Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 11-01-2019, 10:18 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
It is punishable, socially and in every other way aside from legally. I think outlawing it could lend some sense of apparent legitimacy to the deniers, as they can much more credibly claim to be martyrs and victims. So that would be a "loss" for society, IMO.
I can't see as there is going to be much difference between their claiming martyr status "illegitimately" while being punished only socially/every other way and "legitimately" claiming it for legal punishment.
  #202  
Old 11-01-2019, 10:26 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I see this as a contradiction. If you maintain that people are punished for hate speech (through shunning or whatever), but that punishment leads to legitimacy, then shunning already leads to legitimacy...? So why does an additional punishment make such a difference? And can you just generally be more specific as to what you think would happen?

Wrong. Our judicial system has shortcomings, but being like totalitarian regimes is not one of them. Punishment in North Korea is quick and severe; our court system is slow and full of technicalities.
Yeah, our whole system of government is established on the principle that individuals have intrinsic rights. If one starts eroding that principle out of malice, ignorance, or desire for short term gain the consequences are not good. We already have stupid universities and judges unconstitutionally punishing speech today. If anything people who desire liberty should be advocating for liberty instead of aping totalitarians.
  #203  
Old 11-01-2019, 10:41 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
I see this as a contradiction. If you maintain that people are punished for hate speech (through shunning or whatever), but that punishment leads to legitimacy, then shunning already leads to legitimacy...? So why does an additional punishment make such a difference? And can you just generally be more specific as to what you think would happen?
I think legal sanction -- outlawing -- can lead to some sense of legitimacy. "Outlaw legitimacy" can be a thing, if you follow what I'm saying.

I don't know what would happen for sure, but as I understand it, white supremacist gangs and politicians in much of Europe have a cachet they don't have here in the US, at least in some ways. I think a part of that might come from the legal sanction they face for speech. Part of it might just be related to my own feelings -- I have an instinctive distrust of legal sanctioning of speech unless it's a direct threat of some sort... and thus I thnk I'd have trouble resisting some feelings of sympathy towards those that are legally sanctioned, say, for publicly saying some historical fact (like even the Holocaust -- and I'm a descendant of German Jews that escaped Germany in the 30s) is false. Maybe these feelings come from some sort of educational indoctrination into the First Amendment -- I don't know. But if I have these feelings, I suspect lots of other Americans have them as well.

I don't want white supremacists to get any more sympathy, and thus I think legally sanctioning white supremacist speech, aside from threats and advocacy for violence (which our current laws may not sanction enough), could be a bad thing in the US.

It's the same reason I oppose the tactic of starting violent confrontations with white supremacists -- because I think it helps white supremacists by making them sympathetic in some ways.

I'm not really worried about slippery slopes -- I just don't want to help white supremacists.
  #204  
Old 11-01-2019, 10:43 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
I can't see as there is going to be much difference between their claiming martyr status "illegitimately" while being punished only socially/every other way and "legitimately" claiming it for legal punishment.
By my feelings, there could be. I think social consequences are very, very different from legal consequences. But it's just based on my feelings -- I don't have data on this.
  #205  
Old 11-01-2019, 10:43 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,004
Thank you for the thoughtful response.

Charles Manson became a celebrity because of murder, more or less. But I don’t think that’s a reason to eliminate the crime of murder, do you?
  #206  
Old 11-01-2019, 10:46 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,911
I think I thought of the potential sequence of events that could greatly assist white supremacists if white supremacist speech was somehow made illegal:

~202X: Hate speech is made illegal in some way.
~203X: Legal/political challenges to this new law are successful, and the law is overturned, with a white supremacist as the face of the efforts, and a white supremacist becomes the "face of free speech", to some extent.

I think that, or something like it, might be likely enough to be concerned that such efforts could greatly aid white supremacism.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 11-01-2019 at 10:47 PM.
  #207  
Old 11-01-2019, 10:58 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 35,911
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Thank you for the thoughtful response.



