Warp wrote:
>   Being more lenient of criticism of the "majority" and stricter of criticism
> of a "minority" is a double standard 

Not necessarily. If the minority of 10 people say something that offends 
10,000 people, should they be punished 1000 times as much as if the 10,000 
people say something that offends the 10 people?

In other words, it doesn't come down to "lenient" or "strict" unless someone 
gets offended. If I criticize you in a way that doesn't upset you, we don't 
have this sort of conversation.

But if I issue criticism that offends some people, I'm much more likely to 
offend someone in a "majority" than a "minority."  I might say something 
that offends some minority of which there are 5000 who might hear it, take 
offense, and complain about it. Or I might say something equally offensive 
that any of 100million people might hear, take offense, and complain about. 
If there's a 0.001% chance of anyone being sufficiently offended as to take 
it to court, then guess which criticism is treated more strictly?

So, basically, I think you have to count the number of people who might be 
offended in with the severity of the offense to make any sense out of 
"strict" or "lenient".

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

andrel <byt### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> I am just describing what happens in practice. If you don't like it for 
> philosophical reasons, try to find another planet to live on.

  Why? The whole idea with democracy is that the people can affect the
politics of their society. If you perceive something as being wrong with
society, you don't fix it by conforming and just accepting it as something
inevitable. You fix it by voting. (Of course there has to be a few other
people who also vote like that, but that's the basic principle in democracy.)

  Your expression sounds like "this is how things are, and there's nothing
you can do to change it, so learn to live with it". No, that's not how
democracy works. We are lucky enough to live in democratic countries, and
we should use the possibilities that brings us to better the society.

  The moment when people start believing that they cannot affect their
society is the moment when the whole idea of democracy has been destroyed.
(Unfortunately this is a way too common belief.)

> >> If that minority is more vulnerable.
> >
> >    More vulnerable to what? To getting offended?

> physical violence, economic exclusion, that sort of thing.

  Basically what you are suggesting is that the solution to violence and
discrimination is censorship: Limiting people's freedom of speech when
it happens to be criticism of a minority.

  Well. I don't believe that the ultimate solution to violence and
discrimination is censorship. Double standards are not the answer. That
only fights the symptoms, not the core problem. In fact, oftentimes it
*aggravates* the symptoms rather than removing them.

> >    Why is it more permissible to offend the majority but less permissible
> > to offend a minority? What difference does it make? How is offending a
> > minority a worse crime than offending the majority? That *is* a double
> > standard.
> >
> >    (How do you even *define* the "majority" that needs less protection?

> In a democracy a majority needs no special protection, a minority does. 

  *Why* does the minority need special protection? Why are double standards
necessary?

  As I said, double standards, besides being hypocrisy, are only fighting
symptoms (sometimes even just perceived symptoms), not the core problems.
A working society should need any double standards.

  (And here when I'm talking about "a minority that requires special
protection" I'm referring to otherwise completely normal and abled
people whose only difference to the "majority" is inconsequential with
respect to their role in society, such as eg. ethnicity, background or
sexual orientation. Of course there are people who need special treatment
because of practical reasons, eg. because of being handicapped. I'm not
talking about those.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >   Being more lenient of criticism of the "majority" and stricter of criticism
> > of a "minority" is a double standard 

> Not necessarily. If the minority of 10 people say something that offends 
> 10,000 people, should they be punished 1000 times as much as if the 10,000 
> people say something that offends the 10 people?

  No. The severity of "hate speech" (however you want to define it) and the
punishment imposed should be completely independent of the size of the
group of people being targeted.

  There's not only a logical reason for that, but also a practical one.
The practical reason is that if some group is an "acceptable target" for
heavy criticism while other groups get special protection, that will only
cause resentment and animosity, aggravating the underlying problem.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
>> In a democracy a majority needs no special protection, a minority does. 
> 
>   *Why* does the minority need special protection? Why are double standards
> necessary?

