If you took two crowds and to one said "think of a blue elephant and to the other you said nothing, are you seriously telling me you think the proportion of people thinking of blue elephants would be exactly the same?

No, I’m saying me thinking about a blue elephant is the cause of my own volition. It’s an act of will, not sorcery. You didn’t put the blue elephant there.

Any word you come across, whether it comes from my mouth or it was written thousands of years ago, is just stimulus. They are sounds or scratches on paper, lacking any meaning or encoded information, until someone comes along and provides meaning and information.

You didn’t put the blue elephant there. — NOS4A2

For the hundredth time, no one is claiming this. Why do you keep arguing against it. The claim is that someone having previously said "think of a blue elephant" makes it vastly more likely that you will voluntarily, of your own free will (if you like), think of a blue elephant, than if no one had said anything previously. Do you even understand that proposition?

Because both those expressions make it more likely that people will think violent actions against those groups or in favour of those causes are acceptable than would be the case had they not been said/done. — Isaac

C'mon. That couldn't be more ridiculous. I thought you were at least talking about explicit exhortations to commit violence. You can't possibly believe that teaching a dog to raise its paw in response to "Sieg Heil" is at all correlated with violence.

I thought you were at least talking about explicit exhortations to commit violence. — Terrapin Station

You mean like repeating the phrase "gas the Jews" over and over again, as actually happened in that case. You mean the absolutely massive £800 infringement on his liberty?

Yes, you've totally convinced me, I'd much rather live in a world where one can find nazi-themed exhortations to "gas the Jews" online, than one in which innocent people might have a whole £800 removed from them by the draconian state. Whatever next. People calling for public beheadings might be handed something as brutal as community service orders. Oh my God, its like living under Stalin...where does it end?

So you don't believe that teaching a dog to raise its paw in response to "Sieg Heil" is at all correlated with violence.

That's a bit of a relief, I suppose.

So you don't believe that teaching a dog to raise its paw in response to "Sieg Heil" is at all correlated with violence. — Terrapin Station

Only in that if I met him, I might punch him!

It’s nonsensical. But I’ll state that you will gladly think of a blue elephant if someone told you to.

ut I’ll state that you will gladly think of a blue elephant if someone told you to. — NOS4A2

If you're focused on what they're saying, you're in a compliant mood, etc., sure. It doesn't force you to think of a blue elephant of course.

It’s nonsensical. — NOS4A2

Tell you what. Let's use Twitter. Have a look at the BBC twitter feed and we'll note what they're talking about. Then we'll wait for some politician to make a speech. My bet will be that the twitter feed is more likely to be about the content of that speech than it was before he spoke. Your bet is that his speech will make no difference at all to what the BBC journalists choose to talk about.

A thousand quid, just send me your details and I'll set it up.

So his speech forces them to talk about what they do?

If you're focused on what they're saying, you're in a compliant mood, etc., sure. It doesn't force you to think of a blue elephant of course.

Maybe it’s me. I’d pretend to imagine a blue elephant before I actually did, just to humor the guy.

So his speech forces them to talk about what they do? — Terrapin Station

No one throughout this entire discussion has used the word 'forced' nor any term like it to describe the effect speech acts have on others, so why would you be asking such an odd question? No. His speech does not force them to talk about what they do. It makes them vastly more likely to do so than they would have been had he not spoke.

Tell you what. Let's use Twitter. Have a look at the BBC twitter feed and we'll note what they're talking about. Then we'll wait for some politician to make a speech. My bet will be that the twitter feed is more likely to be about the content of that speech than it was before he spoke. Your bet is that his speech will make no difference at all to what the BBC journalists choose to talk about.

A thousand quid, just send me your details and I'll set it up.

I never said people won’t talk about another’s words. “Come on”.

I never said people won’t talk about another’s words. — NOS4A2

I didn't say you did. Your claim was that speech had no consequences on others. If speech has no consequences on others then it cannot affect the liklihood of any subject matter they might choose to talk about. Affecting the liklihood is a consequence. So if you stand by your claim that speech has no consequences on others then you should have no hesitation taking the bet. A thousand quid, easy money.

It doesn’t have any consequence on others but that does not entail we do not talk about things in the world, for instance words and speech.

It doesn’t have any consequence on others but that does not entail we do not talk about things in the world, for instance words and speech. — NOS4A2

Again. My claim is not that people are simply now able to talk about the new thing in the world (the speech act). It is that they are vastly more likely to. The speech act has affected the liklihood of the topic being one that the journalist wants to talk about. It has affected the journalist's desires. But, if you think it had no effect, then take the bet. Remember your claim was "no consequences" of speech acts.