Charles Manson became a celebrity because of murder, more or less. But I don’t think that’s a reason to eliminate the crime of murder, do you?
No - the consequences are very different.

I take my position because I think it provides less help to white supremacists. I'm not certain about it, but that's where I lean right now.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #208  
Old 11-02-2019, 12:45 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I think I thought of the potential sequence of events that could greatly assist white supremacists if white supremacist speech was somehow made illegal:

~202X: Hate speech is made illegal in some way.
~203X: Legal/political challenges to this new law are successful, and the law is overturned, with a white supremacist as the face of the efforts, and a white supremacist becomes the "face of free speech", to some extent.

I think that, or something like it, might be likely enough to be concerned that such efforts could greatly aid white supremacism.
Well, if you want data, you could look into whether that happened in other countries that enacted hate speech laws. Granted, in the US a law like that is in more danger of being overturned.

Last edited by CarnalK; 11-02-2019 at 12:47 AM.
  #209  
Old 11-02-2019, 02:55 AM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
And I think living in a society where people can freely debate, offend, and reason is far superior to living in a society ruled by an omnipotent state with surveillance everywhere .
Yes, the best possible outcome of unfettered free speech is better than the worst possible outcome of hate speech restrictions. And the best possible outcome of hate speech restrictions is better than the worst possible outcome of unfettered free speech - which would be ethnic cleansing, I suppose, given how far you went to the other extreme.
  #210  
Old 11-02-2019, 04:02 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,550
Since clairobscur is continuing his arguments in the ATMB thread, I'm just going to quote him here rather than argue this in two threads:

Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
What does it mean? It means that yes, I'm willing to sacrifice the interests of some people (and I very likely won't be one of them) to protect an institution that I find absolutely fundamental and irreplaceable. Call them "acceptable casualties", if you wish.
I am in absolute agreement. I just differ as to which casualties I find acceptable.

clairobscur is willing to throw whole classes of oppressed minorities under the bus of idealistic "free" speech (which is always limited anyway). I'm willing to throw Nazis, racists and homophobes under the bus of specific hate speech laws. You know what? I'm totally OK with that.
  #211  
Old 11-02-2019, 04:19 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,550
Actually, I just want to requote select bits of that with emphases, because it becomes more abhorrent a statement the more I reread it:
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
I'm willing to sacrifice the interests of some people [...] to protect an institution
People (and once again, let me emphasize that for hate crime laws that means people who historically were absolutely brutalized and often still suffer oppression today) must be sacrificed - to an idea. Not an actual practice, because there's no place where free speech is absolute. But the idea of free speech, that is the Moloch into which we must feed actual people - our gays, our PoCs, our Jews, our disabled, all our oppressed.

All so some Nazis can get to deny the Holocaust with impunity.

Last edited by MrDibble; 11-02-2019 at 04:20 AM.
  #212  
Old 11-02-2019, 05:26 AM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
clairobscur is willing to throw whole classes of oppressed minorities under the bus of idealistic "free" speech (which is always limited anyway). I'm willing to throw Nazis, racists and homophobes under the bus of specific hate speech laws. You know what? I'm totally OK with that.
The definition of Nazi and racist are far broader than they were a few years ago. If these (and other) definitions keep expanding, there’s no limit to who could be thrown under the bus.
  #213  
Old 11-02-2019, 06:00 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
The definition of Nazi and racist are far broader than they were a few years ago.
No, the definitions are unchanged. It's just that more Nazis and racists are open about their beliefs since probably the 60s. For ... reasons.
  #214  
Old 11-02-2019, 06:03 AM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
No, the definitions are unchanged. It's just that more Nazis and racists are open about their beliefs since probably the 60s. For ... reasons.
That doesn’t fit with my day to day experience at all. I see people being called racists (and white supremacists, and fascists, and even, occasionally, Nazis) for stuff which wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow twenty (or maybe even ten) years ago.

