C'mon, man--just how many Aspies are on this board anyway. — Terrapin Station

Says the guy who never seems to get that not everyone uses "proof" in the most strict of senses.

"Hate speech causes violence" isn't saying anything different. No one would think that we're saying that it always causes violence or that it's the only cause or anything like that. — Terrapin Station

I wouldn't put it past you. Anyway, whatever. I don't know why you're complaining. We ended up here because you apparently thought that it would be clever to change the context to something that everyone knows is a giant can of worms. I think that you deliberately phrased your question in that overly simplistic way, and now you're annoyed because I didn't play along as expected.

Says the guy who never seems to get that not everyone uses "proof" in the most strict of senses. — S

In philosophy we use "proof" in the stricter sense standardly (because we're often concerned with proof in that sense a la logic, the issue of certainty in epistemology, the methodological foundations of science re philosophy of science, etc.). This is supposed to be a philosophy board.

Anyway, if you think that hate speech is sometimes a causal factor for violence, and it should be regulated because of that, why don't you think that video games, movies, etc. are sometimes are causal factor for violence that should be regulated because of that?

In philosophy we use "proof" in the stricter sense standardly. This is supposed to be a philosophy board. — Terrapin Station

In the world outside of autism and pedantry, it is standard to try to understand one and other, rather than to talk over the top of people.

Anyway, if you think that hate speech is sometimes a causal factor for violence, and it should be regulated because of that, why don't you think that video games, movies, etc. are sometimes are causal factor for violence that should be regulated because of that? — Terrapin Station

They are, and I agree with that.

Obviously I reject the false premise of yours that I am my body, so any conclusions you draw from it are completely irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

That’s fair.

No, it doesn't, it just means that I think that I'm more than my body, which is a very widespread view which makes a lot of sense. My personality is not my body, for example.

If it is not your body, and not itself a body, where is this personality? It sounds like there is some reification going on here, giving solidity to pure wind.

They are, and I agree with that. — S

Yikes. Okay, at least that's consistent. Ridiculous, but consistent.

I said I understand that. There are autonomous functions over and above what you are talking about there, that are not governed or regulated. So even if you are right about subconscious and body regulated bodily functions, there are still functions which cannot be stopped except from damage or trauma.

Well yes, I cannot consciously stop my heart beat while at the same time unconsciously keep it going.

You don't want to regulate just anything that's correlated with an increase of violence, though, do you?

For example, there's an increase in violence in Chicago that's correlated with the Chicago Bears being 3rd or 4th (out of 4) in their division. I'm sure you don't want to regulate Chicago Bears seasons because of this, even though the Bears losing might be a causal factor in some of the violence in Chicago, right?

What makes the difference in what you want to regulate?

If it is not your body, and not itself a body, where is this personality? It sounds like there is some reification going on here, giving solidity to pure wind. — NOS4A2

That makes no sense. It's like asking, if October is not your foot, and is not itself a foot, then what does it taste like?

Do you have a question which makes sense?

You said you were more than your body, and as an example you said your personality. I just want to know where this personality exists in space and time, where it begins and ends, what it is and what it looks like. I suspect these are questions you will not answer.

Yikes. Okay, at least that's consistent. Ridiculous, but consistent. — Terrapin Station

Oh sure, sure. It's the status quo that's ridiculous, and not your fringe view.

Answered earlier on. A cost-benefit analysis.

You said you were more than your body, and as an example you said your personality. I just want to know where this personality exists in space and time, where it begins and ends, what it is and what it looks like. I suspect these are questions you will not answer. — NOS4A2

I will answer once you've answered the question of what October tastes like.

Oh sure, sure. It's the status quo that's ridiculous, and not your fringe view. — S

Maybe that's the status quo in Australia, where people seem to be much more amenable to censorship, speech control, etc. In the U.S., the status quo is to think that it's ridiculous that people suggest that video games, films, etc. cause violence, and it's the fringe moral majority-type wackos who want to ban stuff.

I will answer once you've answered the question of what October tastes like.

I think I get it. Like the month October, “personality” is an abstract noun. So not only are you a body, but more, you are an abstract noun, or at least fit the definition of the abstract noun “personality”.

