1 2 > 
 
   
 

The Tyrannical idea of “hate speech”

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  5701
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
10 September 2017 11:24
 

(This is an extension of a moment on a separate thread)

Below is a link to a video of Brendan O’Neill advocating for free speech and sharply criticizing the idea of “hate speech”. I don’t know much about Mr. O’Neill. I don’t know if he’s a “bad guy” a “good guy” or some mix. But I do think that in THIS video, his arguments advocating for free speech and against “hate speech” and “safe spaces” and such, are very well articulated.

To summarize:

- We should recoil at the very idea of “hate speech”
- Hate speech is an ideological tool used to repress ideas and police emotions
- We should equate hate speech with the idea of thought crimes
- Hate speech has all the ingredients of tyranny

the tyranny of hate speech

 
 
June
 
Avatar
 
 
June
Total Posts:  310
Joined  09-06-2013
 
 
 
10 September 2017 19:23
 

Good Lord.  If a supposed ‘bad guy’ says something with some obvious truth to it,  disregard the position and focus on the character of the speaker.  ‘Bad people’ are not deemed capable of saying anything of worth?    Adolph Hitler was reported to be kind to animals and was a vegetarian, at least during a portion of his life.  Therefore, to prove to everyone around me I am a ‘good person’ I should eat meat, kick the neighborhood puppy and disavow with no uncertain terms the individual, lest someone accuse me of being a Nazi.   

Frightened control freaks bent on meddling and micro managing the affairs,  thoughts and words of their fellow citizens are prone to support the abstract term of legislating so called,  hate speech.  A concept that has no part in legislation, schools, universities or discussion between rationale adults.

Which group is privileged enough to understand the complexity involved in what determines “hate” and who are the good people that have been exempted from their own violent reactions as the mere victims of incitement?
 
Hate speech is a perfect idea for suppressing thoughts and words of people we do not like and label as the evil,  other.  Everyone has something vile within them, most certainly the moral elites that would shape and engineer the human race.  Depending on which side of the moral equation you squat the First Amendment should apply to everyone.  Agree with Brendan O’Neill, and that, without looking up any character faults such as bed wetting or conservative tendencies that would disqualify his position.

 
 
TheoGr
 
Avatar
 
 
TheoGr
Total Posts:  110
Joined  09-07-2017
 
 
 
11 September 2017 00:35
 

This thread and the reasons given by the fedora guy is exactly why we are in this mess. Let me quote him:

you hear people talking about is this hate speech? is that hate speech? why are you treating hate speech as some kind of measurable scientific category?

Maybe these people are judges? The legal concept of hate speech is legally well defined and well understood. If that is an arbitrary thing, then that human law isn’t?

He gives two reasons why he is against hate speech

(free speech) is an ideological invention. It is explicitly defined to repress the expression of certain ideas and it does that to great effect”.

Umm yes? For example, the whole point of hate speech in Germany is to repress nazism. And, as the guy admits, it does so successfully.

...it polices ideas and emotions, feelings.

You don’t go to jail because of ideas and emotions. There are no machines or techniques to read one’s mind.

After the second world war, the keenest proponents on hate speech were the Soviet Union…

Another dishonest argument. Tsarist Russia policed free speech since like forever. The USSR policed free speech from the time of the October Revolution to its dissolution in 1991. Modern Russia is notoriously against free speech by cracking down on anti-governmental media and literally jailing anyone who isn’t a strict traditionalist.

I can go on but I don’t see the point. These are just factually wrong claims. Christopher Hitches gave an honest defense of free speech in this speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyoOfRog1EM. The problem is that Hitch was a marxist.

Of course, the reason for this dishonesty is that the fedora guy wants to paint hate speech laws as something inherently socialist, which for him is 100% synonymous with the left, which seeks to paint literally anyone not right-wing as a censoring monster.

 
mapadofu
 
Avatar
 
 
mapadofu
Total Posts:  86
Joined  20-07-2017
 
 
 
11 September 2017 07:25
 

I came across Mr. O’Neill, maybe even this video, and he said some things that made sense to me.  For the most part, I’m pretty suspicious of things like hate speech laws.  But after listening to a one or two more lectures/discussions he participated in I didn’t find his positions well interesting or convincing or useful.

Theo, isn’t the point of his thesis that hate speech laws (or other forms of hate-speech restriction) were one of the mechanisms used by the USSR to police free speech?  I don’t know enough of that aspect of history to make a sensible assessment on whether this claim makes sense or not.