Last edited by Unreconstructed Man; 11-02-2019 at 06:04 AM.
  #215  
Old 11-02-2019, 06:42 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
That doesn’t fit with my day to day experience at all. I see people being called racists (and white supremacists, and fascists, and even, occasionally, Nazis) for stuff which wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow twenty (or maybe even ten) years ago.
And maybe that means that possibly, just maybe, the world of twenty years ago was fucked in the head ? And we're recognizing it now ?
Eddie Murphy, hardly an icon of Trumpism, opened his extremely popular 1983 comedy show Delirious with a long bit on "faggots" (his word) and his fear of catching AIDS from them. To much laughter from the crowd.
Since then language and ideas have become more polished, more tolerant... and more coded and dog-whistly on the part of -phobic shitheads. And then comes this orange man who abandons all pretence at euphemisms and chameleon hatred, and oh boy are the tiki torch crowd loving him ! And supporting him, or deploring his tone while pushing forward their own -phobic rethoric wrapped in more "civil" terms.

We're not fooled. And we call these people for what they are, because the word for "fascist apologist" or "opportunistic supporter of fascism" is "fascist" ; as there's no meaningful nor practical difference between an honest to goodness fascist, one who plays one on TV, and one who plays one to sell fascists magic pills.

Last edited by Kobal2; 11-02-2019 at 06:42 AM.
  #216  
Old 11-02-2019, 06:45 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,970
(and if you think that this wave of fascist, racist actors being granted far-reaching platforms or the normalization of hate is harmless or doesn't lead to upticks of -phobic violence ; you really haven't been paying attention.)
  #217  
Old 11-02-2019, 07:13 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
And maybe that means that possibly, just maybe, the world of twenty years ago was fucked in the head ? And we're recognizing it now ?
Yep. It's not the definitions that have changed. It's the public will to act.
  #218  
Old 11-02-2019, 07:50 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,004
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
The definition of Nazi and racist are far broader than they were a few years ago. If these (and other) definitions keep expanding, there’s no limit to who could be thrown under the bus.
“If laws allow for abortion, then doctors can murder second grades with impunity.”

Same argument.
  #219  
Old 11-02-2019, 07:52 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 11,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
That doesn’t fit with my day to day experience at all. I see people being called racists (and white supremacists, and fascists, and even, occasionally, Nazis) for stuff which wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow twenty (or maybe even ten) years ago.
We can't debate personal experience.
  #220  
Old 11-02-2019, 08:19 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odesio View Post
This really isn't a good example. A Native American can't open up a casino in downtown Dallas or Orlando, Florida because the states those cities are in either don't allow gambling or restrict it in other ways. Native Americans can open casinos on their own land because it's sovereign territory.
Yes, I'm aware - saying "Native American casinos" is shorthand for saying "Casinos on Native American land" since they often don't run the casinos entirely themselves. The whole point being that Native Americans get sovereign territory in the USA that others don't.
Quote:
i.e. They don't get to open casinos because they're Native American they get to open them because they control their own territory.
That's a tautology.
Quote:
Affirmative Action laws in the United States these days aren't typically written in such a way as to only apply to certain races.
US AA laws are not the only AA laws in the world. And regardless, the practical effect is the exclusion of some races from some benefits.
  #221  
Old 11-02-2019, 08:21 AM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Yep. It's not the definitions that have changed. It's the public will to act.
No. Definitions have changed. For example, Britain joined the European Single Market (ESM) in 1973. In 1975 a referendum was held. Labour, in their 1974 manifesto, promised that if Britain voted to leave the ESM then, if Labour won the subsequent General Election, they’d use that result as grounds to take Britain out of the ESM.

At the time, nobody - and I mean absolutely nobody - would’ve thought a vote for Leave in and of itself would make one a racist or a fascist. Tony Benn campaigned to leave in ‘75.

