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

[Pattern-chaser]

...
That a) is what b) becomes if you narrow down the group to a group of one...

If you're going to classify an individual as a "group of one", I think you're pushing it a bit. A group comprises two or more people, doesn't it? Let's not fall down that rabbit-hole, OK? [Individuals versus groups is a difficult topic in itself, and it isn't *this* topic.]

[Fried Egg]

I think people deserve to be protected from hate or hatred, but not (necessarily) from "being offended or upset". I see a big difference between those two.

But I would say that in attempting to protect people from hatred we end up protecting them from being offended and upset. This is precisely what we see in many universities and other academic institutions now where even exposure to people expressing ideas they don't like causes people to feel threatened and unsafe.

You say you see a big difference between these ideas but I say there is no substantial difference which is why it is so easy for people that try to insulate their bad ideas from criticism to label their critics as "haters" in order to justify silencing them.

For one thing, the demarcation between being critical and being hateful is not always clear and much debated over.

Indeed. And so it should (be "debated over"). The judgement of criminality is often difficult, as the range of situations in which real-life crime is committed is near-infinite. But that doesn't mean that our "demarcation" is wrong, or should not be attempted. It just means it's not easy to do.

I do think there is a moral distinction to be made between "good faith criticism" and "criticism rooted in irrational hatred" but I don't think there can or should be a legal distinction between it then lends itself to become a weapon in the hands of the "bad faith recipients of criticism".

The rest of your post veers off into freedon of speech, and there are several live topics on that theme at the moment, so let's leave it there, OK?

Free speech comes under attack for a number of different reasons. One of which is "hate speech" which fits nicely within the topic of this thread. There are other reason that I outside of the scope of this topic, I agree.

[Good_Egg]

If part of the motive for Alfie mugging Bruno is that Alfie counts Bruno as rich and Alfie is prejudiced against rich people thinking them to be - as a class - idle, selfish and undeserving - then that is a group-prejudice motive. Why does that warrant a more severe punishment ?

I don't think a search for exactly what might qualify as a hate crime, and what might not, is helpful.

The notion of well-defined terms is so antiquated ? And gets in the way of expressing your feelings ?

And yet, I cannot help but wonder if your choice, in your example, of the group "rich people" is somehow intended to demean the whole idea of anti-group crimes?

If what you say about groups is equally applicable to groups for which you do and do not have political sympathy, then maybe it's worth listening to. If what you say doesn't stand up when that element of sympathy is removed, how much weight can we give it ?

The point is that, in this case, any man would do, because the real target of the attack was men, all of them. I just got unlucky that I was the example the criminal chose to demonstrate their hate.

The point is that - at one end of the spectrum of group size - there are crimes which are not related to any characteristic of the victim. Crimes where any human would do. (Or any human with a wallet...)

You appear to think that those crimes somehow necessarily don't involve "hate" ? That whatever a "hate-crime" is, it isn't that ?

Seems like you think you can infer a level of hate from the size of the group which the perpetrator thinks they are targeting ? That's nonsense.

Hate is a bad thing. But conflating level of hate with the size of the group being targeted (in the mind of the attacker) is just an error, based on misunderstanding of those who do not share your political sympathies.

After all, there is no hate in burglary. There is envy, I suppose, but not real hate.

Except if someone only burgles Muslims, for example, in which case you're happy to infer hate...

You cannot tell the difference between someone who hates everybody and someone who is an equal-opportunity criminal who'll attack anyone without any hate involved.

=========

I'm thinking that maybe the truth behind this relates to the notion of provocation. If a crime was actually provoked in some way, then that is a mitigating factor - something that makes it a less-serious offence.

If there was objectively no provocation, but in the mind of the criminal there was provocation, then that still seems like a less-criminal mentality than someone who freely admits there was no provocation.

[Fried Egg]

There is definitely a problem with the way hate crime law is enforced and prosecuted in the UK as different groups do not seem to be treated even handedly.

