beause that’s the crux of things. not everyone agrees on what is harmful, and many what some find harmful, others may find beneficial.
i mean, i am not one for violence and hate, but plenty of people find violence fantasizing and hateful speech to be empowering. and on the flipside, many think anything they disagree with as hateful and violence towards themselves, even if it not, and feel justified in perpetuating violence against anyone who question the orthodoxies they hold dear.
i used to teach philosophy. lots of people think philosophy is harmful and respond with violence when asked to engaged in it.
“a cop shoots a murderer to prevent them from killing any more victims, ergo, he’s the same as the murderer”
No tolerance for intolerance. If speech is a call to action that would move the discourse towards less tolerance, it should be the exception that should not be tolerated.
I used to be free speech absolutist until we get to the conundrum as you presented. For me, free speech will never be settled and is a perpetual debate. I think what is considered hate speech is on a case by case basis. Like an individual human who is being tried on a court and his/her case is examined, what is considered harmful or free speech is kinda like that. We examine the minutae of the speech based on the context, semantics, syntax logic, reasoning etc. if the speech can be considered harmful or not. It’s a perpetual debate.
You are conflating things that are not the same in a fence-straddling argument. There are things that objectively cause harm. Using X’s Grok to make CSAM. Using AI to deepfake people telling outright lies or giving damaging instructions to the public. Inciting people to engage in illegal behavior. We already have definitions of harmful speech, what we also have is people arguing that it isn’t harmful because it serves their agenda.
Disagreeing with someone is not even close and shouldn’t even be part of the discussion when considering actual censorship. Philosophy is a lovely fun exercise in arguing every point on the curve of a circle, but it doesn’t keep the Nazis from taking power.
Right, so if you disagree with someone punch them in the face, until the agree with you. Or at least verbally harass them into submission.
Because you are somehow the sole arbiter of what objectively causes harm? And you will enforce that objectivity with your fists.
good luck with that. Sound to me like you are the one who wants to be a Nazi, I mean, what’s the difference between exterminating ideas you don’t like, and the people who have those ideas, really?
Dude, you did that. You set up a binary and called me a fence sitter. and now you are personally attacking me. Bravo. Be more of a bad faith actor.
You’re being deliberately malacious. And you won’t own up to it, you will just sit there and blame me and everyone else for not adhere to your personal standards you think are superior, such that you get the authority to harass, name call, and blame everyone else. And also justify your violent attitude.
You see nothing wrong with violence, as long as it’s down to those you dislike and disagree with. Just like the Nazis you think you are fighting, because in your binary world everyone is for you, or against you.
It’s ok. I had plenty of students who wrote me papers telling me how stupid I was and how smart they were. They got failed. Which is actually better than the cheaters.
Lol I clearly stated there is a demarcation between objectively damaging speech and disagreement. Try again dude. What are you, a closeted republican? As soon as someone challenges you devolve into “no, u!”, make accusations of being attacked, and make shit up about your opponent while engaging in projection?
You didn’t define any of those terms. You are not engaging, you are harassing and accusing and personalizing everything I said, and going to the ‘but the nazis’ nonsense.
You’re an absolutist. By definition that’s a binary way of thinking. And your doubling down, ‘oh you must b ea republican if you don’t agree with my world view’. As if your worldview is definitivity anti-republican or something?
Your fault is in thinking you are the center of the universe and the arbiter of others beliefs. You aren’t. You might stop being so hostile towards others if you stopped believing that you were.
define harmful speech.
beause that’s the crux of things. not everyone agrees on what is harmful, and many what some find harmful, others may find beneficial.
i mean, i am not one for violence and hate, but plenty of people find violence fantasizing and hateful speech to be empowering. and on the flipside, many think anything they disagree with as hateful and violence towards themselves, even if it not, and feel justified in perpetuating violence against anyone who question the orthodoxies they hold dear.
i used to teach philosophy. lots of people think philosophy is harmful and respond with violence when asked to engaged in it.
“a cop shoots a murderer to prevent them from killing any more victims, ergo, he’s the same as the murderer”
No tolerance for intolerance. If speech is a call to action that would move the discourse towards less tolerance, it should be the exception that should not be tolerated.
So you’re saying that quote is intolerant of cops? And should not be allowed to be said?
I used to be free speech absolutist until we get to the conundrum as you presented. For me, free speech will never be settled and is a perpetual debate. I think what is considered hate speech is on a case by case basis. Like an individual human who is being tried on a court and his/her case is examined, what is considered harmful or free speech is kinda like that. We examine the minutae of the speech based on the context, semantics, syntax logic, reasoning etc. if the speech can be considered harmful or not. It’s a perpetual debate.
You are conflating things that are not the same in a fence-straddling argument. There are things that objectively cause harm. Using X’s Grok to make CSAM. Using AI to deepfake people telling outright lies or giving damaging instructions to the public. Inciting people to engage in illegal behavior. We already have definitions of harmful speech, what we also have is people arguing that it isn’t harmful because it serves their agenda.
Disagreeing with someone is not even close and shouldn’t even be part of the discussion when considering actual censorship. Philosophy is a lovely fun exercise in arguing every point on the curve of a circle, but it doesn’t keep the Nazis from taking power.
Right, so if you disagree with someone punch them in the face, until the agree with you. Or at least verbally harass them into submission.
Because you are somehow the sole arbiter of what objectively causes harm? And you will enforce that objectivity with your fists.
good luck with that. Sound to me like you are the one who wants to be a Nazi, I mean, what’s the difference between exterminating ideas you don’t like, and the people who have those ideas, really?
From a philosophy teacher I expected better than hyperbole and a binary argument.
Do better.
Dude, you did that. You set up a binary and called me a fence sitter. and now you are personally attacking me. Bravo. Be more of a bad faith actor.
You’re being deliberately malacious. And you won’t own up to it, you will just sit there and blame me and everyone else for not adhere to your personal standards you think are superior, such that you get the authority to harass, name call, and blame everyone else. And also justify your violent attitude.
You see nothing wrong with violence, as long as it’s down to those you dislike and disagree with. Just like the Nazis you think you are fighting, because in your binary world everyone is for you, or against you.
It’s ok. I had plenty of students who wrote me papers telling me how stupid I was and how smart they were. They got failed. Which is actually better than the cheaters.
Lol I clearly stated there is a demarcation between objectively damaging speech and disagreement. Try again dude. What are you, a closeted republican? As soon as someone challenges you devolve into “no, u!”, make accusations of being attacked, and make shit up about your opponent while engaging in projection?
F off. We’re done.
You didn’t define any of those terms. You are not engaging, you are harassing and accusing and personalizing everything I said, and going to the ‘but the nazis’ nonsense.
You’re an absolutist. By definition that’s a binary way of thinking. And your doubling down, ‘oh you must b ea republican if you don’t agree with my world view’. As if your worldview is definitivity anti-republican or something?
Your fault is in thinking you are the center of the universe and the arbiter of others beliefs. You aren’t. You might stop being so hostile towards others if you stopped believing that you were.