Fast forward to 2016 and it’s a completely different story. The popular perception among many Remainers in Britain is that (in the words of one of my Remainer colleagues) “If you voted for Brexit you’re either racist or you’re thick”. This sentiment is absolutely everywhere, and has been ever since the Brexit vote.

This isn’t a case of the world wising up to something that was actually racist all along. This is a case of something that factually wasn’t racist in 1975, being considered profoundly racist by about half the country in 2016.

So, yes. The definitions have changed. Ten years ago, if you told me “Bob’s a racist”, I would’ve known exactly what you meant. Today, if you told me “Bob’s a racist”, I genuinely wouldn’t have a clue. Does he follow Britain First on Facebook? Or did he just vote Leave? I’ve no way of knowing from the description given.

Last edited by Unreconstructed Man; 11-02-2019 at 08:22 AM.
  #222  
Old 11-02-2019, 08:35 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guinastasia View Post
it's not because they're Native American, it's because they're opening them in sovereign territory, which is an entirely different subject.
No it's not. The very existence of that sovereignty is because of their Native American ethnicity.
Quote:
Once again, what do you mean by "affirmative action"? No, it's not a dodge -- there are a number of different types of affirmative actions. Are you talking about things such as trying to start new educational programs in minority area school districts, or more like hiring quotas?
I don't mean hiring quotas, I mean things like targetted recruitment to college,
Quote:


Jews and gays aren't a race....what's your point?
Right there in the sentence right after what you quoted. You asked if hate speech only counted if it's against race (hoping to score some kind of cheap shot gotchya under cloak of feminism, I guess?) I pointed out several bigotries that were not about race that I believe attract hate speech.
Quote:
If you think banning hate speech willl make people shut up, well -- you're much, much more of an optimist than I am.
No, I have actual experience of hate speech legislation doing exactly what is intended. Racists in South Africa are a fuckload less vocal and visible than they were. The system works.

Last edited by MrDibble; 11-02-2019 at 08:35 AM.
  #223  
Old 11-02-2019, 08:35 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,004
What has this country come to when segregationists are now viewed as racists instead of states’ rights constitutionalists? Damn changing definitions!!

ETA: and by the way, the founder of UKIP, Alan Sked, who I personally know, left the party twenty years ago because he said it had been hijacked by racists. That sob-story about mean things being said about Farage and his ilk is another terrible argument in this thread.

Last edited by Ravenman; 11-02-2019 at 08:37 AM.
  #224  
Old 11-02-2019, 08:43 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
The popular perception among many Remainers in Britain is that (in the words of one of my Remainer colleagues) “If you voted for Brexit you’re either racist or you’re thick”. This sentiment is absolutely everywhere, and has been ever since the Brexit vote.
I see nothing wrong with your colleague's assessment.
Quote:
This isn’t a case of the world wising up to something that was actually racist all along. This is a case of something that factually wasn’t racist in 1975, being considered profoundly racist by about half the country in 2016.
And all that racist Leave campaigning had nothing to do with this change in perception, I'm sure...

Leave is seen as more racist now because it is more racist now. In '75 it was about different issues. Mostly economic. You can't argue that anymore. Not with a straight face.

Last edited by MrDibble; 11-02-2019 at 08:45 AM.
  #225  
Old 11-02-2019, 08:48 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
No. Definitions have changed. For example, Britain joined the European Single Market (ESM) in 1973. In 1975 a referendum was held. Labour, in their 1974 manifesto, promised that if Britain voted to leave the ESM then, if Labour won the subsequent General Election, they’d use that result as grounds to take Britain out of the ESM.

At the time, nobody - and I mean absolutely nobody - would’ve thought a vote for Leave in and of itself would make one a racist or a fascist. Tony Benn campaigned to leave in ‘75.