 
Igawa
 
Avatar
 
 
Igawa
Total Posts:  284
Joined  19-07-2017
 
 
 
11 September 2017 08:39
 

You don’t go to jail because of ideas and emotions. There are no machines or techniques to read one’s mind.

People do go to jail because of expressing ideas and emotions, however. Generally when people say “X because of ideas and emotions” they are referring to the expression of such ideas/emotions, since everyone understands you can’t read minds. Otherwise, I’m sure people would jail each other over that too.

I can go on but I don’t see the point. These are just factually wrong claims. Christopher Hitches gave an honest defense of free speech in this speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyoOfRog1EM. The problem is that Hitch was a marxist.

Minor correction of the record: Hitch was a Trotskyist who drifted away from his comrades as he aged.

 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  5809
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
11 September 2017 08:54
 
 
 
Quadrewple
 
Avatar
 
 
Quadrewple
Total Posts:  195
Joined  28-04-2017
 
 
 
11 September 2017 11:15
 
TheoGr - 11 September 2017 12:35 AM

For example, the whole point of hate speech in Germany is to repress nazism..

But, is it really the whole point?  Are you basing that statement on facts you’ve researched about Germany in the present day?

Germany Raids Homes of 36 People Accused of Hateful Postings on Social Media

“In a coordinated campaign across 14 states, the German police on Tuesday raided the homes of 36 people accused of hateful postings over social media, including threats, coercion and incitement to racism.”

Incitement to racism eh?  As in “Everyone should be racist!” - I doubt it…....it was probably something more along the lines of “The fucking Arabs and Africans are raping, stealing, and pillaging our society right now.” - which if you’re talking about migrants is backed by statistics, no matter how offensive you may find such a statement.

 

My point is that hate speech absolutely can and will be used to shut down a politically incorrect expression of a legitimate concern - i.e. the German government having imported a massive low IQ, low skilled population of mostly fighting age, sexually frustrated, foreign looking, young men with foreign value systems who are not getting jobs and are sucking up massive amounts of public resources.  And as most people are not going to express that anger with that level of nuance, nor can they reasonably be expected to given the shitshow they’re being forced to subsidize right now - and just how massive the divides in crime and violence are by ethnicity in Germany in 2017.

On Germany’s proposed social media anti-hate speech law:“Other experts expressed concerns that the law would vest private companies with too much policing responsibility.”

I’m expressing concerns that this law vests the government with too much policing responsibility, when it is already completely unprepared for the new normal levels of ACTUAL CRIME in the streets, and that the the government assumes its citizens are gullible and impressionable children who can’t take responsibility themselves for what ideas they hear or expose themselves to.  I wonder if that patronizing mentality towards its citizens would ever be used to shut down any other expressions they didn’t like, such as what the German government deems to be “fake news”?

Germany Proposes Law to Stop Fake News

“The providers of social networks are responsible when their platforms are misused to spread hate crime or illegal false news,” German Justice Minister Heiko Maas said in a statement.”

“Illegal” fake news huh?  That’s a new one.  I’m sure they just mean Holocaust denying stuff, right Theo?  They’d never abuse that law for their own political purposes such as influencing elections, would they?

Germany Struggles to Fight Anti-migrant Fake News amid Fears it Could Influence its Election

I just want to point out that members of the German government manipulating public opinion for political purposes is not AT ALL in the same category as a civilian spreading fake stories for political purposes, because a civilian cannot deem what a social media company will get punished for not deleting.  A civilian can’t decide which posts/words elicit fines and which posts/words don’t.  Also, as the civilian is not seeking public office, he does not have the political conflicts of interest someone in the government tends to have.

What you are missing in your analysis of “hate speech” laws is that once non-violent speech in one sphere is fair game for the government to shut down, that sets the precedent that non-violent speech can be shut down in other spheres, including “fake news” posts.  Do you REALLY want the government to be the ultimate arbiter of what is the truth and what is not, especially when they’re openly admitting they have political reasons for doing so?  Because that’s what Germany’s heading towards….

Various Germans Fined Over Facebook Posts

“a 27-year-old farmer was found guilty of hate speech after he called asylum seekers drecksvolk or “filthy people” on Facebook. The farmer made the comments after two asylum seekers from North Africa had stolen sheep from his property.”

Where are the German government’s priorities?  They have massive levels of newly imported crime and violence occurring in their major cities, newly imported problems with Islamic terrorism, and they’re going after people who make negative comments about the migrants?  What was the farmer trying to express with his comment?  That he had determined some objective racial difference in cleanliness between Arabs and Africans and Caucasians?  No, he was fucking angry because he believed his sheep stolen by people who were not even German citizens, who were acting like savages while being shown an act of kindness (being allowed to stay in a rich, safe country during an asylum process).

