Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society • Hacker News Board

Re: Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

#281

Post by Shared404 » Wed, Feb 15, 2023, 11:44 PM UTC

kneebonian wrote: post #163

jzb wrote: post #134

If we want a "liberal, intellectual society" we absolutely have to consider some speech "violence." To use one current example: The people pushing the idea of trans people as "groomers" is violence. It is not an intellectual debate, it's not necessary to entertain in order to preserve free thought, etc. The goal of that speech is to other trans people and it endangers them. Tolerance of that kind of speech ensures th…

Yes some people employ terms to other people based on religious belief or skin color, should it be acceptable to "other" people by calling them Christofacist? Or suggesting that we should #killallmen? Why should prefixing a proposal with the phrase "trans" suddenly allow one to invalidate other people's rights? And before you say that is extreme, hypothetical or doesn't count because it comes from a position of power…

For context, we belong to the same religion, or at least, your ancestors and I do.

> should it be acceptable to "other" people by calling them Christofacist?

Yes. The whole point even in your example is freedom of religion. Denying anyone freedom of or from religion is inherently wrong from both a religious perspective and a secular perspective.

If someone is behaving in that manner, then they should be called out by both people inside and outside of their religion.

> Or suggesting that we should #killallmen?

I would agree that this is bad. I think most people across most political belief's - including the vast majority of leftists I know - would call this bad.

> Why should prefixing a proposal with the phrase "trans" suddenly allow one to invalidate other people's rights?

It doesn't, though the phrase "To those on top, equality feels like oppression" comes to mind.

Re: Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

#282

Post by giantg2 » Wed, Feb 15, 2023, 11:45 PM UTC

vannevar wrote: post #267

giantg2 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They may not be requesting assault charges, but they may be requesting pain and suffering compensation, or using "unkind" comments as leverage in a divorce. Edit: Why disagree?

I didn't downvote you, but I haven't heard of any kind of mass movement to get pain and suffering damages from Donald Trump's tweets, as painful as they were to endure. If you're talking about libel, that's a separate thing, and has been around since before the First Amendment. If you publish untrue things and they harm someone, of course you can (and should) be held liable for your words. Divorce is also a different…

Things like harassment, or intentional infliction of emotional distress can be a basis for pain and suffering lawsuits.

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/personal-injury/suing-e...

Things like insults, shaming, and verbal abuse are part of emotional abuse in divorce cases. These need not be evidence of actions or character. These can be used for an at fault divorce. What is consided to br an insult or shaming can vary greatly on perspective. Not to mention, the court may not stick ro just these examples and could include other things that makes the other person feel bad - "I hate this meal. Why do you always make this?"

https://www.jerkinsfamilylaw.com/emotional-abuse-and-divorce...

Re: Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

#283

Post by brandonmenc » Wed, Feb 15, 2023, 11:45 PM UTC

vannevar wrote: post #7

I don't think that most of the people who equate hate speech with violence are literally requesting assualt charges be brought. They are calling for boycotts and de-platforming, both of which fall well within the bounds of the "marketplace of ideas." While there is indeed no right to not be offended, there is also no right to be listened to, and no right to artificially amplify your speech on someone else's dime. We…

> If you want to change that and have a public platform, you'll have to consider the digital equivalent of communism.

Or just like, new regulations on the giant corporations operating these services? No need to go as far as communism.

Re: Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

#284

Post by s1artibartfast » Wed, Feb 15, 2023, 11:45 PM UTC

giantg2 wrote: post #270

s1artibartfast wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really depends on what you did to convince them. See the top level post. The law does not only care about causality. It is also cares free speech, reasonable interpretation, and comparative responsibility. I could craft and publish an argument School shootings are in fact a positive good a we should have more of them. I am legally in the clear, even If someone finds my argument convincing and goes and shoots up a…

"Reasonable" can be whatever the judge/jury say it is. That can vary wildly. There are laws on the books in which the statute specifies "reasonable" and a judge has determined that it's an absolute liability offense because determining reasonableness is too hard and would frustrate the legislatures intent. (Even though this conflicts with other precedential opinion which states you can't ignore the letter of the law…

I was speaking about what the law philosophically cares about - how it was crafted.

When it comes to this example, it is a lot more clear. I can write a book on why you should shoot up schools and it would be protected. Reasonable does not come in to that part of the question.

Re: Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

#285

Post by fragmede » Wed, Feb 15, 2023, 11:47 PM UTC

tick_tock_tick wrote: post #250

fallingfrog wrote: post #8

The kinds of censorship that really bothers me is when people like Ron deSantis use the power of the state to force people like university professors to say specific things and muzzle them from saying other things. That's actual government censorship.

