defining hate speech

[booyalab]

I just read a column that I thought made some interesting points http://townhall.com/columnists/MikeSAdams/2007/10/22/why_islamic_fascists_get_away_with_hate_speech


Hate speech is verbal communication that induces anger due to the listener's inability to offer an intelligent response.

Because this inability to offer an intelligent response is due to one of two reasons, there are really two different types of hate speech: 1) Speech that is too dumb to merit an intelligent response, and 2) Speech for which the listener is too dumb to offer an intelligent response.

Instances of the former are numerous in the society-at-large. For example, when a member of the KKK says "I may not be much, but at least I'm not a nigger" there is really no way to respond intelligently. Nor is there much hope that any response will be understood and appreciated by someone ignorant enough to make such a remark. So the speech can be properly characterized as hate speech.


Instances of the latter are numerous in academia. For example, three years ago this week, I wrote a piece explaining how speech codes produce a form of reverse Darwinism. I argued that only those who are emotionally unfit are likely to become uncomfortable simply by hearing a contrary point of view. I argued further that they are indeed quite emotionally unfit if they actually remain upset long enough to file a complaint aimed at enforcing a speech code.


Of course, after I wrote my piece a feminist started crying and went to the feminist (now former) chair who, in turn, gave me a lecture about civility. In other words, the feminists weren't smart enough to address the substance of my remarks. Shocking, isn't it?

Hence, I accurately predicted that the codes seek to weed out the speech of the emotionally stable majority - those who do not cry at work - through the vehicle of complaints filed by the emotionally unstable - those who cry at work but never file complaints directed towards the suppression of their own views.


The similarity between the two principal forms of hate speech is obvious:

They both induce anger in the listener, regardless of whether the speaker expressed his view with any feeling of hatred or animosity.


And this leads to an understanding (see bold sentence below) of the apparent hypocrisy of gays and feminists who a) cry "hate speech" (while actually crying in some cases) against conservatives who do not wish to kill gays and feminists, and b) tolerate "hate speech" by Islamic fascists who really do wish to kill gays and feminists.

Islamic advocacy of violence is not classified as "hate speech" because it induces fear, not anger.


agree? disagree?
how would you define it?

[Lee]

In other words, free speech is not free, it comes with externalities which must be tolerated, so learn to live with it. (When I read this a couple of days ago I thought of you. I seem to remember an essay I read about this once).

[booyalab]

In other words, free speech is not free, it comes with externalities which must be tolerated, so learn to live with it.
and take midol as needed


When I read this a couple of days ago I thought of you. aww!

Lee, which category do you think the James Watson comment would fall under?
It seems to me it would sort of fall under both. To me it's dumb because it suggests that a race's fate depends on some perceived level of intelligence, but an intelligent response could involve challenging the underlying assumptions.

[Lee]

Lee, which category do you think the James Watson comment would fall under? It seems to me it would sort of fall under both. To me it's dumb because it suggests that a race's fate depends on some perceived level of intelligence, but an intelligent response could involve challenging the underlying assumptions.What James Watson comment?

[LongSilence]

"And this leads to an understanding (see bold sentence below) of the apparent hypocrisy of gays and feminists who a) cry "hate speech" (while actually crying in some cases) against conservatives who do not wish to kill gays and feminists, and b) tolerate "hate speech" by Islamic fascists who really do wish to kill gays and feminists.

Islamic advocacy of violence is not classified as "hate speech" because it induces fear, not anger."

I'd add that it's also that more often than not conservatives inspire anger because they remain the sort of people that gays, feminists etc. hope and somewhat expect support from. People get angry over the little differences they cannot deal with between them and their fellow men. They remain ignorant and fearful of the big differences and thus afford them more respect in a way.

In the end, if we follow this line of thinking always everything that is said to a stupid listener can be construed as Hate Speech. For people whose 'job' it is to observe those who are guilty of Hate Speech this poses a question- do we seek to view things from the dumb listeners' perspectives or do we refrain from criticism if the speech is capable of being responded to intelligently from any contrary viewpoint?

[labcat]

the word "hate" shouldn't be placed before the words "crime" or "speech" because when is an intentional crime against any another human not hate-filled?
and speech should be free no matter how stupid.

[kuranes]

"Those who do not cry at work" - thought that was an interesting phrase that the writer on hate speech chose to use. It reminded me of a piece I just read on crying by men and women as its perceived by men and women. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071024/ap_en_ot/the_crying_game

I'm not sure what "hate speech" is. Seems to be one of those vague phrases. Typically if its used to suggest genocide, people don't have a problem with confirming that its then lost its vagueness. I don't think Osama Bin Laden was perceived with sympathy when he supposedly said ( in a long ago interview with a Western reporter who had agreed to be brought to his cave blindfolded ) that one way to get to Westerners was to maim "their" women, as if our esteem for females among our society was to be considered one of several fatal weakness.

