Hate speech and radicalizing speech isn't meant for those that aren't reading or listening to that speech, but rather to motivate those who do listen to act out the things that the speakers are saying.
The speakers hide behind "I didn't do anything, I just said something" and count on those who take their words into their heart and convert them into action. This is the danger of hate speech. It's not enough for good people to just ignore. It requires more effort to prevent the talking from being doing. If the term "hate speech" doesn't sit well, I prefer to use the term "rhetorical violence". Basically, rhetorical violence is speech using the imagery and terminology of violence intended to inspire violent thoughts in others.
The video posted below by another commenter shows how radicalizing speech is used to motivate others to commit acts that the speaker themselves would not commit or would claim not to support. In essence, the speakers are claiming the rights to rhetorical violence while being disconnected from actual violence that the speech might incite, inspire, or support.
are both "demand-side" solutions, which conservatives are well aware don't work when there's people dealing poison in the street.
Still, rexreed, I'll always fight for free speech, even when the people exercising it are abhorrent. And even knowing they'll take advantage of that to the fullest effect they can. Because if we really restrict it, the worst possible people will take control of who gets to say what. And it won't be the people we'd like to be making that decision. Every encroachment on free speech is like feeding steroids to the nazis.
> So impeding the speech of two people is a better outcome than impeding the speech of none? I don't get it.
I mean, it's not a better strategy and it's not right - what I'm trying to say is that impeding one person's speech leads to impeding another person's speech, and that's how you end up with totalitarianism, regardless of who's in control.
The trouble is that whoever speaks loudest never respects the mechanism that allowed them to speak in the first place, or extends that right to anyone else.
So as to what leads to a better outcome, I'd say the results aren't in yet.
If only I knew the content of something before I read it. I would have to limit my internet use to Signal conversations with my dog to avoid most of tech’s poison machine.
That is a good idea, it is what I did. I don't visit any social networks, I don't read the news, and I stop talking to those who send me information that I'm not interested in.
rexreed|4 years ago
Hate speech and radicalizing speech isn't meant for those that aren't reading or listening to that speech, but rather to motivate those who do listen to act out the things that the speakers are saying.
The speakers hide behind "I didn't do anything, I just said something" and count on those who take their words into their heart and convert them into action. This is the danger of hate speech. It's not enough for good people to just ignore. It requires more effort to prevent the talking from being doing. If the term "hate speech" doesn't sit well, I prefer to use the term "rhetorical violence". Basically, rhetorical violence is speech using the imagery and terminology of violence intended to inspire violent thoughts in others.
The video posted below by another commenter shows how radicalizing speech is used to motivate others to commit acts that the speaker themselves would not commit or would claim not to support. In essence, the speakers are claiming the rights to rhetorical violence while being disconnected from actual violence that the speech might incite, inspire, or support.
vadfa|4 years ago
noduerme|4 years ago
>We already have laws against violence.
>So don't read them, as easy as that.
are both "demand-side" solutions, which conservatives are well aware don't work when there's people dealing poison in the street.
Still, rexreed, I'll always fight for free speech, even when the people exercising it are abhorrent. And even knowing they'll take advantage of that to the fullest effect they can. Because if we really restrict it, the worst possible people will take control of who gets to say what. And it won't be the people we'd like to be making that decision. Every encroachment on free speech is like feeding steroids to the nazis.
noduerme|4 years ago
I mean, it's not a better strategy and it's not right - what I'm trying to say is that impeding one person's speech leads to impeding another person's speech, and that's how you end up with totalitarianism, regardless of who's in control.
The trouble is that whoever speaks loudest never respects the mechanism that allowed them to speak in the first place, or extends that right to anyone else.
So as to what leads to a better outcome, I'd say the results aren't in yet.
gherkinnn|4 years ago
If only I knew the content of something before I read it. I would have to limit my internet use to Signal conversations with my dog to avoid most of tech’s poison machine.
vadfa|4 years ago
hnbad|4 years ago