Fast forward to 2016 and it’s a completely different story.
That could be because campaigners for Brexit have consistenly pushed a xenophobic rhetoric and used explicitly racist imagery that's a literal carbon copy of Third Reich propaganda. Or, you know, because candidates for UKIP are literal alt-right figureheads. I mean, it *could* be that. But maybe it's just Remainers and the Left being so gosh darned irrational and crazy.
  #226  
Old 11-02-2019, 09:30 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Actually, I just want to requote select bits of that with emphases, because it becomes more abhorrent a statement the more I reread it:

People (and once again, let me emphasize that for hate crime laws that means people who historically were absolutely brutalized and often still suffer oppression today) must be sacrificed - to an idea. Not an actual practice, because there's no place where free speech is absolute. But the idea of free speech, that is the Moloch into which we must feed actual people - our gays, our PoCs, our Jews, our disabled, all our oppressed.

All so some Nazis can get to deny the Holocaust with impunity.
Sacrifice means someone may get their feels hurt. Sort of like folks posting in this thread have used misogynistic slurs in the pit, iirc. That hurts feelings. Using cunt, which is a gendered insult, could be considered so-called ‘hate speech’ by the standards of the board but that was celebrated.

Sacrifice isn’t a literal drag someone up on a pyramid and carve out his heart. No, the sacrifice is that some people will be offended vs. empowering the state further and further. And that is a sacrifice worth making.
  #227  
Old 11-02-2019, 09:36 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
We can't debate personal experience.
Sure you can. We see exactly what he’s alluding to on this very board. People are called Nazi or racist or whatever when they advocate for free speech. Think about that. Advocating for individual liberty and a check on state power is now equated, in an intellectually dishonest fashion, with Nazis. It’d be funny if it weren’t having an actual impact in the real world.
  #228  
Old 11-02-2019, 09:36 AM
Kobal2's Avatar
Kobal2 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 18,970
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Sacrifice means someone may get their feels hurt. Sort of like folks posting in this thread have used misogynistic slurs in the pit, iirc. That hurts feelings. Using cunt, which is a gendered insult, could be considered so-called ‘hate speech’ by the standards of the board but that was celebrated.

Sacrifice isn’t a literal drag someone up on a pyramid and carve out his heart. No, the sacrifice is that some people will be offended vs. empowering the state further and further. And that is a sacrifice worth making.
You're equivocating. The opposite of "Hate speech" isn't "PC language" - you can absolutely broadcast a message of utter hate wrapped in perfectly innocent-sounding language, ask Richard Spencer, Tucker Carlson or Steve Bannon for tips on that - and the problem with hate speech isn't that it might hurt peoples' fucking fee-fees. It's that it gets people killed.

Last edited by Kobal2; 11-02-2019 at 09:37 AM.
  #229  
Old 11-02-2019, 09:48 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2 View Post
You're equivocating. The opposite of "Hate speech" isn't "PC language" - you can absolutely broadcast a message of utter hate wrapped in perfectly innocent-sounding language, ask Richard Spencer, Tucker Carlson or Steve Bannon for tips on that - and the problem with hate speech isn't that it might hurt peoples' fucking fee-fees. It's that it gets people killed.
There are laws against violence. Hate speech laws can make it where if you discuss immigration or crime statistics or quote rap lyrics you can go to jail.
  #230  
Old 11-02-2019, 10:25 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Sacrifice means someone may get their feels hurt.
No, it means someone gets hurt or killed.
Quote:
Using cunt, which is a gendered insult, could be considered so-called ‘hate speech’ by the standards of the board
Except it's not. Just like not all racist insults are hate speech.
Quote:
Sacrifice isn’t a literal drag someone up on a pyramid and carve out his heart.
No, it's drag someone to death behind your pickup. Literally.
Quote:
And that is a sacrifice worth making.
Easy for you to say, you're not one of the ones being sacrificed.

