How Words Can Harm: Crash Course Philosophy #28


A warning: This episode of Crash Course Philosophy contains language that may be upsetting for some viewers and may not be appropriate for viewing in certain settings. Consider the following sentence: Jason shot
a mouse in his boxer shorts. Simple enough. Or is it? Like, my first thought was that Jason was
wearing the boxer shorts when he shot the mouse. But maybe the mouse was wearing Jason’s
boxer shorts? Or maybe the mouse was wearing his own boxer
shorts? Or was the mouse in Jason’s boxer shorts
while he was wearing them!? And while we’re at it – what kind of shooting
are we talking about? Was it done with a gun, or with a camera? Words can go wrong, in lots of different ways. And when they do, the problem usually comes
down to the distinction between speaker meaning and audience meaning – or what a speaker
intends, as opposed to what a listener understands. When these two meanings don’t match up,
the results can range from confusing to hilarious. But words don’t only convey meaning. They can also relate attitudes. And when a speaker’s attitude doesn’t match that of their audience, their words – whether they were intended to be just funny, or edgy, or dirty – can end up being seriously harmful. And now is the part where I warn you that we’re going to talk about some of those harmful words today. I’m going to say them, even though I’m
not going to like it. You are going to hear them. You also probably won’t like it. And we’re both going to know what they mean. But we have to talk about them because they’re everywhere, and they’re powerful. [Theme Music] Let’s start out with a harmless example of miscommunication: our mouse-in-boxer-shorts. The reason that sentence is so confusing is because we understand most language by context. But sometimes – like in a lone sentence
about a mouse – the context just isn’t there. And the result is often ambiguity – when a statement has more than one plausible interpretation. But there are other times, when we do have
context, but it isn’t enough. Because there’s the context that you share with your interlocutor – stuff that’s known to both of you – like how mice don’t wear underwear. But there’s also the personal context that
each of you brings to the conversation. Like, if somebody makes a stupid off-the-cuff joke about “your mother,” that could turn out to be painful, if your mother has recently died. There are other kinds of unintentional linguistic
harm, as well. Some of which I’m sure you’ve encountered,
probably in texts or emails. One person says something as a joke, but the other person reads it as serious, and takes offense. These are cases where the speaker tried to flout one of Grice’s maxims that we talked about, by, say, using sarcasm or irony. But the audience was using the cooperative principle, and assumed that everyone involved was saying what they really meant. So a sarcastic text, if read without the help of social cues like tone of voice or body language, can end up creating miscommunication. But when it comes to the injuries caused by language, the greater concern for us here is words that are deliberately chosen to cause harm. Now, let’s pause for a moment here to talk
about how we talk about harmful language. Philosophers often rely on what’s known
as the Use/Mention Distinction. This is the difference between talking about
a word, and talking with the word. Let’s look at the difference between using the word “philosophy” and simply mentioning it. Consider this statement: “I have a hard time staying awake in my
philosophy class after lunch.” Right there, I used the word “philosophy.” But when I say: “Philosophy’ is a Greek
word meaning ‘love of wisdom,’” I’m mentioning the word, or talking about it. The use/mention distinction is helpful when we talk about sensitive, or taboo words, because, we have to use them in order to talk about them. And there are actually many kinds of taboo
words. Some are considered off-limits just because they’re, for lack of a more philosophical word, dirty. Dirty words are scatalogical, blue, coarse. They refer to things like body parts, bodily
functions, and sexual acts. You probably don’t want to use these words in polite company, but if they do offend people, it’s because they offend their sensibilities, and not, say, their ideas about themselves or their identity. These words are used for emphasis, to shock, and to express strong attitudes, but their point isn’t to target a person. Their point isn’t to harm. In contrast, hate speech consists of words
that are directed at a member of a group. And they’re used specifically because of
that person’s membership in that group. These groups are generally based on something that’s key to a person’s identity – like race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or religion. Hate speech is typically understood as more morally problematic than dirty words, because hate speech is designed to hurt. But how can mere words cause harm? To understand this, we need to talk about
a linguistic phenomenon known as thick concepts. These are words or ideas that come pre-loaded not just with descriptive meaning, but also with evaluative content. There are attitudes and values that are baked into these words that are hard, if not impossible, to un-bake. For instance, “murder” is a thick concept that contains a description – it means to kill someone. But it also contains evaluation – murder
is unjustified killing. There’s no such thing as a good murder. Now with this concept in mind, let’s consider a theory about how certain words cause harm, posed by American lawyer Charles R. Lawrence III. Lawrence argues that hate speech should be legally punishable in the United States, just as it is in some other countries. His argument focuses on thick concepts that are used to disparage a person for simply being who they are. What’s problematic about these concepts,
he says, is that you can’t pull their descriptive meaning away from their inherent negativity. Both the meaning and the attitude are tied
up in a single word. Let me give you an example, a word that I am going to have a hard time saying. It’s a hateful word, but we can’t pretend
