Is hate good? Should we allow the censorship of hate speech?

[Greatest I am]

Is hate good? Should we allow the censorship of hate speech?

1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
Proverbs 3:12 For whom the Lord loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.

God seems to think correcting hateful thoughts or actions is good and correction often times includes showing hate for what is though or done.

I have tested the notions of and concepts of hate and love and find both to be quite useful.

There is a time to love and a time to hate even in these days where Google and others who control the net are actively censoring us?

Should we allow ourselves to hate and speak against those things that deserve to be hated or should we allow the censors to muzzle us?

Are censors coming to take away our freedom of speech if it has a hate component?

"First they came for the Jews, but I did nothing because I'm not a Jew. Then they came for the socialists, but I did nothing because I'm not a socialist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I did nothing because I'm not a Catholic. Finally, they came for me, but by then there was no one left to help me." – Pastor Father Niemoller (1946)”

"Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime." - Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart

Does hate serve a good purpose for us?

For evil to grow, all good people who know what to hate need do is allow censorship and the end of freedom of speech.

Regards
DL

[Karpel Tunnel]

Does hate serve a good purpose for us?

For evil to grow, all good people who know what to hate need do is allow censorship and the end of freedom of speech.

Regards
DL

I think it is a very bad idea to frame this in terms of emotion. To call it hate speech. Threats is one thing. But the emotion behind the speech seems to me off the table. One can be hateful while being apparantly inexpressive. You can deny what others say, imply horrible things about them, but avoid 'hate' speech.

Emotions should be free. Hate is often a response to hate.

It may not be the best response in some situations. One may be better or more honest if one expresses fear or avoid the other. And other practical considerations.

But just as disliking something is not necessarily a problem, raising the intensity of the dislike to hate is not a problem, per se.

I dislike when, for example, a woman expresses a view, and someone who disagrees says she should be raped. It's not a threat, but offends me that a hatred of women gets to slide into a disagreement over some policy or rule. Hate the rule, the argument. You can even hate the person, but there is no need for making it somehow a sexual aggression.

I would probably cut out such comments if I was running a forum. And if it happened in real life, I would likely get really pissed off. And social repurcussions are the best response I think, rather than silencing.

But if you say something that people disagree with I think getting hundreds of people commenting on how you are an ugly cunt and deserve to be raped is a problem not because it is hate, but because it is something other than an honest expression of emotion.

[Greatest I am]

Does hate serve a good purpose for us?

For evil to grow, all good people who know what to hate need do is allow censorship and the end of freedom of speech.

Regards
DL

I think it is a very bad idea to frame this in terms of emotion.

If love is an emotion then so is hate so I have no problem speaking of it in terms of emotion.

To call it hate speech. Threats is one thing. But the emotion behind the speech seems to me off the table. One can be hateful while being apparently inexpressive. You can deny what others say, imply horrible things about them, but avoid 'hate' speech.

I hope not. Would you think kindly of one who spoke of his love for you without expression?

I would think that rather cold.

Emotions should be free. Hate is often a response to hate.

Indeed, and reciprocity is fair play. That follows the Golden Rule.

It may not be the best response in some situations. One may be better or more honest if one expresses fear or avoid the other. And other practical considerations.

Too vague for me to agree but if I fear something or someone, I think I hate whatever that is. We tend not to like to live in or with fear.

But just as disliking something is not necessarily a problem, raising the intensity of the dislike to hate is not a problem, per se.

I agree.

I dislike when, for example, a woman expresses a view, and someone who disagrees says she should be raped. It's not a threat, but offends me that a hatred of women gets to slide into a disagreement over some policy or rule.

Ditto. It would take a prick to respond like that.

Hate the rule, the argument. You can even hate the person, but there is no need for making it somehow a sexual aggression.

Indeed. Reciprocity to words should be words without implying any other harm than verbal.

I would probably cut out such comments if I was running a forum. And if it happened in real life, I would likely get really pissed off. And social repurcussions are the best response I think, rather than silencing.

But if you say something that people disagree with I think getting hundreds of people commenting on how you are an ugly cunt and deserve to be raped is a problem not because it is hate, but because it is something other than an honest expression of emotion.

I agree here.

Regards
DL

[Prismatic567]

We need to put the above 'censorship of hate speech' in context.

Where 'hate' is directed at human features that cannot be changed easily, e.g. race, color, genetic elements, physical deformities, and the likes then such hate related speech, writings and expression MUST be censored and nipped in the bud with heavy penalties.

As for hate related to various human elements that can be changed, e.g. a person's religion and other subjective issues, and the likes, these need not be censored. Where there are evils and violence are involved, they can be dealt with separately.

At the present, the term 'hate' is heavily abused in relation to religion [changeable] where any critique even deserving ones and the slightest criticism of religions are regarded as hate speech and the person and penalized heavily.