Isn't that always the way.
  #231  
Old 11-02-2019, 10:26 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Hate speech laws can make it where if you discuss immigration or crime statistics or quote rap lyrics you can go to jail.
Where is this the case? These are the hate speech laws in Strawville.

Last edited by MrDibble; 11-02-2019 at 10:27 AM.
  #232  
Old 11-02-2019, 11:03 AM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 10,993

Moderating


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I have to assume you're trying to make a point, but it's not well taken. This is a warning for hate speech. While this topic is fine to debate, engaging in this behavior is not allowed on the board.

[/moderating]
After discussion in ATMB and with the mod loop, I am reversing this warning.

[/moderating]
  #233  
Old 11-02-2019, 11:47 AM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is back, dammit!
Posts: 29,956
Thanks, Bone.
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #234  
Old 11-02-2019, 11:49 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
No, it means someone gets hurt or killed.

Except it's not. Just like not all racist insults are hate speech.

No, it's drag someone to death behind your pickup. Literally.

Easy for you to say, you're not one of the ones being sacrificed.

Isn't that always the way.
Once you empower the state it's very difficult to reverse that. You are worried about what, exactly? A few bad words leading to violence that may result in a few dead? That's the hypothetical?

Well, history shows what powerful institutions do when they have absolute power. Including the power to label speech blasphemous, treasonous, 'hate speech', etc. When the state, the church, or other powerful institutions can shut down speech, confiscate weaponry, run kangaroo courts, etc. you have genocides. You have not 5 or 6 dead you have 10s of millions dead.

In an ideal world where governments and other institutions haven't been the most deadly concentration of power in history you are correct. It would be very nice to legislate niceness. But in the real world, the reigns of power attract the narcissistic, the psychopathic, and the power hungry. Once they get power the so-called tools used to protect the people can be tools used to oppress the people.

I'm not sure why these historical lessons, like the failures of socialism, fail to make an impression on the people of today. Everybody is so worried about the so-called Nazis. Why? Nazis were bad, yes, but they are just a subset of authoritarianism. Authoritarianism/statism is the big threat, regardless of what facade it wears in order to sell itself to the gullible masses.

And no, being sentenced to jail for 30 days because someone recorded a person using a racial slur is not a strawman. Being expelled from a public university for unPC speech is not a strawman. These are real events. And if you don't think the government in the US doesn't currently abuse the power it currently has you haven't been reading the news.

Furthermore, what is it about the US that resulted in a country that has somewhat effective checks and balances, jury trials, right to not incriminate oneself, prohibition on most forms of slavery, freedom to defend one's self, freedom to publish, freedom to speak, property rights, etc? The answer is the idea that people possess intrinsic rights and that sovereignty of government is derived from the consent of the governed. These are profound ideas but they aren't inevitable. If people don't work very hard to maintain the fiction that humans have intrinsic rights and that the state isn't supreme you will end up with more and more of the world a police state like China.

And China's impact is being vastly underestimated. They are potentially more dangerous than Germany or the Soviet Union ever was.

Now, I understand the concern you feel and that Miller feels and that other people who have been or are currently marginalized feel. However, clairobscur and the other free speech advocates are 100% right in that empowering the state or the state sanctioned mob is ultimately much more destructive.

There was/is a discussion in ATMB about transgenderism and whether or not a certain comment was hate speech. In a country where hate speech is criminalized the penalty isn't a warning on a message board of a 100 or so. The penalty is jail or fines. Perhaps jail was called for with the comment. How about discussing gender and sports? Jail for that? Opposition to quotas in university or jobs? Jail? Want limits to immigration? Jail? Reading Genesis aloud in a church or other religious building? Jail for that?