Maybe that's the status quo in Australia, where people seem to be much more amenable to censorship, speech control, etc. In the U.S., the status quo is to think that it's ridiculous that people suggest that video games, films, etc. cause violence, and it's the fringe moral majority-type wackos who want to ban stuff. — Terrapin Station

We were talking about the regulation of video games and films. They're regulated in the U.S., as they are in the U.K., and as they are in Australia and elsewhere. And it's clear that that's supported by the majority of citizens in these nations, because that has been the case for a number of years, and there's no large enough movement or campaign against it for anyone in a position of power to give a flying fuck about your fringe opinion. It hasn't got the support, because no one finds it convincing, because it's unreasonable.

I think I get it. Like the month October, “personality” is an abstract noun. So not only are you a body, but more, you are an abstract noun, or at least fit the definition of the abstract noun “personality”. — NOS4A2

So your personality is not a part of you, then? You're just a body with no personality? Lol.

Just to be clear I used the phrase 'whether you believe it or not' with the 'it' referring to the assertion, in the hypothetical scenario, that your hair was on fire. IOW if you believe them this will affect your brain and you and likely visible behavior. If you don't believe that your hair is on fire this will also have effects. You might think that person is stupid or annoying, for example. If they presented this very seriously, that your hair was on fire, I think that would impact how you related to them, how you felt in the next few minutes and so on. Exactly how you would react, I don't know. That you would react is some way, I feel quite certain of.

Ah that makes sense. I wasn't reading it as one's hair really being on fire.

I meant it as your hair was not on fire. So, the person is lying. If you believe, well that ought to be a strong reaction. If you don't then there ought to be an interpersonal reaction/judgment with at least some emotional charge. I'd be annoyed with that person, for example.

Hey, I'm back. I have to admire your consistency but l think you have used a disanalogy here,

if you think that hate speech is sometimes a causal factor for violence, and it should be regulated because of that, why don't you think that video games, movies, etc. are sometimes are causal factor for violence that should be regulated because of that?

Video games, movies which include violence generally without an underlying racial theme or fascist political agendas do not provoke violence. On the other hand, you have movies that are banned in various countries, like nazi era movies are banned in Germany. Games are even less likely to provoke violence and the main purpose of movies and games is entertainment while hate speech has the primary motive being to cause violence or harm.

If someone yelled

fire fire !!

in a crowded closed place with bottleneck type entrance and they cause death, it will have consequences in the court when the case is considered. It also falls under free speech.

Dude, just quote something in the paper that you believe amounts to a claim that hate speech is causal to violence. — Terrapin Station

I can't. That's the point, and I'm sure you're smart enough to know that. Imagine if I contested the idea that people dislike being shot. It's certainly true, but you'd have to be an idiot to think anyone could just "quote something" that claims it other than "the whole of human experience". Its not so simple a relationship that it can be condensed into a Tweet.

The whole of social psychology is predicated on the idea that external social forces are causal to our beliefs and resulting behaviour. There's no 'quote' to express that claim, it's what the whole field of science is based on, we don't go around claiming it at the beginning of every document, just in case there are any idiots reading, any more than you'd expect to see "Atom exist" at the beginning of a paper about beta decay.

So when the paper says "Perpetrators of hate crimes are not always motivated by a single type of prejudice or hatred but can be influenced by a combination of different prejudices.", no-one feels the need to then go on to explicitly claim that such prejudices are caused in part by the speech of those around them. Afterall, what's the alternative? That prejudices are caused entirely internally but just happen by coincidence to be the same prejudices the rest of your social group have? That prejudice is caused by what we see others do but by some magical force what we hear them say has no impact at all? No one is explicitly claiming this connection because the alternative is so ludicrous it is assumed to be the case.

When the paper says "some evidence within social psychology to suggest that perpetrators may be influenced by their perception that certain groups pose a threat to them.", again, no-one has felt the need to explicitly claim that these people did not work out the nature of these threats from scratch by themselves without speaking to or listening to anyone provide them any information on the matter, because the idea is utterly ridiculous. If someone has developed a sense of a perceived threat, one of the sources of that perception will be the speech of others.

People writing important policy documents tend not to waste their time trying to convince half-wits of the blindingly obvious. Any more than you would find a claim that the earth is round at the beginning of a maritime navigation treatise.

I have, earlier in this post, in reply to NOS4A2, cited three famous experiments and four further papers of recent psychology on the subject of peer influence on attitudes. If you've read them already, here's another, and another.

I can keep throwing papers at you almost infinitely, because the whole of social psychology is about the fact that our social environment affects our beliefs and behaviours. Literally every paper published in the field is one which claims that some aspect of our social environment (the beliefs/actions of others) affects our beliefs. Short of telepathy, speech is one of the main ways we gather what those beliefs are. That is what I meant by "just about every psychologist in the world thinks is causal". Where a correlation exists, no-one is going to think that it is not possible for it to be causal. The correlation itself might turn out to be coincidence, in which case there's nothing to explain. But where there is something to explain, everyone in the field will presume that the environmental factor being correlated with behaviour is causal.

