There are many levels. Someone saying “I hate foreigners” or “I hate fascists” or “I hate capitalists” or “I hate gays” or “I hate cars” or “I hate science denialism” or “I hate AI” or “I hate health insurance CEOs”…that’s all very different than saying “I think all (take your pick)s should be killed.” Don’t you think? All I’m saying is, it’s just about the most subjective thing your trying to codify and it’s just not possible, reasonable, or to society to do so, imo.
“Just don’t offend” is a huge leap from “My freedom ends where someone else’s rights start”. It’s impossible not to offend somebody on this planet just by existing, and some opinions deserve the public shame that offends the people who have them.
He isn’t saying that spreading hate is something that should be done or that it is good; rather, he is merely stating that there is a huge logical, epistemological, and ontological leap between “I hate X” (whatever that X represents) and “we should kill X” or “X should die.”
Moreover, offense ( or being offended) is simply not a valid criterion for determining what constitutes hate or violent speech. Because at least one thing will always offend at least one person, if we attempt to regulate offenses, we will have to choose between regulating only some of them — thus becoming arbitrary — or regulating all offenses, which would kill not only speech, but also expression and, furthermore, existence itself, as the mere existence of certain people might be offensive to others.
Of course you can always find one person that is offended. That’s beside the point. The point is that communication in the US: broadcast media, politics, social media, etc., is far from “just offending someone”. And that happens because nobody even cares about even “we should kill X” level messages anymore. They have become close to the new normal. It is a violent society going down a hate spiral at the moment, and being lenient on the perpetrators is not going to make it better.
It’s amazing that for you, mischarachterization of my stance counts as making a point. I bet you “win” every argument you get in. Have fun in the non-existent black-and-white world you crave, completely devoid of nuance or understanding of subjectivity! I’ll be over here in reality 😘
There are many levels. Someone saying “I hate foreigners” or “I hate fascists” or “I hate capitalists” or “I hate gays” or “I hate cars” or “I hate science denialism” or “I hate AI” or “I hate health insurance CEOs”…that’s all very different than saying “I think all (take your pick)s should be killed.” Don’t you think? All I’m saying is, it’s just about the most subjective thing your trying to codify and it’s just not possible, reasonable, or to society to do so, imo.
“Just don’t offend” is a huge leap from “My freedom ends where someone else’s rights start”. It’s impossible not to offend somebody on this planet just by existing, and some opinions deserve the public shame that offends the people who have them.
It is amazing that for you, being able to spread hate seems to be a fundamental, inviolable human right.
Ad hominem fallacy.
He isn’t saying that spreading hate is something that should be done or that it is good; rather, he is merely stating that there is a huge logical, epistemological, and ontological leap between “I hate X” (whatever that X represents) and “we should kill X” or “X should die.”
Moreover, offense ( or being offended) is simply not a valid criterion for determining what constitutes hate or violent speech. Because at least one thing will always offend at least one person, if we attempt to regulate offenses, we will have to choose between regulating only some of them — thus becoming arbitrary — or regulating all offenses, which would kill not only speech, but also expression and, furthermore, existence itself, as the mere existence of certain people might be offensive to others.
Of course you can always find one person that is offended. That’s beside the point. The point is that communication in the US: broadcast media, politics, social media, etc., is far from “just offending someone”. And that happens because nobody even cares about even “we should kill X” level messages anymore. They have become close to the new normal. It is a violent society going down a hate spiral at the moment, and being lenient on the perpetrators is not going to make it better.
Well, about these messages I have to agree with you, but I can’t simply agree with absolutely anything else.
Oh, also straw-man fallacy.
It’s amazing that for you, mischarachterization of my stance counts as making a point. I bet you “win” every argument you get in. Have fun in the non-existent black-and-white world you crave, completely devoid of nuance or understanding of subjectivity! I’ll be over here in reality 😘