White people are quickly and readily called out for their hateful conduct / behaviour when it is perceived but people of ethnic minority groups are often ignored. Take the Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal that was systematically ignored and brushed under the carpet for years largely because the perpetrators were largely Pakistani men and the victims and the victims white mostly white girls. All because people are so terrified of being called racist (justifiable fears given how those that did speak out were treated), that it took so long to shed light on what happened and prosecute those involved. Most of the media was likewise terrified to report on it.

[Good_Egg]

Individuals versus groups is a difficult topic in itself, and it isn't *this* topic.

Yes it's a meaty topic in itself.

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.

If group-identity is a fiction, then hate crime as you see it is a fiction.

You're trying to label as off-topic one of your core premises.

Hate is an emotion that can be felt against individuals, groups, or the whole human race. Conflating this emotion with anti-group prejudice is the other way you're going wrong here.

[Pattern-chaser]

I think people deserve to be protected from hate or hatred, but not (necessarily) from "being offended or upset". I see a big difference between those two.

But I would say that in attempting to protect people from hatred we end up protecting them from being offended and upset.

This reminds me of a joke I saw on the #net a while ago, on the theme of environmentalism, "But what if we save all the trees, the insects, and the animals, and WE DIDN'T NEED TO?"

I agree with you that there is no need, and no justification, for laws to protect us from being offended. That would be an over-reaction. But being offended is not necessarily a good thing, or a pleasant one. So I don't think it would be too much of a problem if protection from real hatred also offered some relief from offence too?

You say you see a big difference between these ideas but I say there is no substantial difference which is why it is so easy for people that try to insulate their bad ideas from criticism to label their critics as "haters" in order to justify silencing them.

There is a big difference between me, criticising some aspect of your behaviour, that *might* cause offence, and me annihilating your entire family because of that behaviour. Both are the same thing, but at opposite ends of a spectrum; so opposite that they become, in practice, different from one another (even though they aren't really different).

And I wonder why it is that you will so often criticise something, say a new law or the like, by observing how it could be abused? Yes, people can and will misuse such things, but that does not make the law (or whatever it is) wrong, only that it contains loopholes that need fixing, yes? Victim-blaming, and other such bullying or gaslighting tactics, exist, and they are deployed more and more often these days. But are they an excuse to stop trying to improve matters?

I do think there is a moral distinction to be made between "good faith criticism" and "criticism rooted in irrational hatred" but I don't think there can or should be a legal distinction between it...

Agree, wholeheartedly. [But when the situation goes beyond mere "criticism", things can get nastier and dirtier, and maybe then, appropriate action might be called for?]

...then lends itself to become a weapon in the hands of the "bad faith recipients of criticism".

Once again, you attack a policy on the basis of the ways in which it can be abused.

[Pattern-chaser]

If part of the motive for Alfie mugging Bruno is that Alfie counts Bruno as rich and Alfie is prejudiced against rich people thinking them to be - as a class - idle, selfish and undeserving - then that is a group-prejudice motive. Why does that warrant a more severe punishment ?

I don't think a search for exactly what might qualify as a hate crime, and what might not, is helpful.

The notion of well-defined terms is so antiquated ? And gets in the way of expressing your feelings ?

Not at all. I just think that delving into details, looking for problems, is premature when the more major issues remain unresolved or unconsidered.

Seems like you think you can infer a level of hate from the size of the group which the perpetrator thinks they are targeting ? That's nonsense.

Indeed it is.

[Pattern-chaser]

There is definitely a problem with the way hate crime law is enforced and prosecuted in the UK as different groups do not seem to be treated even handedly.

Yes, I think we all seem to agree that a law that criminalises only those who target (say) Moslems, and not all religions, is a Bad Law. Such a law would bring into disrepute a 'proper' law against group-crime.

[Pattern-chaser]

Individuals versus groups is a difficult topic in itself, and it isn't *this* topic.

Yes it's a meaty topic in itself.

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.

If group-identity is a fiction, then hate crime as you see it is a fiction.

You're trying to label as off-topic one of your core premises.

Hate is an emotion that can be felt against individuals, groups, or the whole human race. Conflating this emotion with anti-group prejudice is the other way you're going wrong here.