I would think this is obvious. If you have a pure democracy, you have two 
wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

Even in the USA's limited democracy (i.e., constitutional republic sort of 
democracy), it took a war to get the voting majority to let the minority 
have their say.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>>   Being more lenient of criticism of the "majority" and stricter of criticism
>>> of a "minority" is a double standard 
> 
>> Not necessarily. If the minority of 10 people say something that offends 
>> 10,000 people, should they be punished 1000 times as much as if the 10,000 
>> people say something that offends the 10 people?
> 
>   No. The severity of "hate speech" (however you want to define it) and the
> punishment imposed should be completely independent of the size of the
> group of people being targeted.
> 
>   There's not only a logical reason for that, but also a practical one.
> The practical reason is that if some group is an "acceptable target" for
> heavy criticism while other groups get special protection, that will only
> cause resentment and animosity, aggravating the underlying problem.
> 

I feel you've missed the point I was making, which is that if your hate 
speech targets a sufficiently powerful majority, you're going to get slapped 
around for much milder hate speech than if your hate speech targets a much 
smaller weaker minority.

Put it this way: if your hate speech targets only people too poor to afford 
lawyers, how likely are you to be forced to stop?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> >> In a democracy a majority needs no special protection, a minority does. 
> > 
> >   *Why* does the minority need special protection? Why are double standards
> > necessary?

> I would think this is obvious. If you have a pure democracy, you have two 
> wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

  Bad example. You seem to be arguing that a wolf eating the other wolf
is ok, only a wolf eating the sheep is bad, and hence the sheep requires
special protection.

  The law should be the same for everybody. Subject A eating subject B is
illegal, regardless of who A and B are. In fact, having a double standard
here would be the horrendously bad thing.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Put it this way: if your hate speech targets only people too poor to afford 
> lawyers, how likely are you to be forced to stop?

  That's a question of economy, not a question of human rights.

  I thought even in the US all people are entitled to legal counsel
regardless of income. (Also, I don't know how it's there, but here if
you win you don't pay anything. The loser pays the winner's lawyer fees.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 21-12-2010 19:34, Warp wrote:
> andrel<byt### [at] gmailcom>  wrote:
>> I am just describing what happens in practice. If you don't like it for
>> philosophical reasons, try to find another planet to live on.
>
>    Why? The whole idea with democracy is that the people can affect the
> politics of their society. If you perceive something as being wrong with
> society, you don't fix it by conforming and just accepting it as something
> inevitable. You fix it by voting. (Of course there has to be a few other
> people who also vote like that, but that's the basic principle in democracy.)

I think it is a common concept that a democracy has to do what the 
majority wants while at the same time protecting the rights of minorities.

>    Your expression sounds like "this is how things are, and there's nothing
> you can do to change it, so learn to live with it". No, that's not how
> democracy works. We are lucky enough to live in democratic countries, and
> we should use the possibilities that brings us to better the society.
>
>    The moment when people start believing that they cannot affect their
> society is the moment when the whole idea of democracy has been destroyed.
> (Unfortunately this is a way too common belief.)

It is not that I think I cannot change it, I don't *want* to change it.

>>>> If that minority is more vulnerable.
>>>
>>>     More vulnerable to what? To getting offended?
>
>> physical violence, economic exclusion, that sort of thing.
>
>    Basically what you are suggesting is that the solution to violence and
> discrimination is censorship: Limiting people's freedom of speech when
> it happens to be criticism of a minority.

Not even close. So much off that I even hesitate to respond.
But let me put it this way: when I say that all christians are 
pedophiles everybody knows that is not true and it won't affect their 
attitude against any christian that they meet. When I say that all 
muslims are thieves and potential terrorists then that is just as much 
nonsense but it might affect people. Simply because of the fact that 
most people mainly meet people that are alike. So most people from the 
majority know almost exclusively people from that majority. The only way 
they 'meet' minorities is in the papers when someone from that minority 
commits a crime. Hence it is too easy to believe my bogus claim. 
Therefore you have to be more careful when speaking about a minority 
that about a majority. You can of course say what is true, but you 
should avoid half truths cherry picking and white lies to make a point, 
if that point is negative for the whole group. (You should never treat a 
person as just a representative of a group in stead of as an individual, 
but that is obvious).
If you ever wondered why even the most die hard xenophobes say of people 
from abroad that they know personally: sure all ... are ..., but not 
this one. This is why.
People from a minority in general know relatively more from the 
majority, so there the problem is not so great. Though there are closely 
knit minorities with all sorts of strange ideas about how the majority 
thinks. It is from these groups that sometimes things are said and 
written that also leads to prosecution for hate mongering. (which is a 
limitation to free speech here).

