Discussion: Protecting Non-violent Hate Speech

Discussion in 'Formal debates' started by kororoti, May 16, 2010.

  1. kororoti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    252
    This debate is began as a debate thread that can be seen here:

    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=101754

    [Also: [thread=101508]Proposal thread[/thread]]

    Only myself, Psycho Bound, and phlogistician are welcome to post there. (Myself and Psycho Bound in support, and phlogistician against). However anyone who wishes to give input or discuss the topic further may discuss it here. This thread is free to all.

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Part of this must surely be intent: can one make level the intents of the KKK versus this hypothetical genuine scholar?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. nicholas1M7 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,417
    Intentions alone can be harmful and even violent.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Me-Ki-Gal Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,634
    Intentions lead to action . They also motivate response, or even non response when there should be response.
     
  8. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Actually what I'm asking is if there is a difference in the kind of protection that should be afforded via reasonable appreciation of intent: the KKK in the examples above clearly mean evil. The scholar is, as defined, not. Should this guide our protection of such speech?
     
  9. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,416
    Not buying that. What you appear to be saying here is that thoughts alone can harm...
    And if my mere thoughts could harm people, on my worst days there'd be a trail of spontaneous combustions and exploded heads in my wake.
    Especially during PMS days...oh yeahhh...
    You have to take an action to harm another.

    Anyway, staying on target.

    Prejudice can be conscious, or subconscious. The hypothetical scholar may be looking for data that supports his bigotry...selection bias exists in the educated too.

    I was trying to find a good link to show this but am having trouble...at any rate, I'll give you an example:

    GLBT people are, in fact, more likely to have substance abuse, depression, and low-self-esteem issues.
    The anti-gay "scientists"(there's several who work for the Family Research Council ) say that's because being gay is unhealthy.

    Now, in social science you don't often get to figure out causes, just correlations... but it seems pretty logical to say GLBT people have problems due to lack of acceptance making life harder.

    So a scientist may subconsciously cherrypick his/her/their data to fit their prejudice.
     
  10. Me-Ki-Gal Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,634
    Not necessarily. Bebelina contributed to my step mothers death . It was the strangest thing . I don't in anyway hold her responsible, but her thought at the time had some kind of weird link to the event . Ask her about it , she was there mentally when it happened
     
  11. chimpkin C'mon, get happy! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,416
  12. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Men are visual animals and women are verbal animals. This entire word fear and obsession is feminine in nature. Words were not a big deal when culture was more masculine. The liberals appear the most vulnerable to words, since they lack the visual sense of a male. PC is liberal, catering to both of its feminine sexes.

    When I was a child one was taught, sticks and stones can break by bones but names can neverhurt you. But that was when culture was masculine and the nanny state was not yet in effect. The average child then, had more maturity and common sense than the PC adult of today.
     
  13. EmptyForceOfChi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,848
    That is a very interesting observation here, I have not thought of it like this as of yet.

    Watch as human-kind diggs it's own grave by letting each sex do what it was not meant to do, females wanting to take on the role of males, and males becomming total weaklings.

    peace.
     
  14. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    We are simply reverting to a more ancient form of egalitarian society. Primates can be, like chimps, patriarchal and dominating where strength and insensitivity are respected, or like bonobos, where peace reigns and sex is the major activity. That's why the Abrahamic religions are sexually repressive. That's why their foundation myth removed the role of the goddess and replaced it with a wicked act by what amounts to a secondary being. She is listed under livestock and property as something one shouldn't covet. The greatest force against poverty in the world is the empowerment of women, particularly in reproduction. Women know that words lead to deeds. They know that a conflict can be resolved by talking. In age where male ego could easily lead to the sterilization of the surface of the planet, it would be wise to accept the apparent weakness of conciliation and diplomacy.
     
  15. quinnsong Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,621
    Very well put! I could not agree more, but you already know that!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. Cowboy My Aim Is True Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,707
    Hate-speech should be protected. Banning anything, simply because it's offensive, is a dangerous road to go down.
     
  17. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Gotta disagree on this one. Did we learn nothing from WWII? This is how it starts; extremity begins in a liberal, permissive society and exploits those permissions to increase and promote itself.
     
  18. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Great Post

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Some religious ideology would be classified as protected hate speech.
     
  19. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    Quite so. If free speech means anything, it's the freedom to say things that people find offensive. I would rather know what people are thinking and fight them outright than oppress that speech and be surprised when they suddenly attack.
     
  20. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Back in the 1960-1970's, so-called hate speech was dealt with in a different way. Since the entire mental exercise is subjective and not objective, the idea was to change the subjective association. This was done by talking openly about it and turning it into comedy so we can laugh at ourselves.

    The entire game is subjective and therefore not even rational. That being said, why define a negative and hurtful irrationality, which only serves to divide people? Why not make it funny so people can laugh together. It worked way back when, with the game put to rest.


    Liberals and then PC re-introduced the hateful associations perhaps to help consolidate their voting base. The current irrationality is defined in ways that almost anything will create a Pavlov reaction, when word pellet fall down the chute.

    I consider myself objective, so the irrationality should be optional to me. If I wish to play the irrational game I can. If I don't wish to play it, but rather prefer to laugh I should have that option too.
     
  21. Cowboy My Aim Is True Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,707
    A sane and civilized people can allow public expressions of "hate" while not tolerating activities that actually violate peoples' rights (murder, vandalism, government-enforced discrimination, etc.).
     
  22. phlogistician Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,342
    Simply wrong. You think a civilised society should allow groups of individuals to make others feel threatened?
     
  23. Cowboy My Aim Is True Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,707
    Define "feel threatened".

    Should one person or group of people be able to literally threaten another? No.

    Should people be able to express their views on social issues and policies? Yep. If that makes others feel uncomfortable, that's their problem.
     

Share This Page