Hate Speech Crash and Burn?

[Gorbles]

You aren't doing your cause any favours by quoting a non peer-reviewed source by a "Doctor" of "Breast Cancer" (what the hell does that even mean?) in an article replete with spelling errors and bias. And your second quoted link is from Wikipedia of all places. There is a reason that Wikipedia is not allowed to be used for legitimate science or even college level research papers. Most of the time, the veracity of the Wikipedia article can not be determined, has errors or omissions, or is outright false.

I have to side with @bernie14 on this one. Like him, I have a large amount of experience in the mental health field, including earning a doctorate. I study violent crime as a hobby, and professionally. Your sources fail to pass the litmus test on this one. Sorry.

You can side with whoever you want, that's absolutely fine. I do find it a bit funny that you're criticising Wikipedia as a source. We're not at university (or the like) here. I'm not writing a paper. I don't need to do Harvard-style referencing.

And again, with the whole attacking the author thing . . . and? Is that supposed to make me trust your credentials? Or bernie14's? What is that except an appeal to your own professional authority? I don't walk into a thread on software (as rare as they are) and state that I'm right and other people are wrong just because I'm a professional in that field.

Unless you can demonstrate that the named person is a known fraud in their respective field, your attack is basically meaningless. I've been waiting the whole time for anyone to attack the arguments and evidence presented in the article, and nobody's bothered to. If you want to dismiss it off of the bat, that's fine. But that's not so much of an argument itself, either.

If folks don't want to put the work in themselves, and sorry but that includes you . . . what is there even to debate except our opinions? Which are inherently biased in of themselves, being, well, our opinions.

Hate speech laws aren't bad per se, but I'd claim they do reflect the victory of the liberals (as against the left) in defining racism as more a problem of individual psychology (bigotry, hate) than a problem with how society is organized.

I like this point, and I think it applies well to ongoing battles over racism (and other forms of discrimination) . . . but I also think the "victory" was settled before liberals and leftists became distinct modern groupings.

Society was organised by rule of law way before democracy was a thing. I'm not saying "tada, it's settled, life sucks" (though life can suck), but modern hate speech laws (for example) came out of horrific events like the Holocaust. Which was a willful enacting of individual bigotry from the top-down in society (fear of the Other being something that was stoked, of course, and also against other minorities in Germany and Europe at the time and not just Jews). Other pogroms have been similar. Tolerance for individual acts of bigotry allow society to be formed along divisive lines . . . but also vice versa. Given the history of humankind and how we have over centuries killed one another specifically for being different, or "not like us", I don't think this chicken-and-egg situation is that easily settled.

Or maybe I missed your greater point entirely. I like the tangent though.

 

[Berzerker]

One problem you have in understanding is that you conflate organizations like the ACLU, and liberalism generally, with the left.

Liberalism is NOT an inherently left wing ideology. Not everyone on the left is liberal and there is no such thing as a human with an entirely consistent world view.

I didn't mention liberalism

BJ said everyone but haters likes hate speech laws. The ACLU didn't when I was growing up. Where are these hateful countries that believe in free speech? I look around the world and see plenty of hate speech laws in very oppressive places, do N Koreans like their laws? We dont even have free speech here and its in our constitution.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

You can side with whoever you want, that's absolutely fine. I do find it a bit funny that you're criticising Wikipedia as a source. We're not at university (or the like) here. I'm not writing a paper. I don't need to do Harvard-style referencing.

My point was that if you are going to quote a source as an authority, it should not be by someone not peer reviewed, and worst of all, not Wikipedia. Anyone can edit and mess up a Wiki page, you know that. And the reason we are "attacking" the author of the first piece is that (I cannot speak for @bernie14 here, but I think we're on the same page) I find the author's credentials dubious at best. If you want to be taken seriously by a medical professional, then cite sources which are quality sources, not some opinion piece from the internet. There are plenty of medical and psychological trade magazines which offer accredited articles which would support your viewpoint. I am not going to do the heavy lifting and cite sources on this one for you though. I have to sleep sometime.

 

[Gorbles]

I have to sleep sometime.

Me too, is the problem. I put more effort in to back up my point that anybody else bothered to, so it's a bit grating to have this standard seemingly applied at random. It's a burden nobody else's arguments, including bernie's, have been held to.