I see venom at the other end of the scale which is elevated as cultural critique. There are some individuals ( usually men who behave like caricatures of homosexual mincing ) whose entire careers seem to be about making women feel unsure of themselves as far as what dress fashions they've chosen to present themselves with. Hate speech ? No. Pitiful, on the part of these critics ? Yes.

I didn't see Halle Berry cry at whatever prize ceremony ( Oscars, perhaps ) she won, but I heard about it for days afterwards from onscreen faces with similar simpering sneers.

[Madrigal]

apparent hypocrisy of gays and feminists who a) cry "hate speech" (while actually crying in some cases)

I wonder if this guy likes feminists and gays. Hmm, think think. *rolls eyes*

Oh yeah, the article was too dumb for me to waste my time producing an intelligent response.

[Rajah]

First Amendment scholars often discuss the marketplace of ideas theory. In other words, the reason for free speech is to have everyone's ideas brought to light, and through discussion and debate, we can collectively arrive at the "truth." It's a lovely, idealistic view.

The people who propose hate-speech regulation often say that hate speech interferes with the marketplace of ideas concept. The "critical race" theory says that hate speech effectively silences the voices of minorities and prevents them from exercising their own First Amendment right to free speech.

I don't think I have to say the article you posted oversimplifies things.

[booyalab]

The people who propose hate-speech regulation often say that hate speech interferes with the marketplace of ideas concept. The "critical race" theory says that hate speech effectively silences the voices of minorities and prevents them from exercising their own First Amendment right to free speech.

okay...so you apparently defend hate speech regulation, what evidence do you have that the voices of minorities are silenced by hate speech and on what grounds are those voices more important than their oppressors, who are silenced instead.

[Rajah]

okay...so you apparently defend hate speech regulation, on what grounds do you think that the voices of minorities are 1. infringed upon by their oppressors, and 2. more important than their "oppressors" (who end up getting silenced)I do? I don't recall saying that.

[demagogic_schizoid]

No system can allow speech which challenges it's fundamental basis. Free speech is an impossible ideal I think. You can allow it if contrary ideas to the basis of your society are very minor. the moment they start to be listened to, they'll be banned outright, or crushed through inceeased restrictions and social pressure promtoed in the mainstream media, etc.

[Jennywocky]

I am more with Ra"Pumpkin-predator"jah on this one.

Idealistically, any sort of thoughts and discussion should be able to occur. We should all be able to be open, good listeners of other views, and be able to articulate our own points of view intelligibly.

However, people and conversation does not happen in a vacuum. There are often already inequities in the system that prevent certain voices from being heard, or personal pains that make it difficult for people to be as "open" as would be ideal.

This is the problem with the sort of thinking that is worried about shutting other people up and how to control speech from an externalized vantage point.

The truth is probably that each person needs to be trained growing up on how to take responsibility for their own thoughts/actions, and how to listen to others even if they don't like the viewpoint coming across, and how to step outside their own perspective to honestly see other views at all, and how to be sensitive to what someone else's influences might have been.

Conversation can either be used to dominate or to listen/find ways to support others.

Sorry, this does not offer a magic bullet solution. There are none. We are each responsible for what we say and do to others. The thing I hate about "hate speech" accusations is that the concept is based on people controlling what OTHERs say, rather than controlling what THEY say.

[Karl]

Two things:
1. Hate, at any particular point in time, can have a basis besides anger, such as fear.

2. The problem with racists and sexists is not that they say racist or sexist things, but that they believe and live by racist and sexist ideas.

[Rajah]

No system can allow speech which challenges it's fundamental basis. Free speech is an impossible ideal I think. You can allow it if contrary ideas to the basis of your society are very minor. the moment they start to be listened to, they'll be banned outright, or crushed through inceeased restrictions and social pressure promtoed in the mainstream media, etc.And sadly, that's precisely the type of political and social expression that needs protected. We have to protect unpopular speech. Another line of discussion says that punishing hate speech actually harms society because it drives hate groups underground, and that hate speech laws actually stifle the expression of minorities - the people the laws are designed to protect.

A lot of hate speech discussion also gets lumped into talking about fighting words, which are words expressly designed to incite unrest and cause acts of violence. The Supreme Court has said these words have no, or extremely slight, social value, and aren't necessary to exposing truth, so any minute benefit that can be gained from them is outweighed by the need to preserve order.