This would carry us into another arena, 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. This discussion just doesn't offer enough to be attractive or enjoyable. Sorry.

[Lagayascienza]

The whole notion of "hate-crimes" is fraught. And the notion would be seen as completely unnecessary if our laws around assault had been applied equally to all without fear or favor. That minorities have been, and are, singled out and subjected to violence is incontestable. However, whilst we are entitled to be protected from violence, and from the threat of violence, are we entitled to be protected from offence? And, if so, how does that protection impinge on free speech?

Shouldn’t the hate-mongers be allowed to exercise their right of free speech so that their hateful nonsense can be dealt with in the free market-place of ideas? It is only when the activities of hate-mongers spill over into violence against person and property, or into intimidatory threats thereof, that the law should step in.

If someone calls you a fag or a n..ger or a slope-head or whatever, then, yes, it is reasonable to take offence. But is it reasonable to expect the law to shield you from such offence? And aren’t you free to turn around and call such a person a racist, homophobic, NAZI pig or whatever. That might offend them. But that, too, is just too bad. They should have to just suck it up. There should be no occasion for the law to step in unless violence ensues. If you assault the NAZI because he called you a black fag or whatever, then you should be prosecuted for assault. And if the racist homophobe assaults you because of your words to him, then he is the one whom the law should go after. Our laws around assault can deal with this without the need for extra laws and penalties.

In my own country, Common Law assault (now codified, as in most Common Law countries) covers the field.

Common assault is typically defined as the intentional or reckless infliction of physical contact, harm, or the fear of imminent harm to another person without their consent. It does not require a physical injury.

For the accused to be convicted of assault, the following elements must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt:

Intention: The accused must have intentionally caused fear of harm or physical contact. Accidental actions do not constitute an assault.

Apprehension or Physical Contact: Assault may involve bodily contact (frequently referred to as 'battery') or anticipating imminent harm or offensive contact, even if no physical contact occurs.

Absence of Consent: The action must be non-consensual. If the victim consented to the act, it does not amount to an assault. However, there are limitations to this principle depending on the circumstances.)

In cases where these three elements are satisfied there has been an assault. If this law is policed and prosecuted fairly, without fear or favor, I cannot see that there would be any need for so called hate-crime legislation and extra penalties. We just need to ensure the cops, prosecutors and the courts do what they are supposed to do under the current law with respect to assault. If they do so, then further unwieldly legislative complexification would be unnecessary.

[Fried Egg]

There is a big difference between me, criticising some aspect of your behaviour, that *might* cause offence, and me annihilating your entire family because of that behaviour. Both are the same thing, but at opposite ends of a spectrum; so opposite that they become, in practice, different from one another (even though they aren't really different).

No, they are not the same thing. They are not opposite ends of the same spectrums, they are different spectrums altogether. There is a categorical difference between speech and action.

And I wonder why it is that you will so often criticise something, say a new law or the like, by observing how it could be abused? Yes, people can and will misuse such things, but that does not make the law (or whatever it is) wrong, only that it contains loopholes that need fixing, yes? Victim-blaming, and other such bullying or gaslighting tactics, exist, and they are deployed more and more often these days. But are they an excuse to stop trying to improve matters?

It is not that the law is valid but could be abused. Even if it were possible to make a reliable (and universally agreed upon) distinction between hate and criticism (which I don't think is possible anyway) I would still be opposed to it.

Basically, I agree with Lagayascienza's post above.

[Pattern-chaser]

There is a big difference between me, criticising some aspect of your behaviour, that *might* cause offence, and me annihilating your entire family because of that behaviour. Both are the same thing, but at opposite ends of a spectrum; so opposite that they become, in practice, different from one another (even though they aren't really different).

No, they are not the same thing. They are not opposite ends of the same spectrums, they are different spectrums altogether. There is a categorical difference between speech and action.

Oh, I agree there is a difference, but not in the arena we're in. Both of them, speech and action, are capable of causing harm, sometimes severe harm.