My claim is that there was no consequence of speech. I never said “speech acts”, which I think are dubious.

It affected the journalist’s desires? No, it didn’t.

No one throughout this entire discussion has used the word 'forced' nor any term like it to describe the effect speech acts have on others, — Isaac

Okay, but (a) that's what I'm referring to by "cause"--if we're not talking about force, we're not talking about causes in my view, and (b) that's the only thing that I think is morally/legally problematic. If you're not forcing someone to do something, it's their choice to do whatever it is. I wouldn't make ANY influence, manipulation, etc. illegal, period.

It should have been more than clear that that's the only sense of "cause" that I use, by the way.

My claim is that there was no consequence of speech. I never said “speech acts”, which I think are dubious. — NOS4A2

What's the difference?

Okay, but (a) that's what I'm referring to by "cause"--if we're not talking about force, we're not talking about causes in my view, and (b) that's the only thing that I think is morally/legally problematic. If you're not forcing someone to do something, it's their choice to do whatever it is. I wouldn't make ANY influence, manipulation, etc. illegal, period.

It should have been more than clear that that's the only sense of "cause" that I use, by the way.

The phrase “speech act” assumes two actions in one act of speaking. 1) the utterance and 2) the changing of reality. I dispute 2.

that's what I'm referring to by "cause"--if we're not talking about force, we're not talking about causes in my view — Terrapin Station

Well then you've confused necessary and sufficient causes. Injection of fuel does not 'force' an engine to turn, it requires other factors, yet no factor alone 'forces' the engine to turn. So is your argument that the engine turning has no cause?

that's the only thing that I think is morally/legally problematic. — Terrapin Station

Yes, I'm well aware of that too. As I've said, grown-ups have to think about weighing harms and making compromises. Sticking dogmatically to arbitrary ideologies regardless of the harm they may cause just sounds sociopathic.

The phrase “speech act” assumes two actions in one act of speaking. 1) the utterance and 2) the changing of reality. I dispute 2. — NOS4A2

Right, so if you dispute 2 then take the bet. The politician's speech is unable to change reality, so whatever probability existed in reality that the BBC twitter feed would be on the subject of the speech before the politicians spoke, that will be the same probability after he speaks. If his speaking is unable to change reality then the probability will remain unchanged. So you've got nothing to lose taking the bet have you?

Right, so if you dispute 2 then take the bet. The politician's speech is unable to change reality, so whatever probability existed in reality that the BBC twitter feed would be on the subject of the speech before the politicians spoke, that will be the same probability after he speaks. If his speaking is unable to change reality then the probability will remain unchanged. So you've got nothing to lose taking the bet have you?

Allow me to clarify. To be more precise, yes, it will change reality insofar as more words are added to it—the politicians speech was not there before but now it is and we can access it—but it won’t change anything beyond the medium.

It’s the “perlocutionary act” I dispute.

the politicians speech was not there before but now it is and we can access it—but it won’t change anything beyond the medium. — NOS4A2

OK, so take the bet. If all that has changed is the mere existence of words, then the actions of the BBC journalist's will be unaffected, words have no consequences. You should be perfectly safe betting on the fact that the actions of the BBC journalists will remain exactly as they would have been prior to the speech.

That’s a poor bet. It’s a journalist’s job to report on a politician’s speech. That still doesn’t mean their actions are affected or otherwise influenced by the speech.

Try a different group who are not employed to report on a politicians speech, and I’ll take the bet.

OK two groups of football gamblers. One have seen the pre-match commentary in which the manager talks about what a bad feeling he has about the game, how his players have not been on good form, how his star striker is injured... The other group have not heard this commentary.

I bet a thousand pounds that the group which have heard the commentary place fewer and smaller bets on the team winning than the group who have not heard the commentary.

You up for it?

OK two groups of football gamblers. One have seen the pre-match commentary in which the manager talks about what a bad feeling he has about the game, how his players have not been on good form, how his star striker is injured... The other group have not heard this commentary.

I bet a thousand pounds that the group which have heard the commentary place fewer and smaller bets on the team winning than the group who have not heard the commentary.

You up for it?

I won’t take that bet because I can’t bet against man’s credulity. The group will certainly place fewer and smaller bets based on what they heard in a commentary.

The group will certainly place fewer and smaller bets based on what they heard in a commentary. — NOS4A2

So speech (the commentary) will have had consequences, in reality, on the actual behaviour (bet placing) of other people.

Finally.

So speech (the commentary) will have had consequences, in reality, on the actual behaviour (bet placing) of other people.

Finally.

No, the act of believing something to be true and using that belief to justify betting a certain way is not a consequence of the speech, but of the understanding, language, knowledge and credulity of the listener.

Oh for fucks sake!