[booyalab]

I do? I don't recall saying that.
I assumed you thought the angle you presented was valid, since you presented it uncritically. Unless you wanted me to criticize it...

[demagogic_schizoid]

And sadly, that's precisely the type of political and social expression that needs protected. We have to protect unpopular speech.

I think that's maybe idealistic though. I mean, speech's purpose, if it's to be worth anything, is to act as a catalyst for action. let's tkae the example of communism vs capitalism. you can't have a capitalist system if enough people reject private property, and you can't have a communist system or a succesful transition to one if enough people want to privatise communal property or stop incrased collectivisation. so neither society can allow those contrary ideas to predominate, because they wil ultimately unravel the whole thing - for neither side is speech an end in itself, it's just the means which is worthless if the end isn't acheived.

[Rajah]

I assumed you thought the angle you presented was valid, since you presented it uncritically. Unless you wanted me to criticize it...Posting someone's viewpoint about why hate-speech regulation should exist counts as defending hate-speech regulation? There's a difference between "hey, you have a good point," and "you win the whole damn debate."

In any event, I think it's a valid argument. However, I still resist regulating hate speech. And you can see courts wrestle with this. They usually find the regulations unconstitutional because they're overbroad and vague, and stifle speech they're not intended to stifle.


I think that's maybe idealistic though. I mean, speech's purpose, if it's to be worth anything, is to act as a catalyst for action. let's tkae the example of communism vs capitalism. you can't have a capitalist system if enough people reject private property, and you can't have a communist system or a succesful transition to one if enough people want to privatise communal property or stop incrased collectivisation. so neither society can allow those contrary ideas to predominate, because they wil ultimately unravel the whole thing - for neither side is speech an end in itself, it's just the means which is worthless if the end isn't acheived.
Fundamentally, what's the point of free speech if you're protecting only popular speech? The protection would be completely worthless then.

[demagogic_schizoid]

Fundamentally, what's the point of free speech if you're protecting only popular speech? The protection would be completely worthless then.

that's my point,I think free speech doesn't exist and never has and is actually a meaningless phrase. speech is a call to action and the only acceptable speech will be that which calls to acceptable action as defined by a particular society. sometimes when calls to unacceptable action are so minor that they make no difference, they'll be tolerated. as soon as they start to make a difference they'll be clamped down on.

[Rajah]

that's my point,I think free speech doesn't exist and never has and is actually a meaningless phrase. speech is a call to action and the only acceptable speech will be that which calls to acceptable action as defined by a particular society.Okay... but I think long-term, you at least have to make a concerted effort to protect unpopular speech. The reason all of this free speech business was written into the Bill of Rights was to ensure that the people could freely criticize the government. We see the tension playing out in a major way in the US right now, and it pains me.

[Autumn]

No system can allow speech which challenges it's fundamental basis. Free speech is an impossible ideal I think. You can allow it if contrary ideas to the basis of your society are very minor. the moment they start to be listened to, they'll be banned outright, or crushed through inceeased restrictions and social pressure promtoed in the mainstream media, etc.


And sadly, that's precisely the type of political and social expression that needs protected. We have to protect unpopular speech. Another line of discussion says that punishing hate speech actually harms society because it drives hate groups underground, and that hate speech laws actually stifle the expression of minorities - the people the laws are designed to protect.


Very simple I think. The question is, who has the power and based on what right? The only answer I can come up with is that the majority has the power because of phisical strength.
The structure of hierarchy results that a small group will be governing in the name of majority. When they diverge from the majority's will (the sum of the micro-wills of individuals) they have to find a way to overcome the advantage the masses have in phisical strength. So they place restrictions and exploit media power to prohibit masses from plot. That's all.

I risk to bring a very coarse example. I have little hope that you will grasp the philosophical problem behind it, but I give it a try.

Suppose the majority decides to exterminate a minority. Who'd have a right to ban that? I think that no one, I think that the only way to avoid it is if the majority doesn't decide on such monstrosity.
I think that the main problem is that the majority is very impressionable and ignorant. And the interest of the governing layer is that it stay that way.

[Zergling]

Since the whole argument is about definitions, it's kind of pointless in a way, since like all definitions people will have several slightly different but related ones. The first part of the article does work well at describing some of the problems a lot of this type of speech has, where it is very hard to respond well to it. The "speech used to stir up hatred" does still seem like a better operating definition, however.


And this leads to an understanding (see bold sentence below) of the apparent hypocrisy of gays and feminists who a) cry "hate speech" (while actually crying in some cases) against conservatives who do not wish to kill gays and feminists, and b) tolerate "hate speech" by Islamic fascists who really do wish to kill gays and feminists.

