Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

But it seems that your view of "hate crime" is that it is an anti-group crime, a crime against a group-identity. And therefore this can only be truly understood to the extent that you have a true view of groups and group-identity.

American Libertarian Individualism, that denies the existence of groups — "collections of individuals; there *ARE* no 'groups'!" — and, to be honest, I just don't have the stamina to confront such ideological dogma. They just aren't interesting or important enough. The truth of groups is obvious from simple observation of real life.

Yes, groups exist. Voluntary associations of individuals who come together for collective action. Sports clubs, political parties, religious congregations, etc. Even a married couple is a small group.

They can be the victim of some sorts of common-law crime - theft, breach of contract, defamation. But not others - a group cannot be murdered, because it does not have a life to lose.

The entire group could be murdered? Also, one or more members of the group can be murdered?

The group might also commit crime...

Your contention here seems to be that if Alfie is targeted for a crime because he is a member of some such group - such as the local cricket team - then this involves a crime against the team as such. That is what you're saying ? That the rest of the team is impacted ?

Well yes, but what you're saying might be more intuitive, given our topic, if your example group were Hindus or children, as opposed to a "cricket team". But I think you're as well aware of that as I am — a trivial example for a trivial argument, perhaps?

But yes, the group is "impacted". In the terrible example of Brianna Ghey's murder, the whole trans-sexual community were frightened, some frightened for their lives. The group was (and probably remains) "impacted" and frightened.

Is it a crime of intimidation ? No. Because a group does not have a collective mind and therefore cannot be collectively intimidated.

All of the members of a group can be intimidated en masse, in some cases. In others, members might all be "intimidated", but one at a time. And a group often shares group interests and aspirations, perhaps to the point where they might behave *as though* they had one "collective mind"?

Of course a group can be intimidated, in the real world. If the Little Bloods are threatening my little brother, and my gang, the Big Bloods, threaten them with harm if they don't stop; the former group is "intimidated", yes? In this case, simple and brutal intimidation, but not all such things must be complex and sophisticated.

[Lagayascienza]

At times, we all experience pain by being different. We are all different. What distinguishes high achievers from losers is that the high achievers don't whine about the hand they were dealt. Helen Keller, anyone?

Being on the autism spectrum can be as much an ability as it is a disability. I know this from first hand experience. Using anything but the most extreme forms of autism as an excuse for poor performance is just a cop-out. Of course, such wingers will not be interested in the opinions of others. They will want to keep carping on about being on the spectrum. They need to get over it.

[Lagayascienza]

But no one will care if they don't.

[Fried Egg]

Within the confines of hate speech, speech can only be said to cause harm in so far as it leads directly to violent action.

Many disagree. I am one of them.
[...]
I don't think we can progress here, as you cannot accept a source of pain and distress that has been the primary negative component of my entire life. I am far from the only one. I see no point in us posting quote and counter-quote, and I don't know how — or if — you might be persuaded to change your view.

Ok, you've made it clear that you will probably not continue to converse with me on this topic but I want to clarify (and perhaps re-phrase) my position for the benefit of anyone else reading this conversation.

I did go on to say in my previous post that I acknowledge that speech can cause trauma in the minds of others so in a sense that contradicts my earlier remark that only violent action can be considered harmful to others. So I think I would concede that speech can indeed be harmful but I would insist that it is a different category of harm, and it is a distinction that our legal system (such as it currently is) still reflects.

I also acknowledged that speech can cause reputational damage but this is already covered in laws on libel/slander and not really anything to do with the concept of hate speech and so are out of scope of the conversation here.

What I can't accept though is that there should be legal protection from emotional harm, and that such protection should be on par with the protection from physical harm, although that does seem to be the way things have been going. We have endeavoured to eliminate almost all forms of physical violence in society and there are no doubt some (including yourself by the looks of it) that would like to do the same with emotional violence but I think to do so would be very bad for society by effectively ending free speech, which is an integral and vital part of a functioning democratic society.