[Fried Egg]

There is a big difference between me, criticising some aspect of your behaviour, that *might* cause offence, and me annihilating your entire family because of that behaviour. Both are the same thing, but at opposite ends of a spectrum; so opposite that they become, in practice, different from one another (even though they aren't really different).

No, they are not the same thing. They are not opposite ends of the same spectrums, they are different spectrums altogether. There is a categorical difference between speech and action.

Oh, I agree there is a difference, but not in the arena we're in. Both of them, speech and action, are capable of causing harm, sometimes severe harm.

Within the confines of hate speech (leaving aside the concept of reputational damage caused by libel/slander), speech can only be said to cause harm in so far as it leads directly to violent action.

Now, you might make the case that speech might cause trauma in the mind of a recipient but I stand by my assertion that speech should not be criminalised on this basis - since even perfectly valid and reasonable criticism might cause trauma in the mind of someone who really doesn't want to hear it.

So there is no justification for the criminalisation of hate speech.

[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.

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.

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 ?

Is it a crime of intimidation ? No. Because a group does not have a collective mind and therefore cannot be collectively intimidated. Some members may feel intimidated and others not. And some members may feel intimidated in the absence of such an intent, or not-intimidated despite such an intent.

(And the intent to intimidate is not the same thing as the reason for targetting - a crime can be a way of "making a statement" about a group without the intention that the members be intimidated thereby).

So what sort of crime is it ? (Sticking with groups whose existence is obvious - those with collective property and collective decision-making - to avoid going where you don't want to go...)

Is it a thought-crime, a crime against the idea of the group ?

[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.

Anyone who has ever experienced bullying, harassment, or oppression knows that the age-old saying “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me” is at best wishful thinking and at worst a lie. This adage has been passed down, generation to generation, as if it’s a shield that can ward off the impacts of hateful speech, but it’s no protection at all. Words, like arrows, cut through the falsehood that only physical assaults cause pain, debilitation, and death.

"The Power of Everyday Language to Cause Harm" by Alex Kapitan

Bullying is a problem for today’s youth. Not just the physical intimidation I experienced as a kid, but also the verbal bullying and cyber-bullying that, because of social media, can spread embarrassment and shame to a kid’s entire social network in a matter of seconds. That is the stuff of adolescent suicide. As an adult, I can only imagine the helplessness of having a shameful lie circulated to my entire personal and vocational network without any way for me to stop or mitigate the damage. Sticks and stones would be a welcome alternative.

[...]

As a psychologist, I worked with many women and men who grew up in physically and sexually abusive families. I worked with people who identified as LGBTQ who had been disowned by family and church. I worked with people of color who grew up surrounded by subtle and overt racism. In our work together, we didn’t have to scratch very far below the surface before finding intense pain and rage.

Were they “overly sensitive” to unkind remarks? Absolutely, and for good reason.

Abilene Reporter News.

With the yin and yang of digital life in mind, it seems relevant to explore what science knows about emotional pain and its connection to the physical kind.

Language has always mirrored the connection between the two; we suffer from "broken hearts" as well as bones, and speak of "bruised feelings" along with toes. This all seems intuitively right because we recognize the common basis of the pain we experience, whether a throbbing headache or the pain of missing someone so much that you ache. Is there anyone out there who actually believes the line, “Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never harm me”? I somehow doubt it, but now science has a bead on the literal harm that words inflict.

The links go well beyond the metaphorical. Following are 6 fascinating truths science has revealed about the physical ramifications of emotional pain.

1. We’re hardwired to feel emotional pain as well as physical pain.
2. Social pain may be more like physical pain than not.
3. Words hurt just like sticks and stones.
4. Some of us are more sensitive to pain—both social and physical— than others.
5. Emotional or physical, pain hurts more when it’s deliberately inflicted.
6. "Getting over it” is so hard you may need help.

"Why Words Can Hurt at Least as Much as Sticks and Stones" — Six revelations about the connection between emotional and physical pain.



That's quite enough of others' opinions. 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.

I fear we are done here. Thanks for the conversation.