This is my discussion with Nick Dolgy about laws against hate speech.
You can read my comment here:
That is an utter straw man of what the left wants. Especially because it was always the left who called for equal rights for gays and protecting them against discrimination, and the religious right always wanted to discriminate them and take away their rights under the disguise of “freedom of religion”. Your right of free speech doesn’t include the right to harm other people. Your rights end where my rights begin. Hate is speech is speech that harms me. And it’s not my feelings that are harmed, it’s substantial harm. For example, if you call for the extermination of Jews on Facebook, that’s harms people who are Jewish. That’s hate speech. If you call black people Nigger on public forums, that’s invalidates black people as people, thus harms them. Would you think that that’s is not hate speech: https://media1.fdncms.com/indyweek/imager/u/magnum/5052006/screen_shot_2016-07 – 20_at_6.21.59_am.png https://www.ushmm.org/propaganda/archive/poster-guilty-war/ Well, it’s just free speech I guess.
First Part of my Essay
First of all I don’t understand why you are confusing private and public organizations with issues of the law and human rights. Academia and other private and public organizations make their own rules and are separate from the government and human rights in general. You are giving me some unique cases, that you cite as an example of the misuse of those laws, but you are not showing the whole picture. It was anti-harassment and hate-speech laws after all that enabled minorities from entering the public space and having a civil discourse in the first place.
Minorities were always historically discriminated against, be it blacks, women, Jews or other minorities. You are arguing against those laws just because in some places it have negative consequences today. But without those laws we wouldn’t have our modern Western society. Of course I’m not agreeing with those students who bully professors, but bullies were always there and are not an invention of SJWs and the left. People who like to bully join a movement that gives them power over other people. Students in Academia were always somewhat reactionary, the only difference to the past is just that today they have more power at the colleges, I guess.
On the other hand, I really don’t know what is happening with Academia and professors and the students. All I hear are reports. Who knows what is really the issue? All stories have always two sides and I don’t think that such simplistic black and white thinking like you display is good for anybody. Yes, Weinstein was bullied and harassed and I don’t condone that. But, Weinstein was also a provocateur and maybe Evergreen was just not the correct place for him to be. Again, I don’t know the full story and neither do you. Weinstein also filed a $3.85 million tort claim and settled for $450,000 with the college, thus showing that anti-harassment laws are also protecting him. The case of Weinstein shows that we need laws to protect the civil society for all, and not that we were better off without.
Just because some people call it “hate speech” who disagrees with theirs views, that doesn’t mean that it makes it hate speech. That is basically what Jordan Peterson is doing. He thinks that he proves something by debating the most extreme and a little bit crazy individuals and provoking them to say the most radical views, but all he is doing is showing how radical and crazy those particular individuals are. He is not showing anything that is factual. The same applies to your thinking. They can call it “hate speech” all day long, it doesn’t makes it so.
The side of the more radical Left believes that Weinstein and other social issues like Halloween costumes are making the society a hostile place for minorities and thus not allowing them to study and be successful in life. What else but opinion can you offer to disprove them?
To summarize. If you would have made a video criticizing the so called SJWs on campuses and the current absurdity of radical left, then I wouldn’t have any problems with your opinion. But you are conflating the law and human rights with the radical left, and also the authoritarian laws of the right with anti-discrimination and hate-speech laws. Russia have laws that target the homosexual community. Those laws have nothing to do with anti-discrimination and hate-speech laws. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_gay_propaganda_law. Those laws are specific laws against a particular group of people. It’s like Nazi Germany had laws against Jews and then you make a video how pro-Jewish activists are arrested by Nazis and say “see, that is what hate-speech laws can lead to”. But instead of attacking the Russian laws that are directly responsible for the arrests of gay activists, you have chosen to attack a straw man and engaged in slippery-slope arguments. Because we have laws that protect minorities, therefore we will soon arrest activists? No, that doesn’t follow. Hate-speech laws are not laws against being offended. They are laws against harm. No matter how many times the radical Left misrepresents those laws in the public, hate-speech laws do not give them power just because they got offended.
Point by Point Reply to Nick
Nick Dolgy What have American academia to do with hate laws? Nothing. If you don’t like the policies in American academia then make a video about that. Those have absolutely nothing to do with anti discrimination or hate-speech laws.
Oh, and please make a video how the current right wing American government is also suppressing speech and freedom of the press. I would think that how the president of the USA is suppressing free speech and free expression is more important than some SJWs on campuses.
Lastly, Trump threatened Google, Facebook and Twitter just because he doesn’t like the search results. What was it, that the left is threatening free speech? Trump is the left now? Especially because Trump and the government have immense powers. Trump alone could cause havoc via executive orders, for example. What can SJWs on campuses do? Protest some Halloween costumes.
> “The same is true about Nazi symbols in Germany. If you allow them, then sooner or later there will be a critical mass of idiots under those banners who will destabilize the situation to the point of an explosion. I also think that the oppressive symbols of Islam should also be banned everywhere in the world”
What about Nazis and the KKK making speeches? What about Spencer talking about racial genocide in America?