I think this drive to protect people from emotional harm, the "woke" culture war if you will, might rest on good intentions but it has only served to increase our sensitivity to speech and caused us to find offence in places we would not have found it before, and inflame tensions that had all but disappeared previously. Fundamentally though, protecting people from the emotional harms of speech is incompatible with a free society.

I don't personally advocate saying things that you know will cause emotional pain for others, and would find most examples of people doing this morally despicable. I just don't think it should be illegal. A society that strives to protect individuals from emotional harm in the same way that it strives to protect people from physical harm is not one that I would recognise as a "free" society.

[Pattern-chaser]

Within the confines of hate speech, speech can only be said to cause harm in so far as it leads directly to violent action.

Many disagree. I am one of them.
[...]
I don't think we can progress here, as you cannot accept a source of pain and distress that has been the primary negative component of my entire life. I am far from the only one. I see no point in us posting quote and counter-quote, and I don't know how — or if — you might be persuaded to change your view.

Ok, you've made it clear that you will probably not continue to converse with me on this topic but I want to clarify (and perhaps re-phrase) my position for the benefit of anyone else reading this conversation.

I did go on to say in my previous post that I acknowledge that speech can cause trauma in the minds of others so in a sense that contradicts my earlier remark that only violent action can be considered harmful to others. So I think I would concede that speech can indeed be harmful but I would insist that it is a different category of harm, and it is a distinction that our legal system (such as it currently is) still reflects.

I also acknowledged that speech can cause reputational damage but this is already covered in laws on libel/slander and not really anything to do with the concept of hate speech and so are out of scope of the conversation here.

I *hope* I made it clear that I cannot or could not continue a discussion like this one with someone who denies the existence of verbal violence that causes actual harm. Now it seems that isn't how you feel, even though it was what you appeared to be saying.

What I can't accept though is that there should be legal protection from emotional harm, and that such protection should be on par with the protection from physical harm, although that does seem to be the way things have been going.

Isn't that a bit like saying we should distinguish knife-crime from gun-crime, when our focus is on crime, not the weapons used? Harm is harm. And, in this case, it is the harm we are focusssing on, not the exact or detailed nature of the harm, yes?

We have endeavoured to eliminate almost all forms of physical violence in society and there are no doubt some (including yourself by the looks of it) that would like to do the same with emotional violence but I think to do so would be very bad for society by effectively ending free speech, which is an integral and vital part of a functioning democratic society.

Here we are again, with freedom of speech. First, this topic concerns so-called 'hate crimes', not freedom of speech. There are several live topics with that subject. Second, and perhaps the most important, you seem to think that freedom of speech cannot exist without it causing "emotional violence"? I would suggest that it can and does, but if you should be correct, then freedom of speech should be opposed by any and every thinking and considering/considerate person. Happily, I can't see this as necessary, as the two are not linked in that way. IMO.

[Fried Egg]

Some speech is considered hate speech and is therefore a hate crime. That is why it is being discussed here.

I also mentioned earlier that sometimes, even saying true and reasonable things will cause emotional trauma (harm) in the minds of those who really don't want to hear it. Which is the primary reason I believe that laws should not endeavor to protect people from harm.

But I've said all this before and am only repeating myself.

...you seem to think that freedom of speech cannot exist without it causing "emotional violence"? I would suggest that it can and does, but if you should be correct, then freedom of speech should be opposed by any and every thinking and considering/considerate person.

I've said it before but the true test of whether you believe in freedom of speech is whether you support the right to speak of even those you vehemently disagree with. I do think it's inevitable that some people are going to be traumatised by what others say. And I think that the very existence of laws that try to protect people from the emotional trauma of speech will only make that more likely (as we are seeing in our society now).

But your final sentence is telling and makes it crystal clear where you stand on the matter.

[Good_Egg]

Harm is harm. And, in this case, it is the harm we are focusssing on, not the exact or detailed nature of the harm, yes ?

Is "emotional harm" a well-defined concept ?

Does contradiction of a point of view that someone is emotionally attached to constitute "emotional harm" ?