Education standards are normal. Simple question do we agree we don't need a middle school teacher explaining in graphic detail how to have sex? Or maybe "alternative" theory like flat earth? If not I don't know how we reach a common ground if we agree though maybe just maybe we can agree that teacher shouldn't be teaching certain things at certain ages and not call that "censorship". You might disagree what ages or t…

Abstinence only education is known to not work, so unless your want to end up with a bunch of pregnant teenagers who think porn accurately depicts sex, having school teachers explain how sex works seems like the only reasonable conclusion. The only question then is at what age. Middle school starts off at 10-years old seems a bit young to me for graphic descriptions of sex. It is certainly old enough to have already learnt about what inappropriate touching is and what relationships are, though. Age 14, which is at the end of middle school seems like a reasonable age though.

What age do you think is reasonable for schools to be teaching sex? Explicitly, how to use a condom, and the inaccuracies of porn.

Re: Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

#286

Post by keerthiko » Wed, Feb 15, 2023, 11:47 PM UTC

wonderwonder wrote: post #252

breadbreadbread wrote: post #144

I think this article comes very close to saying "don't let words affect you", which is fundamentally impossible to ask anyone to do and taken to it's logical conclusion I should also not absorb anything in the article. I also think this article also ignores the fact that hateful people often use the language of free speech to justify their own behavior and to punish their critics. Everyday on the internet I see trans…

"Everyday on the internet I see trans people threatened, disrespected, or legislated out of existence" Legislation in the US has actually made trans people vanish or are we using large amounts of hyperbole? People have been saying mean things about other groups for millennia, as long as its just words, its fine. I'm a jew, I see the neo nazi groups with banners or Kanye ranting and just laugh. Who cares? Now if they…

Surely you would feel very differently if you were born in a slightly different time in the not-so-distant past. How do you imagine the first "actual Nazis" came to the position of power where they could slaughter thousands of your community with impunity for nearly a generation? How do you imagine it couldn't happen again, if not in your lifetime, at some point in humanity's timeline? If not regarding Jews, regarding some new community?

Do you really think it would be avoided simply by more people taking "don't let words affect you" to heart [ * ]?

[ * ] (assuming, quite unreasonably, that that's actually something that could happen at a societal level)

Re: Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

#287

Post by musictubes » Wed, Feb 15, 2023, 11:48 PM UTC

I remember the Idea Channel on YouTube had a video about violence. He started by quoting an artist saying something to the effect that putting paint to canvas was a violent act. The host went on to define violence as the taking away of agency. The rest of the video was mostly him arguing that physical violence is as easy to define as you might think and that ideas and speech can in fact be violent.

My reaction was that even if at the margin physical violence isn’t as easy to pin down as you imagine, I don’t understand making the term violence so broad that it loses its meaning. If everything is violent then nothing is.

Re: Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

#288

Post by gallopingcomp » Wed, Feb 15, 2023, 11:48 PM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #209

banannaise wrote: post #161

As noted (and then, weirdly, disagreed with) in the article, you have to make a clear delineation between speech that is offensive and speech that is abusive . And that is not always an easy distinction to make! Repeatedly using slurs is abusive, but what if the majority of people don't see it as a slur? If your answer is "then it's not a slur", then what do you think of the frequent use of the N-word in the first ha…

abusive speech isnt illegal either

Which is not to the parent comment’s point anyway.

Re: Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

#289

Post by giantg2 » Wed, Feb 15, 2023, 11:50 PM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #284

giantg2 wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Reasonable" can be whatever the judge/jury say it is. That can vary wildly. There are laws on the books in which the statute specifies "reasonable" and a judge has determined that it's an absolute liability offense because determining reasonableness is too hard and would frustrate the legislatures intent. (Even though this conflicts with other precedential opinion which states you can't ignore the letter of the law…

I was speaking about what the law philosophically cares about - how it was crafted. When it comes to this example, it is a lot more clear. I can write a book on why you should shoot up schools and it would be protected. Reasonable does not come in to that part of the question.

Sure, I'm just saying in practice the ideals that the laws were crafted on tend to go out the window - to the point that the law (through opinion) contradicts the written statute.

Re: Speech is violence? Not if we want a liberal, intellectual society

#290

Post by wonderwonder » Wed, Feb 15, 2023, 11:52 PM UTC

keerthiko wrote: post #286

wonderwonder wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Everyday on the internet I see trans people threatened, disrespected, or legislated out of existence" Legislation in the US has actually made trans people vanish or are we using large amounts of hyperbole? People have been saying mean things about other groups for millennia, as long as its just words, its fine. I'm a jew, I see the neo nazi groups with banners or Kanye ranting and just laugh. Who cares? Now if they…

Surely you would feel very differently if you were born in a slightly different time in the not-so-distant past. How do you imagine the first "actual Nazis" came to the position of power where they could slaughter thousands of your community with impunity for nearly a generation? How do you imagine it couldn't happen again, if not in your lifetime, at some point in humanity's timeline? If not regarding Jews, regardin…

Don't call me Shirley. Sorry I had too. There is a very large difference between random people doing it and the actual government the possesors of state sanctioned violence stirring people against you and I think you know that. On top of that, we live in the now in the United States. Freedom of speech is a very real thing that I very strongly believe should be close to absolute. Otherwise who gets to choose what is forbidden speech? Probably would not have liked it if Trump could decide what people are allowed to say.