Conversation

Notices

1. Christmas Personified as a Catgirl (moonman@shitposter.club)'s status on Sunday, 30-Apr-2017 04:27:00 UTC Christmas Personified as a Catgirl
   Do "hate speech" laws prevent the spread of destructive beliefs that are based on prejudice, rhetoric rather than facts? Probably they do, except when: the legal response is disproportionate and creates sympathy for the crimespeakers in the public; or when, as stated before, it turns out you weren't as smart as you think you are are those beliefs you wanted to shut up were based on something more real and resilient than simple rhetoric.
   
   Does "more speech" prevent the potential damage caused by "hate speech"? More speech by itself will not necessarily combat prejudice or deceptive rhetoric, racial vilification. Some forms of speech, some speakers, are just more powerful than speech that upholds truth and order. Debate and discussion are good when you have people that need convincing but doesn't necessarily work on people that already have their minds made up, which in theory "hate speech" laws can be about (preventing spread of Nazism, etc.) Again when an idea that the law condemns gains support because the society couldn't address basic human material needs and comforts, more speech doesn't work any better than "hate speech" laws.
   
   This message is a partial admission to hate speech law supporters that there are some cases where they work, with caveats noted in previous posts. And, that more speech in every case will not prevent atrocities, though it helps.
   • Hallå Kitteh likes this.
   • Hallå Kitteh repeated this.
   • Hallå Kitteh (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Sunday, 30-Apr-2017 04:32:06 UTC Hallå Kitteh

     in reply to
     @moonman Singapore has pretty harsh racial harmony laws, the US has traditionally had radical free speech. Both have racism. Singapore's limits on free speech, mainly blasphemy laws in the name of racial harmony, have allowed/forced the government to crack down on gay rights activists.
   • Hallå Kitteh (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Sunday, 30-Apr-2017 04:42:25 UTC Hallå Kitteh
     @moonman Would love to hear more about it in whatever forum you'd find suitable. I have superficial observations only, haven't thought much about it.
   • Hallå Kitteh (clacke@social.heldscal.la)'s status on Sunday, 30-Apr-2017 04:46:16 UTC Hallå Kitteh
     @moonman I swear I would not start an ideology around them. ;-)
     
     Your prerogative, of course.
   • Christmas Personified as a Catgirl (moonman@shitposter.club)'s status on Sunday, 30-Apr-2017 04:50:53 UTC Christmas Personified as a Catgirl

     • CMike
     @cmike I am convinced that 140 characters is downright destructive to society.
     
     I have found that forcing myself to comply with a 140 character limit is a valuable writing practice tool, for the reasons you have said; but that, when forced to comply with it at all times, it constrains shared "thoughts" to often-too-simple forms; and, unfortunately, 140 characters means you can't make careful qualifications and caveats, or use defensive writing to prevent making people angry. It rewards sweeping categorical statements presented without tact. And finally, that it's easier to reply "fuck you" than compose an intelligent criticism to Tweet you disagree with. 
     500 fixed much of this, you still get the constraint but you can express things with enough tact, nuance.
     
     Nevertheless, I have taken the discipline from tweeting and it has helped my longer form writing. I think "microblog" is more of a form of writing than the length, though the length matters.
     
     The reason our server's limit is what it is is so that it can accommodate the complete text of the Navy Seals copypasta.
     Hallå Kitteh repeated this.