I have in this discussion never used the words 'censorship' or 
'criticism' and would prefer it if you also don't use them, especially 
when explaining what you think I have said. I don't want another endless 
discussion about straw man arguments.

>    Well. I don't believe that the ultimate solution to violence and
> discrimination is censorship. Double standards are not the answer. That
> only fights the symptoms, not the core problem. In fact, oftentimes it
> *aggravates* the symptoms rather than removing them.
>
>>>     Why is it more permissible to offend the majority but less permissible
>>> to offend a minority? What difference does it make? How is offending a
>>> minority a worse crime than offending the majority? That *is* a double
>>> standard.
>>>
>>>     (How do you even *define* the "majority" that needs less protection?
>
>> In a democracy a majority needs no special protection, a minority does.
>
>    *Why* does the minority need special protection?

because it is a minority and can be outvoted in a 'democracy'. Simple as 
that.

> Why are double standards necessary?

I would not call them 'double standards', you do. That is probably a 
reflection of our different understanding of how a society works. Let's 
leave it at that.

>    As I said, double standards, besides being hypocrisy, are only fighting
> symptoms (sometimes even just perceived symptoms), not the core problems.
> A working society should need any double standards.
>
>    (And here when I'm talking about "a minority that requires special
> protection" I'm referring to otherwise completely normal and abled
> people whose only difference to the "majority" is inconsequential with
> respect to their role in society, such as eg. ethnicity, background or
> sexual orientation. Of course there are people who need special treatment
> because of practical reasons, eg. because of being handicapped. I'm not
> talking about those.)
>

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>>> In a democracy a majority needs no special protection, a minority does. 
>>>   *Why* does the minority need special protection? Why are double standards
>>> necessary?
> 
>> I would think this is obvious. If you have a pure democracy, you have two 
>> wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
> 
>   Bad example. You seem to be arguing that a wolf eating the other wolf
> is ok, only a wolf eating the sheep is bad, and hence the sheep requires
> special protection.

No, I'm arguing that the majority will vote to take advantage of the 
minority without additional protections the majority can't overrule.

>   The law should be the same for everybody. 

Sure. Let's make it the law that you can't criticize islam, and the penalty 
is death. Fair, right? Very democratic. The law is the same for everyone, 
muslims and christians and atheists alike.

Again, the point I'm trying to make is that a minority with less power needs 
more ability to defend itself than a majority with a great amount of power 
needs to defend itself against a small minority.

Now, you may simply disagree with that, but I haven't seen you give any good 
arguments beyond assertions, and I'm not sure that you're disagreeing as 
opposed to misunderstanding me.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Put it this way: if your hate speech targets only people too poor to afford 
>> lawyers, how likely are you to be forced to stop?
> 
>   That's a question of economy, not a question of human rights.

You're missing the point I'm trying to make. You're talking about abstract 
rights, in which case yes I agree. I'm talking about the reality of the 
situation in which there's often a lack of justice due to the way the system 
works.

It would be nice if the legal system were set up in such a way that everyone 
is equally protected. But it's not. Hell, our previous president has 
confessed in writing to committing war crimes and knowingly violating the 
constitution, and nobody is even going to look into it, let alone punish him 
for it.

>   I thought even in the US all people are entitled to legal counsel
> regardless of income. 

Only for crimes. Which is to say, only when you're accused by the government 
itself of breaking some law for which the punishment might be jail time.

If you get sued by some company for copyright infringement (to pull an 
example out of the air), you have to pay for your own lawyer.

 > (Also, I don't know how it's there, but here if
> you win you don't pay anything. The loser pays the winner's lawyer fees.)

It depends on the details of the case and what you're accused of and etc. 
Basically, there has to be something in the law books that say you get 
lawyer fees, and it's not a global kind of default that you do.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message