it doesn’t exist. Because, in a sense, that mentality – the idea that certain words shouldn’t be discussed, and analyzed, and argued about – gives these words even more power. The word I want to talk about is “faggot.” This word has descriptive content, in that it’s commonly used to describe a homosexual man. But that description is bound up with an inherently hateful attitude – so much so, that the target of the word is unable to separate that attitude from the fact about his identity. The word hurts, because it tells its target
that an essential part of his identity is bad. Being told you’re wearing an ugly shirt or that you have a stupid haircut might sting, but those aren’t essential parts of you. If you’re told that who you are is inherently bad, or wrong, then you’re being hit to your core. The point of using a word like that
is to harm. That’s all it’s used for. That is its sole purpose. And Lawrence argues that, while free speech is important to democracy, hate speech should not be protected. Instead, he says, hate speech should be understood as belonging to the class of speech known as “fighting words.” And yes, that’s an actual term.
They’re not just for cartoon cowboys. Fighting words are words that are meant to
incite violence. And since the point of protecting speech is
to promote open communication, Lawrence says, words that are designed to replace communication with violence and fear don’t deserve constitutional protection. Contemporary American philosopher Stephanie Ross offers another explanation of the way that words can cause harm. Let’s head over to the Thought Bubble to
explore it with some Flash Philosophy. Rather than focusing on words that most people would agree are negative, Ross deals with words that generally seem innocuous. Think of the word ‘baby,’ used as a term of endearment among adults, particularly applied to women. Nothing wrong with calling your significant
other ‘baby,’ right? Well, Ross thinks there might be. She says the words that people use to refer to us can create what’s known as metaphorical identification. Think about the characteristics of your average
baby: helpless, dependent, relying on others to
care for them, to make decisions for them. Ross argues that, when a person is repeatedly referred to with a word like “baby,” a metaphorical identification gradually takes place, whereby she begins to think of herself as having those traits. In other words, she starts to see herself as powerless and dependent, as someone who relies on others – particularly the men who call her that – to take care of her. This might sound far-fetched, but think about
it. The way we think of ourselves is largely shaped
by what we believe others think of us. And we tend to act according to the expectations
that we think others have of us. So, a child who knows he’s thought of as a troublemaker is more likely to continue acting out, while a child who’s perceived as a “winner”
is more likely to push himself to win. To be clear, Ross doesn’t think this is something that happens consciously. She sees it as insidious, eating away at our self-perception without us even being aware of it. The words people use to refer to us, end up informing the way we understand ourselves. Thanks, Thought Bubble! Now, what about hurtful words that you probably
wouldn’t classify as hate speech? I’m talking about more prevalent language – the kind we use in the cafeteria, in the dorms, when talking to our friends, or talking about our enemies. They’re hurtful, but they’re powerful in a somewhat different way, because they’re almost mainstream. And because we see them as less threatening – no big deal – they could actually be more likely to cause unintentional harm. So consider another word that I really don’t
want to say: “slut.” This is another thick concept. It has descriptive content, in that it’s
used to refer to women who have casual sex. But it’s the evaluative content that really
does the work when this word is used. The attitudes that are baked into this word – attitudes specifically about women and sexuality – are so potent that it’s even used to describe women who don’t have casual sex. People use it to describe to women who just, like, wear clothes that they consider revealing. And the word is meant to mean, “that kind
of woman is bad.” The attitude and the description are all bound
up together. Now, maybe you have opinions and reasons for those opinions that you feel justify using this word. But it might also be the case that you don’t actually think there’s anything wrong with having casual sex, or wearing certain kinds of clothes. So, you might want to think twice about using
a word like that. Because when you use it, you’re signaling
a specific attitude to other people. You’re endorsing that attitude. So if it’s an attitude you don’t really hold, and one you don’t think others should hold, you should take care not to spread it through your speech. OK. Now let me make just one more point. No one is telling you what you should or shouldn’t say here. That’s not my job. My job is to help you scrutinize – with a philosopher’s distance – the language that we all use. The philosophy of language can help us bring scary, powerful words out into the open, and figure out why they’re scary and powerful. And then, with reasoned arguments, we can understand and explain how the language that we use can inflict harm on others. Obviously, deliberately using words to harm
is awful. But, even if you don’t intend hate with the words you use, your audience might not understand that, because speaker meaning and audience meaning don’t always match up. Only by thinking seriously about the words we use, and what they mean, can we understand how they might be perceived by others. Today we talked about words, and how they hurt. We learned about the use/mention distinction, the difference between dirty words and hate speech, and we also learned about thick concepts and
metaphorical identification. Crash Course Philosophy is produced in association
with PBS Digital Studios. You can head over to their channel to check out a playlist of the latest episodes from shows like: PBS OffBook, The Art Assignment,
and Blank on Blank. This episode of Crash Course was filmed in
the Doctor Cheryl C. Kinney Crash Course Studio with the help of these awesome people and our equally fantastic graphics team is Thought Cafe.




