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

[Fried Egg]

Insult. Surely the (only?) difference between an insult and a comment is that the former is *intended* by the speaker to be hurtful, in the way that insults are generally hurtful. [Inadvertent insults can occur, of course, but that is the exception, and does not undermine the primary argument.] Speaking an insult is like throwing a punch. It is intended to hurt; that is its sole purpose. It is a violent act toward another person.

Is that what you are advocating for here then? Simply proscribing free speech in so far as it is the intention to hurt someone who hears it?

No. I personally advocate a system that simply does not allow discourtesy. All forms of personal (verbal) attack, from the mildest jibe all the way to hate-speech, and everything in between, I would prohibit. This minimises upset while completely protecting every sort, style, or form of 'free speech' that might be needed to protect democracy and/or freedom.

That seems to be a bit extreme to me. Whilst I like to think that I attempt to conduct myself in a courteous manner (in discussions such as these), I think that I probably do levy a few mild jibes every now and again. I don't regard it as being discourteous. Perhaps you disagree but then it just highlights that how we define 'courteous' is going to vary.

Please note that I do not assert that the world must accept or adopt my view. I simply state what *I* think. I like to think there are a few other folk who feel likewise...

Well, I certainly wouldn't want to live in your humourless world. It seems like all but the most family friendly comedians would find themselves in trouble if such strict levels of courtesy were enforced. But perhaps you don't regard comedy as something society needs (sorry, does that count as a "mild jibe"? )

[Pattern-chaser]

Insult. Surely the (only?) difference between an insult and a comment is that the former is *intended* by the speaker to be hurtful, in the way that insults are generally hurtful. [Inadvertent insults can occur, of course, but that is the exception, and does not undermine the primary argument.] Speaking an insult is like throwing a punch. It is intended to hurt; that is its sole purpose. It is a violent act toward another person.

Is that what you are advocating for here then? Simply proscribing free speech in so far as it is the intention to hurt someone who hears it?

No. I personally advocate a system that simply does not allow discourtesy. All forms of personal (verbal) attack, from the mildest jibe all the way to hate-speech, and everything in between, I would prohibit. This minimises upset while completely protecting every sort, style, or form of 'free speech' that might be needed to protect democracy and/or freedom.

That seems to be a bit extreme to me. Whilst I like to think that I attempt to conduct myself in a courteous manner (in discussions such as these), I think that I probably do levy a few mild jibes every now and again. I don't regard it as being discourteous. Perhaps you disagree but then it just highlights that how we define 'courteous' is going to vary.

I think there is some confusion creeping in here. As I look back, I can see that I haven't chosen some of my words as carefully as I should've done. Mea culpa.

Freedom of Speech is an anti-law. Law tells you what you can't do, while FoS tells you what you can. So what is the law-ish side of FoS? What happens if one goes directly against the provisions of an FoS statute? And how does one know when they've broken the opposite-requirements of FoS? How far can I go in opposing FoS without breaking the FoS guarantee? And so forth.

Also, my personal feelings are not presented here as a practical thing, only as a description of how *I* happen to feel about things. And any attempt to render my musings in a real-world way would surely need some common sense in their use?

For example, the American word "punk" is a *very* mild insult. If used by a kid playing, it is clearly not a problem or an issue. But the same, seemingly mild, word, used by someone in a tense and crowded night-club, to a member of an opposing gang is a clear incitement to riot or violence. One might deserve some sort of response, while the former clearly does not. Common sense.

Please note that I do not assert that the world must accept or adopt my view. I simply state what *I* think. I like to think there are a few other folk who feel likewise...

Well, I certainly wouldn't want to live in your humourless world. It seems like all but the most family friendly comedians would find themselves in trouble if such strict levels of courtesy were enforced. But perhaps you don't regard comedy as something society needs (sorry, does that count as a "mild jibe"? )

"Humourless"? How come? What is it about courtesy that reduces the world to a humourless place? [I observe, as we all have, that most humour is based at least partly on schadenfreude. That makes our thinking a little more complicated?]

[Sy Borg]

Insult. Surely the (only?) difference between an insult and a comment is that the former is *intended* by the speaker to be hurtful, in the way that insults are generally hurtful. [Inadvertent insults can occur, of course, but that is the exception, and does not undermine the primary argument.] Speaking an insult is like throwing a punch. It is intended to hurt; that is its sole purpose. It is a violent act toward another person.

Is that what you are advocating for here then? Simply proscribing free speech in so far as it is the intention to hurt someone who hears it?

No. I personally advocate a system that simply does not allow discourtesy. All forms of personal (verbal) attack, from the mildest jibe all the way to hate-speech, and everything in between, I would prohibit. This minimises upset while completely protecting every sort, style, or form of 'free speech' that might be needed to protect democracy and/or freedom.

Ok, so I call you a name online. Do I get dragged off to prison by Starmer's gestapo, who storm into regular civilians' homes early in the morning and put them in custody for sharing Tweets?

That would open the door to people playing a game of Schlemiel, as per Berne's games.

Basically, player A can endlessly push player B, trying the latter's patience while feigning innocence until they lose their temper.

It's not unlike a boy quietly punching another while the teacher isn't looking, and only sees the other's retaliation.

People must have the right to not be nice. Cultures of niceness are notoriously toxic.

[Pattern-chaser]

Ok, so I call you a name online. Do I get dragged off to prison by Starmer's gestapo, who storm into regular civilians' homes early in the morning and put them in custody for sharing Tweets?

That would open the door to people playing a game of Schlemiel, as per Berne's games.

Basically, player A can endlessly push player B, trying the latter's patience while feigning innocence until they lose their temper.

It's not unlike a boy quietly punching another while the teacher isn't looking, and only sees the other's retaliation.

People must have the right to not be nice. Cultures of niceness are notoriously toxic.

As I said:

I think there is some confusion creeping in here. As I look back, I can see that I haven't chosen some of my words as carefully as I should've done. Mea culpa.

Freedom of Speech is an anti-law. Law tells you what you can't do, while FoS tells you what you can. So what is the law-ish side of FoS? What happens if one goes directly against the provisions of an FoS statute? And how does one know when they've broken the opposite-requirements of FoS? How far can I go in opposing FoS without breaking the FoS guarantee? And so forth.

Also, my personal feelings are not presented here as a practical thing, only as a description of how *I* happen to feel about things. And any attempt to render my musings in a real-world way would surely need some common sense in their use?

For example, the American word "punk" is a *very* mild insult. If used by a kid playing, it is clearly not a problem or an issue. But the same, seemingly mild, word, used by someone in a tense and crowded night-club, to a member of an opposing gang is a clear incitement to riot or violence. One might deserve some sort of response, while the former clearly does not. Common sense.