These aren't strawmen. There are over 1 million Uighurs in real concentration camps in China being 'reeducated' as we type because of their religion/ethnicity. There is nothing magical stopping the West from becoming classically illiberal.
  #235  
Old 11-02-2019, 12:15 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Sacrifice means someone may get their feels hurt.
I just want to echo what other posters have said: my concern with hate speech isn't that it makes me feel bad, my concern is that it makes my country physically unsafe for me to live in.
  #236  
Old 11-02-2019, 12:26 PM
Odesio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 11,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
No it's not. The very existence of that sovereignty is because of their Native American ethnicity.
That's not quite true. The Supreme Court recognizes that tribal sovereignty predates the U.S. government. And they didn't base any of that recognition on the fact that those tribes were Native Americans.
__________________
I can be found in history's unmarked grave of discarded ideologies.

Last edited by Odesio; 11-02-2019 at 12:26 PM.
  #237  
Old 11-02-2019, 12:35 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
I just want to echo what other posters have said: my concern with hate speech isn't that it makes me feel bad, my concern is that it makes my country physically unsafe for me to live in.
So let me ask you this, are you in favor of robust hate speech laws?
  #238  
Old 11-02-2019, 12:59 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,631
Is "robust" code for the craziest dystopian version you can dream up?
  #239  
Old 11-02-2019, 01:06 PM
Unreconstructed Man is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
And all that racist Leave campaigning had nothing to do with this change in perception, I'm sure...

Leave is seen as more racist now because it is more racist now. In '75 it was about different issues. Mostly economic. You can't argue that anymore. Not with a straight face.
Remember, I’m arguing that the definition of racist has expanded so much since 1975 that, for about half of the UK, the mere act of voting Leave when considered in isolation is proof enough that someone is a racist.

Why wasn’t it proof enough in 1975? It couldn’t possibly have been because the 1975 Leave campaign was less racist than the 2016 Leave campaign. After all, Enoch Powell was leading the Leave campaign in ‘75. And Enoch Powell, on his best day, was a thousand times more racist than Nigel Farage.

Yes, there were economic reasons to vote Leave in ‘75. But there were economic reasons to vote Leave in 2016, too. So why is it that a Leaver who voted Out in 1975 for economic reasons would be taken at his word, while Leavers who voted Out in 2016 for economic reasons are told to stop hiding behind dog whistles and just confess their racism?

The act is the same, the reason behind the act is the same, the social context surrounding the act is, if anything, markedly less racist, but the significance of the act is (for about half the country) entirely different.

The only explanation is that the definition of ‘racist’ has expanded to include things it previously didn’t.
  #240  
Old 11-02-2019, 01:16 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Once you empower the state it's very difficult to reverse that.
The state is already empowered. The discussion is on what it should apply that power to.
Quote:
You are worried about what, exactly? A few bad words leading to violence that may result in a few dead? That's the hypothetical?
Can't make a Freedom omelette without breaking some (minority) eggs, eh?
Quote:
Well, history shows what powerful institutions do when they have absolute power.
Who said anything about *absolute* power?

This is just the same slippery slope nonsense repeated.
Quote:
Including the power to label speech blasphemous, treasonous, 'hate speech', etc. When the state, the church, or other powerful institutions can shut down speech, confiscate weaponry, run kangaroo courts, etc. you have genocides.
The E.U. , what a genocide-plagued shit-hole, eh?
Quote:
Nazis were bad, yes, but
Nothing good ever started like this.
Quote:
And no, being sentenced to jail for 30 days because someone recorded a person using a racial slur is not a strawman. Being expelled from a public university for unPC speech is not a strawman. These are real events.
Those are not the strawmen I was talking about.
Quote:
And if you don't think the government in the US doesn't currently abuse the power it currently has you haven't been reading the news.
Sure. Hence all the Nazis you have...
Quote:
Furthermore, what is it about the US ...
Nothing special.
Quote:
And China's impact is being vastly underestimated. They are potentially more dangerous than Germany or the Soviet Union ever was.
They'll have a ways to go to catch up with even the U.S, though, never mind those...
Quote:
There are over 1 million Uighurs in real concentration camps in China being 'reeducated' as we type because of their religion/ethnicity.
What does that have to do with hate speech laws?
  #241  
Old 11-02-2019, 01:19 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Is "robust" code for the craziest dystopian version you can dream up?
Are you asking for a cite?