Because the temptation is to count contradiction of cherished beliefs as harm if you agree with the belief and not if you don't. A creationist may feel attacked by an assertion of the fact of evolution. Someone with gender dysphoria, who cannot 100% identify with either maleness or femaleness, may feel attacked by an assertion that there are only two sexes. Counting one as "emotional harm" and not the other is bias. It amounts to passive-aggressive attempts to control what opinions are expressed, by counting a certain sort of distressing experience as emotional harm when it suits your agenda and not when it doesn't.

Now it may be possible to define the term "emotional harm" in a way that we can all recognise its value-independent reality. Or maybe not; I don't know. But until that philosophical work is done, it's just more special pleading on behalf of the social-progressive narrative, or a creationist narrative, or some other school of opinion.

Now if you were to say that deliberately causing mental distress for its own sake is morally wrong, and that sentencing should be more severe where such an intent is present, regardless of the means used, then that sounds much more defensible.

But telling any truth will discomfort those who cherish a contradictory falsehood, and that's no reason to outlaw it.

[Pattern-chaser]

I also mentioned earlier that sometimes, even saying true and reasonable things will cause emotional trauma (harm) in the minds of those who really don't want to hear it. Which is the primary reason I believe that laws should not endeavor to protect people from harm.

Then it must seem odd to you that many of those who want such protective laws to be in place, and they think that way for the very reason you express here. That people suffer real and actual harm from certain types or examples of speech. How come you reach the opposite conclusion, based on the same evidence? [Of course, the same question could be asked in reverse, to those who approve of protective laws.]

[Pattern-chaser]

...you seem to think that freedom of speech cannot exist without it causing "emotional violence"? I would suggest that it can and does, but if you should be correct, then freedom of speech should be opposed by any and every thinking and considering/considerate person.

...your final sentence is telling and makes it crystal clear where you stand on the matter.

Here is "where I stand" on the matter:

I've said it before but the true test of whether you believe in freedom of speech is whether you support the right to speak of even those you vehemently disagree with.

I believe that any subject can be discussed by any parties, as long as courtesy is employed. Courtesy does not prevent forthright discussion between those who disagree, it only prevents personal insults — we philosophers tend to call them 'ad homs', probably just to make them sound posher. And it prevents personal insults because that way lies violence. The purpose of courtesy is to prevent forthright discussion from degenerating into violence.

Courtesy is 'freedom of speech' for the real world, in practice, as we live it. Including necessary constraints of course; unconstrained freedom of speech cannot be allowed to exist. In this case, the necessary constraint is the lack of personal insults, which carry no useful information. Their purpose, in a context such as we are discussing, is to promote and provoke violence. Hence the need for such constraints.

[Pattern-chaser]

Harm is harm. And, in this case, it is the harm we are focusssing on, not the exact or detailed nature of the harm, yes ?

Is "emotional harm" a well-defined concept ?

I think it is *well enough* defined for our purposes? As I offered here, in a previous post:

Many disagree. I am one of them.

[Various quotes illustrating my point.]

Does contradiction of a point of view that someone is emotionally attached to constitute "emotional harm" ?

Contradiction in itself seems unlikely to cause harm, although I'm sure it's possible in unexpected/unanticipated circumstances. If the "contradiction" incorporates personal insults and provocations, then it could, and maybe *will*, cause harm. It will certainly push the exchange in the direction of violence...

Because the temptation is to count contradiction of cherished beliefs as harm if you agree with the belief and not if you don't.

I suppose there is that temptation, but perhaps the issue here is why does such temptation come to us, and why do we think it's OK to indulge in such destructive behaviour? Just a thought...

I think even the words we choose here are important. You mention the "contradiction" of opinions, while I might prefer "question" or "inquire into", because your term has a mildly negative connotation, while my preferences are neutral or positive toward real-world free speech. You telegraph your own bias by asking things like "why would any fool think that?" Yes, I know you didn't say/write that, so this is not in any way an accusation, but that's the direction your word-choices are heading in, isn't it?

[Fried Egg]

I also mentioned earlier that sometimes, even saying true and reasonable things will cause emotional trauma (harm) in the minds of those who really don't want to hear it. Which is the primary reason I believe that laws should not endeavor to protect people from harm.