This part of the article was really pointless, and using a similar process as the rest of the article, could be classified as hate speech (I don't know whether this was the point or not.), as there isn't a way to intelligently respond to it. (Pretty much it would involve saying something like "Gays and feminists do not want to live under such systems", "They do not support islamic systems of government", or other contradictions.) If it was a way to sneak some "hate speech" in there as an example, I'm interested in seeing how it resulted. If not, it partially screwed up the article by dragging it back into the "liberal" vs. "conservative" high schoolish clique fighting (Which often times seems more about social advantages than any actual world effecting issues.)

[Autumn]

Another problem is that a free social system is unstable. It can decide freely anytime that it'd continue to be a dictatorship (otherwise it would not be free!). But once there it can't decide to turn back into a free social system. It's like a cube on its pitch vs on it's side.

[macr0]

Another problem is that a free social system is unstable. It can decide freely anytime that it'd continue to be a dictatorship (otherwise it would not be free!). But once there it can't decide to turn back into a free social system. It's like a cube on its pitch vs on it's side.

Yes, mobocracy (democracy) can negatively affect freedom. This is the reason why some enlightenment political activists believed that the republic system, which is based on the rule of law, will provide more freedom than a democracy.

In theory, that is why it boils down to a jury judging an individual. This is by no means perfect, but it is much better than lynching mobs running around doing what they please (including the government).

Famous little quote:

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch."
-- Benjamin Franklin

[Karl]

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch."
-- Benjamin Franklin

I suppose the republic system is a wolf buying two lambs, then.

[demagogic_schizoid]

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch."
-- Benjamin Franklin

if society is two wolves and a lamb, there's no way you'll protect the lamb. who writes the laws, some higher being?

if the wolves and the lamb is all there is, and the wolves want to eat the lamb, why would they make laws to prevent themselves from doing so?

and why would they need laws to prevent themselves from doing so if they were of a nature which made them disposed to writing those laws in the first place?

in reality those pessimists got it wrong though, it's more like 100 lambs and two wolves though...and the wolves have no teeth.

[macr0]

if society is two wolves and a lamb, there's no way you'll protect the lamb. who writes the laws, some higher being?

if the wolves and the lamb is all there is, and the wolves want to eat the lamb, why would they make laws to prevent themselves from doing so?


If you want to be idealistic, this is where rights come in. The only reason you make laws is to protect rights. When they are in conflict, rights trump freedom.



and why would they need laws to prevent themselves from doing so if they were of a nature which made them disposed to writing those laws in the first place?

Ok, forget wolves and sheep. Think about blacks and whites (which is strangely related to the topic of discussion because of Mr. Watson.)

For hundreds of years you had a bunch of white wolves eating the black sheep. It took civil rights until 40 years ago to actually get some rights to black people.

First, and foremost, rights must be fought for. Rights cannot be given, they can only be infringed. The best you can hope for is that rights can emerge in civil discourse like courts and public forums instead of war.

It's human nature that the majority will oppress the minority. There are always more wolves than there are sheep (in numbers or in power). You fail to understand the analog if you think otherwise.

That is why the entire system is built on top of human rights, which belong to an individual (the smallest minority of them all). You've got to do everything you can to slant the system for the individual if you want freedom, because the individual always gets fucked harder than anyone else (like that woman that's having to pay $220,000 for 10 MP3's on her computer.)


I suppose the republic system is a wolf buying two lambs, then.

Yeah. pro se = PLEASE FUCK ME IN THE ASS

As far as the OP is concerning: the article is accurate enough to agree with. I'd sum it up in one sentence:

People don't have the right to not be offended.

Hate speech, as a term, is complete BS. The only reason the term is in use is because of speech codes and other anti-rights movements. Divide and conquer the ways that you can talk, taking each piece off the table one at a time.

[demagogic_schizoid]

If you want to be idealistic, this is where rights come in. The only reason you make laws is to protect rights. When they are in conflict, rights trump freedom.

I'm not being idealsitic, you're the one who thinks that these abstract "laws" can overcome people's material motivations. Two strong people in a room, one weak person. No "law" will stop them doing what they want with him. In any society it's the strong who *make* the laws inthe first place - the weak hardly get into the position to make laws do they? If the lawmakers then wish to make laws to stop themselves from opressing the weak, this makes no sense, because if they ware so charitably inclined, they don't need laws. You're giving "laws" a supernatural power.



For hundreds of years you had a bunch of white wolves eating the black sheep. It took civil rights until 40 years ago to actually get some rights to black people.

It took rights to get rights? I think this is where you're going wrong. The peice of paper garuanteeing someone rights is worthless. The only reason blacks or anyone else have any rights in the USA or anywhere else is because it's not worth anyone's while right now to take them away, if you compare trouble caused to gains won.