If people want to express their anger in an offensive way when they’re not inciting violence - they should be allowed to do so.  How do you think this farmer feels now that he’s been stolen from twice - first by the migrants, second by his government?  Do you think that changed his opinion of migrants?  Of COURSE not.  Do you think that changed his opinion of his government.  Of COURSE it did.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Think of the audacity of the German government here…..they import this population which is causing chaos, then they prosecute people who have an understandably extreme reaction to it, and their stated reason is as follows:

The still high incidence of punishable hate posting shows a need for police action,” Holger Münch, president of the Federal Criminal Police Office, said in a statement. “Our free society must not allow a climate of fear, threat, criminal violence and violence either on the street or on the internet.”

My brain is full of FUCK.  The climate of fear, threats, and criminal street violence was CREATED BY THE FUCKING GERMAN GOVERNMENT BY IMPORTING THESE MIGRANTS!  These migrants come from the most hateful places on the planet….this is gaslighting - pure and simple.  Gaslighting is a technique used by narcissists to undermine their victim’s sense of reality - lying about what happened in the past, what is happening now, etc, even when the truth is right there in front of the victim.  Over a long enough time span, the victim relinquishes their sense of reality - and becomes dependent on the narcissist to provide them with delusions which ease the pain of reality.

Sorry, but if you don’t see that the supposedly positive intentions around hate speech laws don’t protect us from the conflicts of interest they generate, and that they in practice can’t be limited to the ideologies YOU deem to be the most dangerous, I think you’re a useful idiot for the authoritarians in the German government, and their mass migration social engineering experiment.  This is a very serious issue, as the government has shown themselves to be on the side which doesn’t care about German safety, and that if they are aggressively pursuing “hate posters” then they are driving these sentiments underground, where they are unperturbed by moderate voices.  They are already unprepared for the crime and social unrest they’ve imported, what happens when the Germans themselves get fed up with this bullshit and can’t even speak about it the way they want to?

What’s going on in Germany today leads me to believe there is a conspiracy by some influential people in European governments to use migration as a power grab against their citizens - create conditions which are certain to lead to hate (like the mass importation of incompatible cultures and people), then ramp up control over public discourse, using the hate which their policies led to as an excuse.  The UK version of this is taking away internet freedom, which Theresa May did last year, as a response to terrorism, the importation of which started by Blair’s government.  Hell, even if this isn’t a conspiracy - it doesn’t matter!  The results speak for themselves.  Make society more dangerous - take away freedom.

There are general problems with hate speech laws which most people already know about, most people don’t see the synergy between these laws and the conditions in a given area where they are implemented.

[ Edited: 11 September 2017 15:55 by Quadrewple]
 
 
Brick Bungalow
 
Avatar
 
 
Brick Bungalow
Total Posts:  4387
Joined  28-05-2009
 
 
 
11 September 2017 11:42
 

On the original OP.

It’s difficult to parse and evaluate these issues because the political landscape is so convoluted. A lot of the free-speech-absolutist arguments are coming from the alt right at present and so are effectively poisoned for me because I find that ethos to be completely toxic. I don’t find their leaders to be people of substance or integrity so I cannot really evaluate their claims in good faith. That said I do certainly endorse the preservation of free speech on principle. I just need for there to be a clean, non partisan slate upon which to lists reasons.

I will disagree with the header of this topic pretty stridently. Hate Speech is not a tyrannical idea…. that isn’t to exonerate it necessarily or to say its a good idea but it doesn’t encapsulate tyranny in any way. It’s just a verdict about certain kinds of rhetoric. It doesn’t become tyranny until you take the further step of trying to control people on the basis of that verdict. It’s the control that is tyrannical and control is asserted in all sorts of contexts. The shoe actually moves to other foot quite easily. If so-called hate speech should be defended on principle than so should critics of hate speech. Many people, on both sides of ideological disputes fail to observe this basic quid pro quo.

The issue of censorship is rife with bad arguments and double standards that make it difficult to discuss. Many people want to claim oppression or tyranny or censorship when what they are really dealing with is ordinary social consequences for bad behavior. Being dis-invited isn’t censorship. Having your book cancelled by a private publisher isn’t censorship. Getting outnumbered at your public rally by counter protesters isn’t censorship.

 
no_profundia
 
Avatar
 
 
no_profundia
Total Posts:  358
Joined  14-07-2016
 
 
 
11 September 2017 12:23
 
 
 
Quadrewple
 
Avatar
 
 
Quadrewple
Total Posts:  195
Joined  28-04-2017
 
 
 
11 September 2017 16:19
 
no_profundia - 11 September 2017 12:23 PM

I doubt I would support “hate speech” laws but the notion that Arabs and Africans are “raping, stealing and pillaging our society” is the worst kind of hyperbole.

