What's the difference, other than you giving it a different name? — Echarmion
What did I say the difference was? — Terrapin Station
None of your previous answers indicated any relevant difference to me. — Echarmion
You're asking me what I think the difference is. I gave info for this already. What did I say? — Terrapin Station
Sure, so I have no interest in a conversation the way you're going about it. I guess you're not that interested in what I think, in which case don't bother pretending to be in the first place. — Terrapin Station
That's you. Others treat speech as having only the effects of gibberish. Presumably of a similar volume and pitch. IOW speaking to someone does not cause any other effects than speaking gibberish. I really had that discussion - a rather interesting one - for a series of posts. Might not have been the guy I just responded to, but it wasn't you, in any case.It's not that speech can't have an effect on others. It's that it can't be shown to force them to perform particular actions. — Terrapin Station
I am interested in your arguments and whether they hold up. — Echarmion
Would this be a general heuristic in law for you? If an action cannot be shown to force people to do something, then it should be legal? — Coben
Hate speech must be included in free speech, lest we find ourselves mediating what defines hate speech. A sense of fluid morality that changes with the whim of the next offended person. If we limit what people can say, will tomorrow we limit what they can think? — Beliefofmine
Which wouldn't be problems then. One can't really complain about people who try to limit free speech if one thinks speech cannot have negative effects on people, even other people.
My arguments are what I think. — Terrapin Station
But a little over a half hour ago you asked me something that you should have known the answer for, with respect to my arguments, since I already said it just 90 minutes prior to that. — Terrapin Station
It's kind of hard to examine someone's arguments and whether they hold up when you're so uninterested in them that you can't even recall what they are 90 minutes later. — Terrapin Station
It appears that hate speech isn't as clear cut as it used to be in the past. The current sentiment seems to be anything that offends anyone is hate speech, and subject to censorship. Which I find concerning looking towards the future. I think intent is important, but it is hard to know intent in the moment.
I asked for a relevant difference. So I don't think the answers you did give amounted to more than semantics. — Echarmion
Regarding what you just replied to Coben, do you think offering people money for committing crimes on your behalf should be legal? — Echarmion
(1) How am I supposed to know what you consider relevant or not, since you're really asking for that--a difference that you would consider relevant (and why would I go fishing for this anyway)?, and (2) How is describing a difference not going to be semantic? We'd be talking about what terms are referring to. — Terrapin Station
What I think Echamion and others are saying is that - again given human nature and the history of mankind - allowing all hate speech will increase the odds that that authoritarian regimes will arise - exactly the opposite result that we all desire.
Essentially, for the purposes of arguing, I consider your argument and a "cost-benefit analysis" to fall into the same category. — Echarmion
it's an argument from consequences rather than from principles. — Echarmion
I don’t think it can be shown that free speech leads to authoritarian regimes, — NOS4A2
I didn't address his post yet, but I don't think that, either.
At any rate, I don't have a problem with authoritarian regimes in principle. I don't have a preference for one form of government over another. What I care about are the laws in place.
Why would I care if laws I disagree with have been decided by a lone individual, a small group of people, or a large majority?
I think that in an authoritarian regime those laws you disagree with would be difficult to challenge and change given that strict obedience to them would be presupposed. — NOS4A2
My views are often way, way, out in left field compared to most folks' views. It's no easier to change anything I disagree with in a democracy.
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.