"The best you can hope for is that rights can emerge in civil discourse like courts and public forums instead of war."

Doesn't happen though, onyl the thret of war is what garuantees them. Courts are worthless unless backed up by guns.


It's human nature that the majority will oppress the minority.

which scientist proved this about "human nature" then, is it written into our genes?


There are always more wolves than there are sheep (in numbers or in power). You fail to understand the analog if you think otherwise.

No, you fail to understand that the wolves are very few and the sheep are evry many. Sheep who work for wolves out of fear or short-sightedness are not the same as wolves. In reality, the minority opress the majority and not vie versa. Parts of the majority simply collaborate in their own opression just to retain minor advantages over others.


That is why the entire system is built on top of human rights, which belong to an individual (the smallest minority of them all). You've got to do everything you can to slant the system for the individual if you want freedom, because the individual always gets fucked harder than anyone else

This is just so idealistic though. If you believe that human nature is to opress the minority, then where the hell do these "rights" come from which run directly contrary to human nature? Are you saying that human beings are capable of establishing entire societies and value systems based on laws which run contrary to their own nature? That's absurd. you're acting as if laws exist outside of the people who make them. If in reality a society of 60 million people is genetically inclined to opress the minority, then how the hell are a bunch of laws some idealist liberal philosopher concocted going to stop them? The only laws will be made by the dominant group in the first place...unless you believe that the courts, police force, army and parliament are run by the opressed minority which must pass laws to defend itself fromt he majority which opresses it.

[lexiphanic]

No, you fail to understand that the wolves are very few and the sheep are evry many. Sheep who work for wolves out of fear or short-sightedness are not the same as wolves. In reality, the minority opress the majority and not vie versa. Parts of the majority simply collaborate in their own opression just to retain minor advantages over others.

I have come to the conclusion that more often than not the majority of people move a certain way is simply because a majority are moving a certain way. Nothing more, nothing less. Humans are social pack animals, and will go to great lengths to stay with what they feel is the predominant movement that meshes vaguely with what they want to believe.

The strong don't necessarily want to oppress or destroy the weak, they would much rather they simply fit in, or go away. In the case of the majority of people thinking it is good to be of a particular race, you get a goodly bit of angst out of it.

Now that the majority of people think that it is 'taboo' to formally make any statement of someone's race, you don't see much overt 'racism'. Hate crimes exist because the opinion of the people in control is that going against this 'idea' is a worse offense than if the deeds would be judged simply on their own independent of racial paradigms.

[Rajah]

I think this discussion of majority rule and whatnot misses one important point. At least in the US, courts are responsible for determining whether speech is protected by the First Amendment or not. And, unlike the legislature, federal judges typically aren't concerned with popular opinion or advancing some majority's agenda. They're not elected; they're appointed. The Supreme Court's job is to uphold the Constitution, even if doing so is a very unpopular choice. The Court has made many very controversial, very unpopular decisions, because they were the right decisions. I don't share the same cynicism when I'm looking at how the Court attempts to tackle free speech issues.

[Ariel]

I wonder if this guy likes feminists and gays. Hmm, think think. *rolls eyes*

Oh yeah, the article was too dumb for me to waste my time producing an intelligent response.
I agree.

His argument was obviously pointed towards derailing feminists and homosexuals and redeeming the more radical conservatives (who do tend to be notorious for publically stating their prejudices).

His tone throughout the article is bitter and sarcastic. (Ironic how he goes on about "emotional stability," really). It almost seems as if he is the one filing the complaint. He was sore about being berated --by a woman-- who stood in defense of another woman who cried after talking with him. I do not understand how he could have come to the conclusion that "the feminists weren't smart enough," when, at least in my mind, almost any other person would have sided with the poor lady. After all, she'd probably been driven to tears because of his lack of tact, and his lack of tact has probably gotten him into issues like this before (which would make sense considering how he addresses this subject). Just look at his language:


In other words, the feminists weren't smart enough to address the substance of my remarks. Shocking, isn't it?

I also take his opinion with a grain of salt because of his obvious arrogance. He presumes that his form of "hate speech" was the kind in which his listeners were too stupid to understand. It's quite possible that the reverse is actually true.

Two more issues to note:

1) In the dictionary, a "feminist" is defined as someone who follows "the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men." This guy speaks so badly of feminists that you have to wonder if he's against equal opportunity between the sexes. I hope that this speculation is not true, but whatever the case may be, he is really misusing the term.

2) To say "Islamic advocacy of violence..." is ignorant, because it's as if he's saying that the actual religion of Islam promotes the violence--and this is definately false.