I said the statement was backed by statistics, not that it was a legitimate statement.  Check out this video which explains some of the relevant nuances of the crime situation in Germany.  The guy in this video has a more optimistic outlook than I do, but it’s obviously correct that as the process of asylum seekers being accepted or deported continues, the crime will go down - how much remains to be seen.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-An7CrchEM

Ultimately, the only statistics people like that farmer, and most people (if they’re being honest) are going to use are personal ones.  How many experiences with asylum seekers did he have? How bad were they? How was HIS perceived risk/reward ratio of being around asylum seekers?  What was his perceived experience of non-asylum seekers? Etc.

[ Edited: 11 September 2017 16:35 by Quadrewple]
 
 
no_profundia
 
Avatar
 
 
no_profundia
Total Posts:  358
Joined  14-07-2016
 
 
 
11 September 2017 17:27
 
Quadrewple - 11 September 2017 04:19 PM
no_profundia - 11 September 2017 12:23 PM

I doubt I would support “hate speech” laws but the notion that Arabs and Africans are “raping, stealing and pillaging our society” is the worst kind of hyperbole.

I said the statement was backed by statistics, not that it was a legitimate statement.  Check out this video which explains some of the relevant nuances of the crime situation in Germany.  The guy in this video has a more optimistic outlook than I do, but it’s obviously correct that as the process of asylum seekers being accepted or deported continues, the crime will go down - how much remains to be seen.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-An7CrchEM

That was actually a good video. I am so used to clicking links to YouTube videos that wind up being pure propaganda that this was a pleasant surprise. I wish there was more data on, and there were more actual studies of, the relation between immigration and crime. It would be nice to get some clarity amid all the noise but at least this video presents some raw data and the maker of the video gave the proper caveats before presenting it.

Ultimately, the only statistics people like that farmer, and most people (if they’re being honest) are going to use are personal ones.  How many experiences with asylum seekers did he have? How bad were they? How was HIS perceived risk/reward ratio of being around asylum seekers?  What was his perceived experience of non-asylum seekers? Etc.

Yeah, people will rely on their own experience but they will also rely on news stories and I think there is a whole media network built around inflating the immigration problem. There are a ton of news sources that latch onto any story of an immigrant committing a crime and and they spread those stories like viruses. It would be like, if there was a huge media network that was devoted to the idea that “green eyes cause cancer”, and every time someone with green eyes got cancer they would spread the story around, but they ignored all the cases where people with brown and blue eyes get cancer. If this is the source of your information then, yeah, you are going to wind up believing that green eyes cause cancer.

At any rate, I don’t want to derail this thread by going on about one of my personal hobby horses. This thread is about hate-speech laws and I have not done enough research on the topic to have anything very interesting to say so I will bow out.

 
 
Quadrewple
 
Avatar
 
 
Quadrewple
Total Posts:  195
Joined  28-04-2017
 
 
 
12 September 2017 16:29
 
no_profundia - 11 September 2017 05:27 PM

I am so used to clicking links to YouTube videos that wind up being pure propaganda that this was a pleasant surprise. I wish there was more data on, and there were more actual studies of, the relation between immigration and crime. It would be nice to get some clarity amid all the noise but at least this video presents some raw data and the maker of the video gave the proper caveats before presenting it.

Well said.

no_profundia - 11 September 2017 05:27 PM

Yeah, people will rely on their own experience but they will also rely on news stories and I think there is a whole media network built around inflating the immigration problem. There are a ton of news sources that latch onto any story of an immigrant committing a crime and and they spread those stories like viruses. It would be like, if there was a huge media network that was devoted to the idea that “green eyes cause cancer”, and every time someone with green eyes got cancer they would spread the story around, but they ignored all the cases where people with brown and blue eyes get cancer. If this is the source of your information then, yeah, you are going to wind up believing that green eyes cause cancer.