If you just don't 'buy' social psychology, in the same way you don't 'buy' a load of other conventionally held concepts, then fine, but don't then ask me to demonstrate the evidence base for an entire field of study on an internet forum post and then act as if it's some kind of victory when I'm not willing to do it.

You approach this stuff just like a fundie. — Terrapin Station

And your evidence for your perfectly rational and not at all fundamental belief that our beliefs are generated somehow without causal antecedents from our environment is...? For the fifth time now.

Do you also think that video games, movies, etc. can cause violence? Would you say that just about every psychologist in the world thinks those things are causal to violence? And if you don't think they're causal to violence, why not, when you think that hate speech is? — Terrapin Station

Yes, there is a degree of evidence to show that video games and movies can cause violence. No I wouldn't say that every psychologist in the world thinks these things are causal to violence and I didn't say that about hate speech either. I said that where a correlation is demonstrated, every psychologist in the world would think it was causal, not every psychologist in the world thinks a correlation has been demonstrated.

What is any evidence at all of a correlation between anyone saying "Gas the Jews" and an increase in violence? — Terrapin Station

See my now total of eleven linked psychology papers. My tutoring fees are quite reasonable, I'll forward you my bill.

I wasnt talking about speech, I was talking about liberties. — DingoJones

Why would you be talking about liberties when absolutely no-one is suggesting the banning of 'liberties' as a whole? We're talking about banning hate speech and the strength of evidence that should be required to justify doing so, not banning all liberties. So I'll ask you again, what is so great about being able to say "Gas the Jews" that you need an overwhelming strength of evidence before contemplating losing that particular liberty?

No, this is straw-manning again. I was making a point about losing specific liberties of speech, not all liberties or people saying “gas the jews”. Again, very subtle dishonesty here. “Gas the jews” just happens to be something assholes can say when liberty of speech is granted. Free speech is about no one being able to control what other people are allowed to express. Its about ideas, and not suppressing them.

Answered earlier on. A cost-benefit analysis. — S

Exactly. The point no-one on the other side seems to want to answer. Normal cost-benefit analysis takes into account the uncertainty of a suggested risk, that's the whole point of risk assessment. We don't need to demonstrate a thing to be unequivocally the case, all that is normally required for us to conduct a risk assessment is a small group of scientists (even a single scientist on some occasions has been enough) suggesting some harm might come from some factor.

That is enough to cause us to look at the probabilities, the degree of harm and weigh that against the harm from the loss of that factor (at presumably 100% probability).

So a very small risk of a great harm often outweighs a much greater risk (even 100%) of a very small harm.

I'm trying to get a sensible answer out of anyone as to what they think is so amazing about being able to publicly say "Gas the Jews" that causes them to demand a higher level of certainty of the harm than even a single research paper.

I was making a point about losing specific liberties of speech, not all liberties or people saying “gas the jews”. Again, very subtle dishonesty here. “Gas the jews” just happens to be something assholes can say when liberty of speech is granted. Free speech is about no one being able to control what other people are allowed to express. Its about ideas, and not suppressing them. — DingoJones

Yes, but absolutely no-one is suggesting we ban all speech, so why the hell would you be arguing against it? The argument (check the title) is about banning hate speech. I'm no expert on other countries, but the ECtHR definition is "forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, anti-Semitism or other forms of hatred based on intolerance, including: intolerance expressed by aggressive nationalism and ethnocentrism,discrimination and hostility against minorities, migrants and people of immigrant origin"

The courts specifically state " authorities should, in particular, give careful consideration to the suspect's right to freedom of expression given that the imposition of criminal sanctions generally constitutes a serious interference with that freedom. The competent courts should, when imposing criminal sanctions on persons convicted of hate speech offences, ensure strict respect for the principle of proportionality" and, "the standards applied by national authorities for assessing the necessity of restricting freedom of expression must be in conformity with the principles embodied in Article 10". Article 10 is the right to freedom of expression.

So where, in all that, do you see anything about people not being free to express ideas, other than that we should hate certain classes of other people? I think after the holocaust, that idea has pretty much run it's course.

And your evidence for your perfectly rational and not at all fundamental belief that our beliefs are generated somehow without causal antecedents from our environment is...? For the fifth time now. — Isaac

He's got nothing.