To me, the relevant point is whether or not someone believes that hate speech causes harm, because reading about it is only relevant if they don't.

Regardless; anybody can edit Wikipedia, for sure. I recommend you try and see how long the edit stays up. For something like an OT forum thread, I'd consider it more than enough. Heck, I have your word saying there are sources out there. That's definitely more than good enough. If that doesn't convince the skeptics in this argument, finding them isn't going to!

Edited to help show that I'm not accusing you of anything, sorry for the iterated thought process. On mobile!

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Me too, is the problem. I put more effort in to back up my point that anybody else bothered to, so it's a bit grating to have this standard seemingly applied at random. It's a burden nobody else's arguments, including bernie's, have been held to.

To me, the relevant point is whether or not someone believes that hate speech causes harm, because reading about it is only relevant if they don't.

Regardless; anybody can edit Wikipedia, for sure. I recommend you try and see how long the edit stays up. For something like an OT forum thread, I'd consider it more than enough. Heck, I have your word saying there are sources out there. That's definitely more than good enough. If that doesn't convince the skeptics in this argument, finding them isn't going to!

Edited to help show that I'm not accusing you of anything, sorry for the iterated thought process. On mobile!

I don't mind saying that some "hate speech" causes harm, if that helps. The reason it is in quotes is because often "hate speech" turns out to be just something someone disagrees with and labels it that way. Sort of like religion: My God is better than your God. There will always be differences of opinion around hate speech. One person's hate speech is another person's truth, and sometimes something completely innocuous can be labeled that way because someone whose panties are too tight decides it offends them. I think that there should be clearly delineated rules and laws as to what exactly constitutes hate speech.

But yes, true hate speech can cause harm to someone economically, personally and professionally. It can probably also cause a host of psychological factors (i.e. depression etc.), but I have not read any peer reviewed articles that say that it does. That's not to say that they aren't out there, I just haven't read them. Therefore I reserve judgement on whether hate speech can cause more than temporary psychological harm.

 

[Lexicus]

I would think it more or less self-evident that hate speech is a type of verbal abuse and there are certainly circumstances under which verbal abuse can cause lasting psychological harm.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

I would think it more or less self-evident that hate speech is a type of verbal abuse and there are certainly circumstances under which verbal abuse can cause lasting psychological harm.

I won't disagree with that on principle. My point was that I haven't read any studies to that effect as it isn't in my area of interest. I am sure that there are legitimate studies under controlled conditions that have been performed on this very issue, but unfortunately, I do not know anything about the particulars. However, experience tells me that constant belittling, criticism, and negativity do have an effect on the psyche.

 

[warpus]

What blows my mind is that in some American states (Kentucky?) POLICE OFFICERS are a protected class, so if you say "F the Police" it's hate speech and you can be prosecuted for it and thrown in jail.

Hate speech laws have their place, but I don't have any faith in politicians anywhere to formulate them properly in a fair and honest way.

 

[Lexicus]

What blows my mind is that in some American states (Kentucky?) POLICE OFFICERS are a protected class, so if you say "F the Police" it's hate speech and you can be prosecuted for it and thrown in jail.

Hate speech laws have their place, but I don't have any faith in politicians anywhere to formulate them properly in a fair and honest way.

https://www.npr.org/2021/07/15/1016...ge-for-stomping-on-a-back-the-blue-sign-in-ut

A Utah hate crime case is drawing national attention after local authorities charged a young woman with a hate crime over allegedly defacing a "Back the Blue" sign in front of a sheriff's deputy.

Utah is one of at least five states — along with Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi and New Hampshire — that list law enforcement officers, along with race and gender, in their hate crime laws' protected categories, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.

Lauren Gibson, 19, is accused of stomping on a "Back the Blue" sign while "smirking in an intimidating manner" at a Garfield County sheriff's deputy. The deputy had pulled over a group of vehicles for speeding, the sheriff's office says.

 

[Zardnaar]

https://www.npr.org/2021/07/15/1016...ge-for-stomping-on-a-back-the-blue-sign-in-ut

This is exactly what I mentioned in the OP. Double edged blade you can write laws targeting your pet causes.

So can the other side.