I was in the middle before starting this debate but I think Dr. Strossen's and Alex's arguments convinced me. Not only outlining how impractical criminalizing hate speech is AND giving real world examples of how people twist words and call things hate speech, it was easy to see ways that these laws could be abused

@kaileebailee23

Жыл бұрын

@Nocap8 at least for me, I think hate speech can do real harm so I can understand the idea of banning something that can literally push someone to violence against themselves or others.

@kaileebailee23

Жыл бұрын

@Nocap8 I mean like...yeah that's why my mind was changed. Hate speech can cause violence but I decided that it's better to allow hate speech rather than allow the state to use violence under guise of enforcing hate speech.

There should be a section at the end where they discuss it in real time and respond to each other. It should always lead to a conversation otherwise it isn’t really a proper debate.

1:27:40 such a brilliantly phrased question, and Alex is definitely correct.

I find that debates which do not involve a back-and-forth between the speakers are ultimately less informative to someone trying to form an opinion. It is fun to have several speakers, though, and back-and-forth becomes difficult when there are several speakers involved.

@provideme1000

2 жыл бұрын

funny, i prefer the kind of thoughtful development that this format allows to jousting in a tiger cage that back and forth confrontation encourages.

Did the gentleman who raised the hand in answer to Alex's question "Who should be chosen to decide what should we listen?" just called Alex smug?

@SumNutOnU2b

2 жыл бұрын

I think he was trying to joke by calling himself smug, though I'm not sure exactly. Anyhow, Alex returned the riposte by calling him smug in return. Also, though, after his diatribe concerning "national character" I have considerable difficulty with seeing him described as a 'gentleman'.

2 жыл бұрын

@@SumNutOnU2b yeah I hadn't seen everything yet. Very suspicious... And also smug.

@colinellicott9737

2 жыл бұрын

That is no gentleman.

@rowdy3837

2 жыл бұрын

I caught that too. Hubris of a lifetime in academia.

I'm going to enjoy this tomorrow. From what i scanned through today it wil be a good time. Thanks for hosting, participating and posting.

While we may not have legislation in many parts of the world that criminalises "hate speech" we have social paradigms that perform similar functions, and their track record thus far is appalling. And sadly the people who most vehemently support such structures and legislation are all too often disgustingly hateful themselves.

Spot on Alex!

Am I missing something here? Fish did not sound for the proposition in his opening.

@grmancool

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah lmao he sounded against it to my ears

@cedb3360

2 жыл бұрын

OKay good I'm not crazy! For his whole first bit I thought he was being sarcastic. I thought he was with the opposition!He's just foking preposterous... Wipe Germany out of the surface of the Earth... WTF lol I am really happy to be able to hear this type of disgusting speech. Contrast Fish's to O'Connor's talking points and there you go, We can now adequately decide if we should condemn hate speech or not.

@josephcowan6779

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah I'm honestly confused by his position. The whole time I was nodding along like these some good arguments against it... oh wait

@clarencehuang2197

2 жыл бұрын

Fish prepared the wrong side. Same reaction from me when I watched it live.

Alex is just brilliant

What Fish and the like don't realize is that when there are enough people thinking like him and enough people thinking like him, but from the opposite side, dialog, and subsequently, negotiations (let alone changing minds) become impossible. And when there is no possibility for negotiations, violence becomes the only way to shift the status quo. Now he might like it, but then again, there are those from the opposite side who would like it too. And when violence actually comes, there is no guarantee that you would see the end of it, even if your side wins. After all, to the soldier who died at Dunkerque the war was never won.

In such angle and style Alex looks like south park character and I can't stop thinking about it and laughing.

@sujoyteslesl

2 жыл бұрын

....aaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnd NOW I can't unsee it! Thanks a lot >_

My big concern about criminalizing hate speech is that, contrary to almost all the criminal laws, the emphasis is put on the words, not on the state of mind of the alleged offender. By assigning the property of "hate" to a string of words we are assigning to those words some properties that are inherent of a human being. This can be seen in this example: the definition of a man as someone with XY chromosomes and of a woman as someone with XX chromosomes is certainly incomplete, and some people consider it wrong. But that is what was taught to us at school, and what lots of absolutely wonderful people still think. But ideologues of one side of the fight are declaring that the statement above is hate speech, and with it, they are declaring every opposing person as a hatemonger who should rightfully be thrown out of his/her professional and social life. By declaring this as hate speech they are squirting the need to find any evidence of hatefulness in the person who they are declaring a hatemonger and ostracizing from society.

@thesuitablecommand

2 жыл бұрын

Yeah I have similar concerns. Communication is hard, and messages are often received in a way that the speaker did not intend. A perfectly benign message could very easily be received as something toxic, despite that not being the intent. If this miscommunication could lead to criminal charges, I think that is an unwise paradigm

@Nelsathis

2 жыл бұрын

Which also is inconsistent, because in their plea to see people as more nuanced than the black and white view on gender they act all black and white on what is and isnt hate speech.