I believe people intuitively sensed hate related to human features [e.g. race, color] that cannot be changed easily should be censored and penalized for non-conformance. This is why many Muslims and their apologists are rhetorically conflating Islam which is a religion with a race. Those who critique Islam are condemned as racists.

[phyllo]

And what exactly is "hate speech"?

[Greatest I am]

We need to put the above 'censorship of hate speech' in context.

Where 'hate' is directed at human features that cannot be changed easily, e.g. race, color, genetic elements, physical deformities, and the likes then such hate related speech, writings and expression MUST be censored and nipped in the bud with heavy penalties.

As for hate related to various human elements that can be changed, e.g. a person's religion and other subjective issues, and the likes, these need not be censored. Where there are evils and violence are involved, they can be dealt with separately.

At the present, the term 'hate' is heavily abused in relation to religion [changeable] where any critique even deserving ones and the slightest criticism of religions are regarded as hate speech and the person and penalized heavily.

I believe people intuitively sensed hate related to human features [e.g. race, color] that cannot be changed easily should be censored and penalized for non-conformance. This is why many Muslims and their apologists are rhetorically conflating Islam which is a religion with a race. Those who critique Islam are condemned as racists.

I see nothing to argue against. Thanks for this well reasoned post.

We are all racists/tribal, in a way, but should recognize that just because we tend to favor our own race and tribes, does not mean that the others should be denied their own racism/tribal natures and status equal to ours.

Bring all up instead of putting some down.

Regards
DL

[Karpel Tunnel]

And what exactly is "hate speech"?

Now we're talking.

[phyllo]

I see nothing to argue against. Thanks for this well reasoned post.

What??

He's arguing for censorship and "heavy penalties".

Wasn't your OP arguing against censorship with statements like this :

"Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime." - Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart

Does hate serve a good purpose for us?

For evil to grow, all good people who know what to hate need do is allow censorship and the end of freedom of speech.

Which suggests that Prismatic is allowing evil to grow by supporting censorship.

Did you change your mind?

Now you are for censorship?

[Greatest I am]

I see nothing to argue against. Thanks for this well reasoned post.

What??

He's arguing for censorship and "heavy penalties".

Wasn't your OP arguing against censorship with statements like this :

"Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime." - Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart

Does hate serve a good purpose for us?

For evil to grow, all good people who know what to hate need do is allow censorship and the end of freedom of speech.

Which suggests that Prismatic is allowing evil to grow by supporting censorship.

Did you change your mind?

Now you are for censorship?

No.

Our friend wrote --- "Where 'hate' is directed at human features that cannot be changed easily, e.g. race, color, genetic elements, physical deformities, and the likes then such hate related speech, writings and expression MUST be censored and nipped in the bud with heavy penalties."

I read this as his speaking about racism and other discriminations without a just cause.

Do you think we should allow discrimination in speech without a just cause?

Is that not what we call misogyny, homophobia and anti-Semitism?

I believe in freedom of speech. I do not believe in the freedom to knowingly lie and discriminate without a just cause.

Regards
DL

[phyllo]

I read this as his speaking about racism and other discriminations without a just cause.

Do you think we should allow discrimination in speech without a just cause?

Is that not what we call misogyny, homophobia and anti-Semitism?

I believe in freedom of speech. I do not believe in the freedom to knowingly lie and discriminate without a just cause.

Okay, so you are for censorship. Any speech not covered by the umbrella of "just cause" ought to be censored.

The concept of "just cause" is vague. Certainly, it means different things to different people. The most important meaning will be the one chosen by the authorities which control the police forces. It's going to be abused and misused.

[phyllo]

Is that not what we call misogyny, homophobia and anti-Semitism?

Freedom of speech means that people can say things which are misogynist, homophobic or antisemitic. (Or they are perceived as such by the listener, rightly or wrongly.)

[Greatest I am]

I read this as his speaking about racism and other discriminations without a just cause.

Do you think we should allow discrimination in speech without a just cause?

Is that not what we call misogyny, homophobia and anti-Semitism?

I believe in freedom of speech. I do not believe in the freedom to knowingly lie and discriminate without a just cause.

Okay, so you are for censorship. Any speech not covered by the umbrella of "just cause" ought to be censored.

The concept of "just cause" is vague. Certainly, it means different things to different people. The most important meaning will be the one chosen by the authorities which control the police forces. It's going to be abused and misused.

No. I am not for censorship.

I am against the type of freedom of speech I named and it would be to a judge to put gag orders on those who would discriminate without a just cause.

If a judge could find a just cause then he should not issue a gag order.

If speech is censored, then the public could not learn what the public/legal standards are that a judge would show.