If he expresses himself like this, and with such haughty presumptions and prejudices, then there is no wonder that has issues regarding the use of the term "hate speech." Obviously, he's been "victimized."

Defining the term is a nasty ordeal that I'll leave for later.

Gosh, I'm writing so late. Please excuse grammatical mistakes.

[lexiphanic]

I also take his opinion with a grain of salt because of his obvious arrogance. He presumes that his form of "hate speech" was the kind in which his listeners were too stupid to understand. It's quite possible that the reverse is actually true.

Two more issues to note:

1) In the dictionary, a "feminist" is defined as someone who follows "the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men." This guy speaks so badly of feminists that you have to wonder if he's against equal opportunity between the sexes. I hope that this speculation is not true, but whatever the case may be, he is really misusing the term.

2) To say "Islamic advocacy of violence..." is ignorant, because it's as if he's saying that the actual religion of Islam promotes the violence--and this is definately false.

If he expresses himself like this, and with such haughty presumptions and prejudices, then there is no wonder that has issues regarding the use of the term "hate speech." Obviously, he's been "victimized."

Defining the term is a nasty ordeal that I'll leave for later.

Gosh, I'm writing so late. Please excuse grammatical mistakes.

Ah, but just because he is a bad person, everything he types must be false?

In the spirit of free speech, I agree with him wholeheartedly. At the same time, assuming that the rest of the world will simply realize that they are too stupid to argue with the person maligning their views of the world is fairly nonsensical. Although a beautiful pontification, it really doesn't seem like it would be very 'road ready'.

Besides, making fun of stupid people that aren't attention whores, is simply bad sport.

*edit*

Reading back on the article, it is a far too loose a definition. You could call just about anything that insults anyone 'hate speech'.

[Ariel]

Ah, but just because he is a bad person, everything he types must be false?

In the spirit of free speech, I agree with him wholeheartedly. At the same time, assuming that the rest of the world will simply realize that they are too stupid to argue with the person maligning their views of the world is fairly nonsensical. Although a beautiful pontification, it really doesn't seem like it would be very 'road ready'.

Besides, making fun of stupid people that aren't attention whores, is simply bad sport.

*edit*

Reading back on the article, it is a far too loose a definition. You could call just about anything that insults anyone 'hate speech'.Yes, I find that I agree with his stance on free speech in general as well, but I think that words affecting others should always be spoken wisely. I don't think that he did so considering how he made a woman cry whilst merely expressing his opinion. People who speak hatefully always lack the tact needed to make actual progress and gain common grounds for mutual understanding.

"Ah, but just because he is a bad person, everything he types must be false?"

No, I never meant that. It's just that, in light of his jaundiced eye (btw am I using this term correctly?) the judgements he made on his examples of feminists and homosexuals (and thus his entire argument) were probably incorrect. Because of his irrational biases, he was most likely driven to the wrong conclusions, blind to some things and yet supersensitive to others. His predicections led him to believe that it was the illogic of his listeners that earned him the ignominy of being a "hater," but he never does consider the reverse. It's true that stupidity is a major cause of the use or misuse of the term "hate speech", but in most cases, it's almost always the fault of the speaker.

And the deliciously ironic part of his argument is this: Though his words openly denounce and smear the reputation and soundness both gays and feminists, he says that it is nevertheless their supposed stupidity that makes his opinions (and those of a few radical conservatives) into what is publicly known as "hate speech."

Hahaha, in a more extreme comparison, that's like Hitler saying "hey, I'm not that bad a guy! The Jews are just too dumb to understand why they are inferior. If they were more itelligent, then they'd be completely understanding of why they deserve to be dead! Of course I don't hate them, I'm just really smart."

...
Yeah, so I really agree with your edit now that I've just noticed it.

[lexiphanic]

You did use 'jaundiced' correctly.

If someone wanted to give him the benefit if of the doubt, with any societal movement, plenty of genuinely unintelligent sheep will be pulled along with the actual movers. It is entirely possible that his two examples were given with forethought and sensitivity. Unlikely but possible.

Ultimately, the term 'hate crimes' is simply a tool of society for dispensing unequal punishments for offenses that would otherwise be minor. Quite similar to terrorists and 'terroristic threats'. Society has been led (by the nose) to believe that things that fit a certain definition are much more damaging than they would be in any other circumstance. The courts know this well, and will push for whatever be labeled to the act in question to get the kind of outcome they desire.

In my memory, it first happened with Columbine. Any hint of any kind of harm in a school setting was punished more severly than the law allowed. Although keeping harm from our schools is a wonderful thing, the modification of the law through precedence allowed the possibility of rulings that were completely out of line or simply reactionary.