> “having grown up in the USSR, knowing the history I would say that Red Scare was justified.”
So, basically, you are for free speech only if you agree with the speech?
Or, let me rephrase it. You are for free speech only if it’s not Social Justice Warriors? I think that’s it.
> “This is not a stable environment.”
According to whom?
> “People in Seattle chant “gas the rich”, and I feel it’s too much, and that’s something that should really be addressed, because it crosses the line.”
“the rich” is not a particular group of people. So, I would say it falls under free speech.
> “How are you going to prove your intent with words like “nigger” or “white-boy”?”
How would you prove self defence? How would you prove involuntary manslaughter? How would you prove first degree murder? You are pretending here that hate speech laws are something entirely new and uncharted grounds and that our judicial system is so inapt. Usually, the courts are determine the intent. Just like a murder would say that he is innocent and the courts would not pardon him just based on his testimonial, but the judge or the jury is determining the intent. It’s the same with hate speech laws. You are accused, you can defend yourself, the courts finds you guilty or not.
> “you’ll have thousands of casualties, exactly like they have in Russia today.”
Where are all of those thousands of casualties?
Russia have laws against homosexuality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_gay_propaganda_law It has nothing to do with hate speech laws or discrimination laws. That is a specific law against a specific group of people. It’s like Nazi Germany had laws against Jews. And then you make a video how pro-Jewish activists are arrested by Nazis and say “see, that is what hate-speech laws can lead to”.
> “and then it’s not called “murder”, but it’s a killing or manslaughter.”
Yes. And some is hate speech and some is artistic expression.
> “you are using two extreme examples.”
Yes, because all examples of supposed misuse of hate-speech laws I saw are an application of extreme examples. I never saw hate-speech laws use in “people talking to each other in the streets” or something like that. Because there are no hate-speech laws that would apply to private forums.
> “you don’t see examples because you are evidently looking away and not trying to find information, which is available. Part of the problem is that the messengers who deliver such information often get smeared and reputation-destroyed when they start having a civil discourse about such cases.”
How about you just give me one example and then we can see?
> “It is you who thinks that those activists are helping people. This is a modern moral zeitgeist in the West.”
Yes, so what? Before you said that in your opinion we should ban Nazi symbols. That is also a modern moral zeitgeist in the West. Nazi Germany in the 1930s would disagree with you and those Germans back then thought that the West is a Jew-Topia and ruled by Jews. Also, earlier you said that the Red Scare was justified. Just like me you are applying your own moral standards to who is good and who is bad.
But, again, what is going on in Russia have nothing to do with hate-speech laws. There is a specific law against gays.
> “I just re-uploaded my video on Cuckoo bird after it got flagged and terminated last year.”
Have nothing to do with hate-speech laws.
> “The two other articles of Russian penal code that I mentioned in the video — Extremism and Offending the Feelings of Religious People — generate hundreds of cases a year”
Great. Have nothing to do with hate-speech laws. And I wouldn’t cared and liked your video if it was only about that.
— Ayaan Hirsi Ali being on the SPLC’s list of anti-Muslim extremists
Have nothing to do with hate-speech laws. The SPLC is a Public-interest law firm and Civil rights advocacy organization. Who they put on what list is their problem and nobody has to listed to them.
— The UK: decades of grooming gangs being covered by the police who was totally paralyzed by fear of being accused of racism
Have nothing to do with hate-speech laws. The police was incompetent and the blame is on the politicians. In Germany there are multiple Islamic organizations watched by the government as anti-constitutional and we stopped Turkey leaders from speaking here, and Austria will expel 60 Imams.
— Latest Tommy Robinson arrest and incarceration in violation of the UK laws, without any formal charges
His arrest was 100% justified. https://inews.co.uk/opinion/why-was-tommy-robinson-arrested-and-jailed-and-why-were-reporting-restrictions-in-place/
— Lauren Southern ban from entering the UK despite her being a very civil, fact-driven, brave journalist
lol… ok, whatever. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkA876B6TFY
Lauren Southern was denied entry because “Border Force has the power to refuse entry to an individual if it is considered that his or her presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good.” https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-43393035
The UK government represents all people, not just white blond people.
— Protecting the ghettos in Australia and elsewhere, — Actual no-go zones where a modern-looking woman is considered too provocative for the locals — human rights violation towards non-Muslims- Because of hate speech laws in Europe women in Muslim communities keep being abused and discriminated — nobody in Europe is allowed to criticize Islamic anti-women doctrines.
No citations given, hence no data is given. All just opinion. Probably from Lauren Southern and Alex Jones?
> “because calls to violence are a measurable and immediate way to actually get violence, and actually get people hurt.”
You missed the point of my question. Why should we set the bar here? Sounds arbitrary. But you already said that your standard of free speech is arbitrary and that it’s basically “SJWs bad, right wing good.”