — NOS4A2
No. Not any reaction. That's the point. I don't just have any reaction to you saying "imagine a blue elephant". I might stubbornly refuse to imagine a blue elephant. I might get confused and imagine a pink elephant... But I am vastly more likely to think of a blue elephant than I would have been had you not spoken the words. Your words have had an effect on me. They have made it vastly more likely that I will think of a blue elephant than it was before you spoke.
No. Not any reaction. That's the point. I don't just have any reaction to you saying "imagine a blue elephant". I might stubbornly refuse to imagine a blue elephant. I might get confused and imagine a pink elephant... But I am vastly more likely to think of a blue elephant than I would have been had you not spoken the words. Your words have had an effect on me. They have made it vastly more likely that I will think of a blue elephant than it was before you spoke.
If you don't believe me, walk into a pub, say "imagine a blue elephant" and bet £100 that the number of people who then think of a blue elephant will be exactly the same as the pub next door where no one spoke those words. — Isaac
I don’t see it. I wouldn’t imagine a blue elephant just because you told me to. I would have to choose to do so. — NOS4A2
What would this have to do with the notion of causing people to be violent because you're saying "nigga" or teaching a dog to raise its paw when it hears "Sieg Heil" (which are two cases that were looked at under the UK hate speech laws)? — 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.