@andresvillarreal9271

2 жыл бұрын

@@Nelsathis Precisely. And the white and the black are whatever my tribe thinks and whatever the other tribe thinks. Proponents of hate speech laws are not scientifically doubting their definitions and methods, they already have decided what hate speech is and why it should be criminalized. Both sides know exactly what hate speech is, and they just happen to have opposite definitions.

@xy22

2 жыл бұрын

We elevate those who say "right" but mean "wrong" and mock those who say "wrong" but mean "right." - this is a line from the Nymphomaniac II (2013). It is our reality I guess.:)

*appreciation

nice❣️

Movement forward in society is only possible if you allow people to talk against the current status quo. Otherwise you bind yourself to permanently exist at your current point of existence or even go backwards.

There is a difficult gray area where hate speech becomes an incitement to violence or attempts to make violence seem appropriate. Just get people sufficiently frightened and angry and violence can be easily triggered later.

1:03:48 Prof. Fish, that ad hominem remark just lost you any remaining respect that I might have had for you after your rambling first turn.

" . . . because God desires it" is not a reasonable approach to the issue.

Alex is the new Christopher Hitchens...perhaps even better!

@mohammedphilonous6856

2 жыл бұрын

philosophically, he is way much more informed and thoughtful than hitch

@keeparguing611

2 жыл бұрын

@@mohammedphilonous6856 knowledge is never destroyed after all. the younger generation learns from the previous, and gets stronger from it

@mohammedphilonous6856

2 жыл бұрын

@@keeparguing611 yes you are right, alex seems to me to have taken the good bits of hitch, and had the audacity to say and expose where hitch went wrong.

@peterastley-sparke7526

2 жыл бұрын

Alex is a cogent debater, but it's way too early to make that claim.

@thebenvz.

2 жыл бұрын

@G what do you disagree with him on?

Fish is a condescending ass. If the target of the hate speech takes umbrage then the weapon has succeeded. The utterance is the flag that exposes the hate itself. It is the hate itself that is the root cause to be addressed. Without the flag there is little chance of changing the intent. Umbrage is the involuntary immediate emotional response - without which there would be no damage. The corrective action is problematic, should the swastika spray painted on the synagogue be painted over, the book banned, the channel licence revoked? Should all groups be toughened up to be impervious to involuntary immediate emotional response? We have no choice. (Thx Hitch).

'some of you will recall...' others will recall godwin's law and the godwin measure. that all losing and untenable positions will eventually bring up hitler or nazis, and that how legitimate a position is is measured in sentences since the last violation. some will recall this because bringing up hitler is an ethical appeal to propaganda using acceptance of war propaganda as proxy for shared identity; that in turn is generally a non sequitur. saying a proposition should be accepted because those who reject it are litterally war enemies is direct incitement of violence of the most extreme and hateful. it is the very dehumanization that is being protested in the same breath; the pinnacle of hatespeech. if these evil views should be wiped from public conscience, why havent the advocates the character to not be guilty? is it not better to be silent and innocent than guilty? hoist them to the repercussions of their inadquacy to their own values. their values should matter more than those of strangers anyway. silence those who lack enough wherewithall to be worthy of their own time, let alone ours.

why are the people arguing against the legitimacy of hate speech engaging in it? eg howard opening speech langton if a position should be accepted, shouldnt the proponent accept it? put further, langton says 'words that hurt' are hatespeech. is saying another's sincere point of view not hurtful? if someone says something hurtful, and we retaliate with similar behavior, are we not guilty of our own moral standard? and what if in addition the party being marginalized doesnt share our prescriptive conclusion but instead sees themself as a good and well meaning person, then the only guilty party is us. so is it not a redundent pretense for naked conciets? how can a reasonable person or people contend a proposition which requires self guilt as premise for self-similar pride? 'contemptible animals like the mongrel dogs' how is such a reference not itself blatantly hateful? what good person would accuse others of offtopic and defamatory ad hominems? and how does being guilty of that you accuse others of legitimizing your accusation? how does demonstrating poor character legitimize criticism? 'hatespeech goes through internet pathways...' it emanates through university far more frequently and with more impunity.

Can someone provide me with an example of hate speech?

@paulsmith7579

2 жыл бұрын

No because You Tube will block them.

@Rufusdos

5 ай бұрын

There are lots of examples in Rae Langton's first turn (from 42:05).

The Irony that the speakers who condemn free speech are the ones that go over their time limit for speaking 🤣

I love Alex and he’s a super intelligent speaker - but he talks like he’s trying to impersonate Christopher Hitchens in every debate. It’s a little cringe.

@colinellicott9737

2 жыл бұрын

Channeling Hitch is only to be lauded. Alex has no choice ;)

@Sui_Generis0

Жыл бұрын

It's called being heavily influenced

@Rufusdos

5 ай бұрын

It takes balls. To say things like "I can't wait to hear a proper suggestion". Makes good TV in my opinion. Raises the stakes.

Not to be offensive but it seems like a lot of white folks here talking about hate speech.

@Rufusdos

5 ай бұрын

One of them is fairly clearly Jewish, and at least one of them is gay, if that makes a difference.