Then it must seem odd to you that many of those who want such protective laws to be in place, and they think that way for the very reason you express here. That people suffer real and actual harm from certain types or examples of speech. How come you reach the opposite conclusion, based on the same evidence? [Of course, the same question could be asked in reverse, to those who approve of protective laws.]

I suppose it comes down to what we think more important, living in a free society or living in an "emotionally" safe society. It is not really a matter of a balance of evidence, but rather a value judgement. And quite frankly, I would fight to the death to protect the former against the imposition of the latter.

I believe that any subject can be discussed by any parties, as long as courtesy is employed. Courtesy does not prevent forthright discussion between those who disagree, it only prevents personal insults — we philosophers tend to call them 'ad homs', probably just to make them sound posher. And it prevents personal insults because that way lies violence. The purpose of courtesy is to prevent forthright discussion from degenerating into violence.

Courtesy is 'freedom of speech' for the real world, in practice, as we live it. Including necessary constraints of course; unconstrained freedom of speech cannot be allowed to exist. In this case, the necessary constraint is the lack of personal insults, which carry no useful information. Their purpose, in a context such as we are discussing, is to promote and provoke violence. Hence the need for such constraints.

In terms of personal conduct, I tend to agree with you. We should be able to discuss things, even those things on which we profoundly disagree, civilly and with courtesy. You have been perfectly civil to me in all our conversations that I can recall (however much we might disagree) and I really appreciate that. But if you weren't civil, I would just walk away and look for an engaging conversation elsewhere. I would certainly not call for you to be prosecuted for it.

[Good_Egg]

But it seems that your view of "hate crime" is that it is an anti-group crime, a crime against a group-identity. And therefore this can only be truly understood to the extent that you have a true view of groups and group-identity.

The group might also commit crime...

...

what you're saying might be more intuitive, given our topic, if your example group were Hindus or children, as opposed to a "cricket team". But I think you're as well aware of that as I am — a trivial example for a trivial argument, perhaps?

...

And a group often shares group interests and aspirations, perhaps to the point where they might behave *as though* they had one "collective mind"?

A cricket team is a real observable group, with collectively-owned property and a collective decision-making procedure. Nothing trivial or demeaning about that.

Hindus, or children, are not groups. They are defined sets of people with common characteristics. But no collective mind. The collective mind of a set of people is a fiction. It may possibly in some circumstances be a useful fiction, but that is to be demonstrated rather than assumed. A group can conspire to commit a crime, and thereby share responsibility. A set of people cannot commit a crime.

If your idea of a crime against the essence of a group doesn't work with a real observable group like a cricket team, how can it possibly work with a defined set of people such as children (or left-handed people) ?

[Pattern-chaser]

In terms of personal conduct, I tend to agree with you. We should be able to discuss things, even those things on which we profoundly disagree, civilly and with courtesy. You have been perfectly civil to me in all our conversations that I can recall (however much we might disagree) and I really appreciate that.

Likewise!

But if you weren't civil, I would just walk away and look for an engaging conversation elsewhere. I would certainly not call for you to be prosecuted for it.

But if my incivility caused you harm? Not theoretical harm, but real and actual harm? What then?

[Pattern-chaser]

Hindus, or children, are not groups. They are defined sets of people with common characteristics. But no collective mind.

No, no collective mind, but, in many cases, groups behave as if they shared a common mind, even though, in actuality, they don't. Haven't we been around this circle before?

[Good_Egg]

Hindus, or children, are not groups. They are defined sets of people with common characteristics. But no collective mind. The collective mind of a set of people is a fiction. It may possibly in some circumstances be a useful fiction, but that is to be demonstrated rather than assumed. A group can conspire to commit a crime, and thereby share responsibility. A set of people cannot commit a crime.

No, no collective mind, but, in many cases, groups behave as if they shared a common mind, even though, in actuality, they don't.

So how exactly is it a useful fiction to treat all left-handed people, for example, as sharing a common mind ?