Next we had hate crimes, and now we have terroristic activity being the big societal no-no of the day.

This vein of thought made me quite amused at some of the more recent South Park episodes and their: "The terrorists are attacking our imagination!"

[macr0]

I'm not being idealsitic, you're the one who thinks that these abstract "laws" can overcome people's material motivations.

...

This is just so idealistic though. If you believe that human nature is to opress the minority, then where the hell do these "rights" come from which run directly contrary to human nature? Are you saying that human beings are capable of establishing entire societies and value systems based on laws which run contrary to their own nature? That's absurd. you're acting as if laws exist outside of the people who make them. If in reality a society of 60 million people is genetically inclined to opress the minority, then how the hell are a bunch of laws some idealist liberal philosopher concocted going to stop them? The only laws will be made by the dominant group in the first place...unless you believe that the courts, police force, army and parliament are run by the opressed minority which must pass laws to defend itself fromt he majority which opresses it.

Reasons why this is a strawman post:

- we all know that laws mean nothing without the power to enforce them
- we all know that rights must be protected to thrive
- the use of the terms minority and majority in your post is semantically sloppy. Sometimes you have minorities be a race. Sometimes you have minorities be a social cast. Sometimes you have majorities be society as a whole. Sometimes you have minorities be law makers. Sometimes you have minorities be powerful people by definition.

In my post, I used minority and majority in the purely social terms, like ethnic groups, gender and individuals.

---

Apart from all of the rhetoric, I take the meat of your post to be: powerful people rule weaker people. Why would powerful people not take advantage of the weak if it is in their nature?

This question has nothing to do with the topic I was discussing in my post. The topic I was discussing is: how do we protect citizens from each other in a democratic system when the majority can gang up on a minority with votes?

The Franklin quote is provided to show the perspective that pure democracy has this negative quality, degrading into mob rule.

I am glad that you can completely recontextualize the quote into a situation that is absurd, but it doesn't tarnish how reasonable the quote is when applied correctly.

Rajah's post was the answer in the United States. Constitutional law is defended by the federal court system which is not a direct-democratic institution.

In relief, civil rights cannot be voted on in the United States (with the exception of Constitutional amendments which is a completely different discussion).

---

The answer to your absurdity-laden response is endlessly debatable. I am in the checks and balances camp with the conceit that perfection is impossible. You do everything you can to sick the powerful against each other, continuously doing everything you can to try and keep their power from consolidating.

[demagogic_schizoid]

The Franklin quote is provided to show the perspective that pure democracy has this negative quality, degrading into mob rule.

But this is where the core of the difference is. The Franklin quote is *not* valid at all, it's a classically sophistic peice of rancid anti-human pessimism which can only ever serve to justified the opression of the majority by an enlightened few.

The state is an entirely human creation and therefore it cannot protect humans from themselves, it can only protect the interests of the people who comprise it and those who fund it. If the state was simply the expression of the collective will of people, it would be defunct by definition, because a "mob" able to organise itself into a state organically would not be a "mob" in the first place.

Your Franklin quote suggests that the state and liberal constituions and instituions are vital because otherwise we'd just descend to the level of sheep and wolves. Yet actually the state is the tool of the wolf and the thing that makes him a wolf and not just another unarmed sheep.

And actually, it would be best to point out that history's biggest genocides have been carried out by states and not by mobs. In fact look at the colonisation of the "new world" - it was a genocide carried out on societies with no states by societies organised into states. The modern state is in fact the most voracious wolf-like killing machine humanity has yet been capable of creating.

[macr0]

But this is where the core of the difference is. The Franklin quote is *not* valid at all, it's a classically sophistic peice of rancid anti-human pessimism which can only ever serve to justified the opression of the majority by an enlightened few.

Because you take a moral stance against the perceived consequences of the quote, it does not necessarily follow that the point is not valid.

The question that determines the validity of the quote is: do the wolves have a convincing reason to not do what is in their immediate self interest?

The convincing reason would fall under classical rhetoric (Sophists excused for the sake of discussion). It could appeal to their emotion (including their sense of morality), their reason or their ego. It would be futile to derive a list of possible reasons and circumstances that would drive the wolves actions.

Regardless, I think it is important to stress that the wolves will impulsively eat the sheep. This is a clear stance on the natural state of man. I, personally, am in the Hobbesian camp (man in his primitive state, like all other animals, are survival machines that exist in the scarcity model of existence governed by the law of the jungle). This is another fine debate topic, but I will appeal to a source that I have read for the sake of argument [The Blank Slate, Steven Pinker].