Of course you’re right.  I see this as something which needs to be taken into consideration when undertaking such a societal transformation as taking in so many foreign looking people with foreign customs - the potential for hysteria should be known and planned for beforehand.  But if the plan for dealing with the hysteria is shutting down free speech and the ability to express oneself when not advocating violence, that hearkens back to one of my primary concerns about hate speech laws:  they cause problems and don’t end up solving anything, regardless of intentions.  And if politicians have shutting down free expression as a tool in their toolbox, I think that creates a fundamental disconnect between the decisions they make (like massive immigration ones) and the opinions of the people, which doesn’t lead to good things.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  5701
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
12 September 2017 19:16
 

quad - post #6, nice.

 
 
TheoGr
 
Avatar
 
 
TheoGr
Total Posts:  110
Joined  09-07-2017
 
 
 
13 September 2017 15:19
 
Igawa - 11 September 2017 08:39 AM

People do go to jail because of expressing ideas and emotions, however. Generally when people say “X because of ideas and emotions” they are referring to the expression of such ideas/emotions, since everyone understands you can’t read minds. Otherwise, I’m sure people would jail each other over that too.

Nope, that is missing the point.

People do not go to jail for thoughtcrime. Emotions are ideas are not crimilazed. The fedorra-wearing dude is lying to you.

Minor correction of the record: Hitch was a Trotskyist who drifted away from his comrades as he aged.

So has every Trotskyist alive, if I may say. They are not a bunch of people that withstood the test of time. So?

 
TheoGr
 
Avatar
 
 
TheoGr
Total Posts:  110
Joined  09-07-2017
 
 
 
13 September 2017 15:23
 
Quadrewple - 11 September 2017 11:15 AM

But, is it really the whole point?  Are you basing that statement on facts you’ve researched about Germany in the present day?

Yeah, exactly. I live in Germany, unlike you. I’ve learned German and follow German media and German culture in their own language. I am actually into this stuff in a way you will never be, because you are too lazy or too useless to understand a culture other than your own.

You keep talking about hypotheticals but you have absolutely zero evidence.

Here are the facts: Germany has become the leader of Europe. They have crushed nazism and embraced the western way of life, originally through the guidance and tutelage of the united states. See: Western Germany, Marshal Plan, Denazification.

Germans have banned nazism and it worked great. It has been the triumph of modern western liberal civilization. The victors, if you will.

And It works. Their way works. Your way doesn’t. Your way is rooted in far right-wing media like Breitbart who lie to you about what is happening outside your small town in order to generate ad revenue. Your way of thinking is defeated, it represent failure and defeat. Your say is a sad and pathetic immitation of the losers of WW2.

More to the point, your way is american. Therefore it can be nothing but Ignorant, far removed from the realities of modern europe. I mean, you might be white and brag to your “homies” about your european ancestry (that you made up) but have absolutely zero knowledge or connection to the real europe of today.

Come live here for a couple of years and you might, eventually, develop the capacity to form an opinion about Europe. Until then you are just a useful idiot for your country’s right-wing media that want to sell advertisements.

[ Edited: 13 September 2017 15:36 by TheoGr]
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  5701
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
13 September 2017 15:35
 
TheoGr - 13 September 2017 03:23 PM
Quadrewple - 11 September 2017 11:15 AM

But, is it really the whole point?  Are you basing that statement on facts you’ve researched about Germany in the present day?

Yeah, exactly. I live in Germany, unlike you. I’ve learned German and follow German media and German culture in their own language. I am actually into this stuff in a way you will never be, because you are too lazy or too useless to understand a culture other than your own.

You keep talking about hypotheticals but you have absolutely zero evidence.

Here are the facts: Germany has become the leader of Europe. They have crushed nazism and embraced the western way of life, originally through the guidance and tutelage of the united states.

Germans have banned nazism and it worked great. It has been the triumph of modern western liberal civilization. The victors, if you will.

And It works. Their way works. Your way doesn’t. Your way is rooted in far right-wing media like Breitbart who lie to you about what is happening outside your small town in order to generate ad revenue. Your way of thinking is defeated, it represent failure and defeat.

More to the point, tour way is american, ignorant, far removed from the realities of modern europe.

Come live here for a couple of years and you might, eventually, develop the capacity to form an opinion about Europe. Until then you are just a useful idiot for your country’s right-wing media that want to sell advertisements.

I live in the U.S. That said, I hear very conflicting news reports coming out of Germany.

Some reports say everything is fine, nothing to see here, move along.
Some reports say that Germany has allowed far too many Muslim immigrants into the country and this is causing big problems. Among these problems is that Islam is very serious about the idea that blasphemy is a serious crime. So cries of “Islamophobia”, “blasphemy”, and “hate speech”, are becoming more common, and the German government is often siding with the criers, and attempting to stifle the speech of critics.

Any truth to those latter reports?

 
 
 1 2 >