Here’s a cite. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/robust

If it pleases you, feel free to ignore that word in that question. Not like words have any meaning nowadays anyways.
  #242  
Old 11-02-2019, 01:25 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,200
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
The state is already empowered. The discussion is on what it should apply that power to.

Can't make a Freedom omelette without breaking some (minority) eggs, eh?

Who said anything about *absolute* power?

This is just the same slippery slope nonsense repeated.

The E.U. , what a genocide-plagued shit-hole, eh?

Nothing good ever started like this.

Those are not the strawmen I was talking about.

Sure. Hence all the Nazis you have...

Nothing special.

They'll have a ways to go to catch up with even the U.S, though, never mind those...

What does that have to do with hate speech laws?
Thanks to the concept of free speech we can have this conversation. In the world of hate speech laws one of us would be in prison because of this conversation.
  #243  
Old 11-02-2019, 01:34 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Thanks to the concept of free speech we can have this conversation. In the world of hate speech laws one of us would be in prison because of this conversation.
S'funny, there are hate speech laws in my country, and in clairobscur and Kobal2's country too. Yet here I am posting, and so are they. So you're absolutely wrong.

Last edited by MrDibble; 11-02-2019 at 01:35 PM.
  #244  
Old 11-02-2019, 01:38 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odesio View Post
That's not quite true. The Supreme Court recognizes that tribal sovereignty predates the U.S. government. And they didn't base any of that recognition on the fact that those tribes were Native Americans.
But the effect is the same - Native Americans enjoy an accommodation non-Natives don't.

And current ability to enjoy that accommodation is passed down along ethnic lines.

Last edited by MrDibble; 11-02-2019 at 01:41 PM.
  #245  
Old 11-02-2019, 02:11 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,631
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
S'funny, there are hate speech laws in my country, and in clairobscur and Kobal2's country too. Yet here I am posting, and so are they. So you're absolutely wrong.
I am also posting from a hate speech law country. Nobody has arrested me yet but I'm not sure how robust the laws are here in Canada on the old octopus scale.
  #246  
Old 11-02-2019, 02:32 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,004
So, octo, when do you expect genocide in Britain? Any day now? Is that before or just after the spaceship following the Hale-Bopp comet returns?

And who, precisely, would be in jail in this thread?
  #247  
Old 11-02-2019, 02:39 PM
Odesio is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 11,617
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
But the effect is the same - Native Americans enjoy an accommodation non-Natives don't.
That's like saying Nevadans enjoy an accommodation that Californians do not because the former allows gambling and the latter does not. You picked a bad example to illustrate your point. I don't see any reason to continue with this particular tangent though.
__________________
I can be found in history's unmarked grave of discarded ideologies.
  #248  
Old 11-02-2019, 02:44 PM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 26,550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odesio View Post
That's like saying Nevadans enjoy an accommodation that Californians do not because the former allows gambling and the latter does not.
Any Californian can move to Nevada and open a casino if they meet the conditions. It's a false equivalency. I stand by my example.
  #249  
Old 11-02-2019, 02:46 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,874
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
The act is the same, the reason behind the act is the same, the social context surrounding the act is, if anything, markedly less racist, but the significance of the act is (for about half the country) entirely different.

The only explanation is that the definition of ‘racist’ has expanded to include things it previously didn’t.
And if we don't put a halt now to this ongoing campaign to reduce racism, we may end up living in a society where everyone is equal and we don't have any racism at all.
  #250  
Old 11-02-2019, 03:33 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,200
Alright, perhaps the being in jail comment was a bit of an exaggeration. Still, the idea that totalitarian states are the most dangerous institutions in the history of peoplekind is something that is too easily dismissed.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:07 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017