Let all have free speech, with sanctions where legally appropriate.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

Is that not what we call misogyny, homophobia and anti-Semitism?

Freedom of speech means that people can say things which are misogynist, homophobic or antisemitic. (Or they are perceived as such by the listener, rightly or wrongly.)

I think I answered this with my last.

Hate is good if well aimed. You mention issues where the aim is off the mark and a judge would make that clear for all the population.

Regards
DL

[phyllo]

No. I am not for censorship.

I am against the type of freedom of speech I named and it would be to a judge to put gag orders on those who would discriminate without a just cause.

If a judge could find a just cause then he should not issue a gag order.

If speech is censored, then the public could not learn what the public/legal standards are that a judge would show.

Let all have free speech, with sanctions where legally appropriate.

Somehow you manage to convince yourself that you do not support censorship, although everything you write indicates that you do. I guess the concept of "just cause" makes you feel good about censorship.

[Greatest I am]

No. I am not for censorship.

I am against the type of freedom of speech I named and it would be to a judge to put gag orders on those who would discriminate without a just cause.

If a judge could find a just cause then he should not issue a gag order.

If speech is censored, then the public could not learn what the public/legal standards are that a judge would show.

Let all have free speech, with sanctions where legally appropriate.

Somehow you manage to convince yourself that you do not support censorship, although everything you write indicates that you do. I guess the concept of "just cause" makes you feel good about censorship.

Indeed.

I am all in for free speech but not for free lying.

Free lying is presently being allowed. Do you think it should be when it creates victims of our most vulnerable and gullible?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y1xJAVZxXg

Regards
DL

[phyllo]

I am all in for free speech but not for free lying.

How do you know that it is intentional lying rather than being misinformed or ignorant?

[Karpel Tunnel]

I am all in for free speech but not for free lying.

The problem with this is you did think some kinds of communication should be stopped, for example racism. But racists do not think they are lying. And neither do most of the theists you hate. They are believers.

[Greatest I am]

I am all in for free speech but not for free lying.

How do you know that it is intentional lying rather than being misinformed or ignorant?

Seriously.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y1xJAVZxXg

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

I am all in for free speech but not for free lying.

The problem with this is you did think some kinds of communication should be stopped, for example racism. But racists do not think they are lying. And neither do most of the theists you hate. They are believers.

What they think is not as important as what they can prove or risk being accused of slander.

Every time someone says something of the Gods, it is a lie.

God is unknowable.

Regards
DL

[phyllo]

Every time someone says something of the Gods, it is a lie.

God is unknowable.

So you think that everyone who speaks about gods ought to be censored.

Interesting.

[phyllo]

Seriously.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y1xJAVZxXg

I ask you a general question about how lying would be detected and what to do about human errors. You cherry pick televangelists in response.

[Karpel Tunnel]

[
What they think is not as important as what they can prove or risk being accused of slander.

I don't think 'slander' is what you mean, but in any case, this is the case right now. You can accuse them of lying or spreading falsehood. They have free speech and so do you. So I am not sure if you mean they should be censored or not.

Every time someone says something of the Gods, it is a lie.

That is simply not the case. Unless you are arguing that there are no theists.

[phenomenal_graffiti]

How does one prove God does not exist?

[Prismatic567]

How does one prove God does not exist?

The above question is based on the ASSUMPTION from your perspective that God exists.
Since it is your assumption, why should I accept your assumption?
For intellectual honesty sake, the onus is on you to convert your assumption to fact first [i.e. prove God exists] else your question is merely 'assumptive' and useless.

Another counter to
"How does one prove God does not exist?"
is that the idea of God is a non-starter, moot.

Note my thread,
God is an Impossibility
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=193474&hilit=god+impossibility

[phenomenal_graffiti]

The above question is based on the ASSUMPTION from your perspective that God exists.
Since it is your assumption, why should I accept your assumption?
For intellectual honesty sake, the onus is on you to convert your assumption to fact first [i.e. prove God exists] else your question is merely 'assumptive' and useless.

Another counter to
"How does one prove God does not exist?"
is that the idea of God is a non-starter, moot.

Following your logic, what if one asked the following question:

1. Do mind-independent objects and events which brains purportedly represent in the form of conscious experience of perceptual copies of these mind-independent objects and events exist?

The above question is based on the ASSUMPTION from the perspective of someone believing that there are mind-independent objects and events exists.
For intellectual honesty sake, the onus is upon anyone believing in the existence of mind-independent objects and events to convert one's assumption to fact first [i.e. prove mind-independent objects and events exist] else belief in mind-independent objects and events is assumptive and useless.

One can substitute 'mind-independent objects and events' with 'other people's consciousnesses'.

The existence of mind-independent objects and events and other people's consciousness are ultimately a matter of faith, as there is no proof these exist. They're in the same boat as God.