So, I would say that the quote, taken at face value, is valid with a caveat. The quote applies to the most primal aspects of Man at his basis instincts, which he literally shares with the wolf.




The state is an entirely human creation and therefore it cannot protect humans from themselves, it can only protect the interests of the people who comprise it and those who fund it.

How does it follow that I cannot create something to protect me from myself? I create things all of the time to protect myself from myself, even very intangible things like goals and systems. My interests are never mutually exclusive. The protection of one leads to the neglect of another. [I want to lose weight and eat that piece of cake]

To be a bit more sophisticated, take a group of people whose interests do not completely overlap. You are saying that there is no way to compose a system where compromises between different interests can be archived through facilitators without the interests of those facilitators overpowering the interests of all others.

I find it a lot more interesting to ponder over the possibilities of evaluating the merits of systems designed to do just that instead of dismissing the goal out of hand as futile.

I, unlike you, do not consider the consolidation of state power a foregone conclusion. Therefore, I don't find such a statist/anti-statist dichotomy very useful. [as the government's power over its people is a knob, not a switch]


If the state was simply the expression of the collective will of people, it would be defunct by definition, because a "mob" able to organise itself into a state organically would not be a "mob" in the first place.

I do not know what point you are trying to make here. It looks like pure word play and semantics.

A Parent Teacher's Association (PTA) is a direct democracy.

I am not a Greek scholar, but the Athenian democracy is a well known footnote in history of direct democracy. The local PTA and ancient Athens both show direct democracy can exist and can work very well in certain circumstances.

Mob activity is when a group of people decide to do something that many would consider impulsive and possibly unethical.

Take the PTO,a democracy. Tell them that a teacher raped his entire 1st grade class and selectively killed a few. There's a good chance that the parents will decide, in a democratic fashion by shouts and yells of agreement, to turn into a lynch mob. In effect, mobs can only be created by the democratic process because everyone in the mob has to agree to be a part of it.

Do these simple uses of language elude you, or are you purposefully being obtuse?



Your Franklin quote suggests that the state and liberal constituions and instituions are vital because otherwise we'd just descend to the level of sheep and wolves. Yet actually the state is the tool of the wolf and the thing that makes him a wolf and not just another unarmed sheep.

I don't think the quote suggests that at all, but I can see how others may. Assuming such, your sweeping statements are hyperbole and as critically considered as Dave Mustaine showing off his anarchy tattoo on Hollywood Squares.

Suffice it say, consider the different levels of sociocultural organization in anthropology: familial/primitive, tribal alliance, chiefdom, state.

Where does it go wrong and become the parasitic tool of oppression and genocide against the people involved?



And actually, it would be best to point out that history's biggest genocides have been carried out by states and not by mobs. In fact look at the colonisation of the "new world" - it was a genocide carried out on societies with no states by societies organised into states. The modern state is in fact the most voracious wolf-like killing machine humanity has yet been capable of creating.


States are obviously larger than mobs. Isn't it natural that the outcome of any given conflict between states will have larger casualties than the damage done between two mobs?

But if you're trying to say that states, in general, have negatively affected humanity then consider this.

For the first 194,000 years of humanity, humans lived in chiefdoms or smaller organizations.

Only 6,000 years ago did anything resembling a human social state come into existence.

I don't think that it's a large leap of faith to say that man's ability to structure himself into larger social structures with goals and purpose has dramatically helped advance civilization. In fact, without states, there is no civilization.

[Lee]

http://opensociety.typepad.com/front_page/2007/11/on-peace-and-po.html

[Zephyrus055]

http://opensociety.typepad.com/front_page/2007/11/on-peace-and-po.html
Are you the same Lee that's quoted?

[Lee]

Are you the same Lee that's quoted?Yes.

[lowtech redneck]

I like your response, Lee.
:highfive:

[Zephyrus055]

Yes.
Very nice.

Lee, I want to know something. Your writing is very clear and organized. Is your thinking real organized too, did you practice diligently, do you have like 25 units of short-term memory space, or is there something else?

[Lee]

Very nice.Thanks.


Lee, I want to know something. Your writing is very clear and organized. Is your thinking real organized too, did you practice diligently, do you have like 25 units of short-term memory space, or is there something else?I am rarely as impressed by what I write as others are, which is perhaps half the secret. (1) Practice diligently, (2) Revise continually, (3) Never be satisfied, (4) Structure logically, (5) Explain thoroughly (e.g. say things twice but in different words), (6) Delete redundancy, (7) Keep it simple (8) Read good writers.

An argument follows a recursive application of simple logical forms i.e. little arguments embedded in a larger argument. Keep that in mind. I don't have any other advice, but thanks for the compliment on my writing :)