Comments
  1. how on earth did you people think hank himself was arguing against free speech?? he was simply communicating these philosophers' thoughts. and you say the feminists get offended by anything. geez

  2. The video warned several times of strong language being used and I thought I was prepared for the first word but I was NOT 😭

  3. The fact that governments want to regulate hate speech because they think it's only for inciting violence, regardless of it merely being vocabulary, is just another sign they are living in an ivory tower.

    Either that or they genuinely want to eradicate negative human emotions by reducing people's freedoms, which I doubt they would be stupid enough to actually agree on.

  4. Shouldn't this video be in Crash Course's Sociology series? The topics discussed seem to have little to do with philosophy, although the term is used often.

  5. As a Christian, I have no issue with "hate speech". People cannot stand me. They hate me so much that they wish I die in the most painful way imaginable, and yet I would NOT seek to force them into silence. If they feel no shame, then God will deal with their hearts. If I actually hated people for no good reason, and wished they would die painfully, my God would deal with me. But I do not hate people without good cause and neither do I wish anyone harm on even my enemies.

    Yet if you do not stand for Freedom of Speech, especially the speech we dislike, you don't deserve it at all, at any time!!

  6. Great job at a sensitive topic. Too bad so many people were too dumb to understand the implications of the two two letter words "so if" that were used to predicate a conclusion that basically surmised that people shouldn't be hypocrites. Keep up the good fight.

  7. please tell me how to differentiate a word with only descriptive value and one with inherent meaning meant to hurt tied up in it? Cuz I sure wouldn't trust mr. Lawrence to tell me the difference

  8. God these comments are embarrassing. This is why Trump has a base.

    I doubt anyone will see this, but I'm sure you can see exactly what's wrong with all the "great they're just wanting to limit free speech now; Orwell was right; being called 'Baby' can't possibly hurt someone cuz I've never used it in a mean way, you guys are all such babies; great, trying to victimize women again".

    This is unfortunately the result of effective messaging by the alt-right extremist movement tapping in to people's frustration with being told that things they like to do or say could actually be hurtful to others, or that the people they don't like are still people and should be treated just the same as everyone else, or that there is a patriarchy that has been negatively impacting women for millenia, or that words hurt and we should take care and spare a thought for saying hurtful things about others that they can't change…

    But no. "Free speech." Hate speech is different. We have to re-evaluate our consideration of hate speech, considering the dangerous violence that rises from such beliefs that encourage use of hate speech and divide us into groups.

    In any case, Hank was doing absolutely none of the things people in the comments complain about. Yes he quoted philosophers who have recently been making arguments in favor of limiting hate speech because of the harmful effect it can have on others and because it has no purpose of use other than to hurt the target. Yes he shared an anecdote about women being called "Baby" and explaining how that could potentially cause damage because of the meaning behind it. No he didn't advocate for banning speech or revoking the first amendment. No he isn't victimizing women.

    These people really need to stop being so reactionary and actually listen to what's being said and what the intent behind it is. I find it so frustrating for people to complain about political correctness, because they CLEARLY have never been marginalized or hurt as a result of hate speech directed toward them or slowly shamed through use of a well-intended nickname that could be misinterpreted or even interpreted literally (maybe without realizing it).

    Just open your minds and exercise a little empathy, for goodness sake.

  9. I mean his quote here was just perfect:

    "Fighting words are words that are meant to incite violence. And since the point of protecting speech is to promote open communication, words that are designed to replace communication with violence and fear don't deserve constitutional protection."

    I can imagine many will argue against that claim, that the "point" of the first amendment is for promoting open communication. They'd argue that the point was for individual liberty (which works kinda funny in a deterministic universe) and fostering a free flow of any and all ideas. Those are all true, but I think Charles Lawrence was correct in pointing out how hate speech, with it's intent and nature, goes against one of the primary purposes of protecting free speech, and could be prevented without violating the other tenets of the amendment. You may disagree…but this is the point, to discuss these ideas. Hate speech is not a discussion of ideas, though. It's basically weaponized speech. I can imagine you would feel very insulted and disrespected if you were going along your way trying to do right in the world and have a good life and people kept insulting you for things about yourself that you can't change or that are simply untrue. Imagine feeling persecuted, threatened, like everyone around you might hate you and be out to get you. Imagine the damage done to someone this vulnerable when a person DOES go all the way and say something hurtful. This kind of hurtful comment is not going to provide the individual with any more growth or knowledge aside from receiving further confirmation that cruelty exists in nature and is impossible to avoid, and this can't really be any more learned over repeated experiences without changing the person, making them more bitter, less trusting, more afraid, more negative, and possibly becoming radicalized against their haters and becoming haters themselves.

    This is a bit sticky but if empathy is well understood isn't a tricky problem in the slightest. I believe misunderstanding this issue comes from a lack of perspective of what others experience that is different from one's own experiences. Thoughtfulness and consideration for others, walking a mile in their shoes, goes a long way to helping people understand the logic of these conclusions, if we agree in the true moral properties of the first amendment.

  10. Offense is too subjective to clearly define what is offensive and what's not. I know myself well. It's almost impossible to offend me.

  11. a person being perceived as a troublemaker or a person being perceived as a winner has very little to do with the language that is used. Calling somebody baby is very superficial thinking of someone as and treating somebody as a quote on quote winner is sure to have a much greater impact on their behavior than the nickname by which you address them

  12. Also it kind of depends on what you mean by harm. Is physical harm equivalent to psychological harm? and what's wrong with harming other people anyway? You never addressed that. You can't just assume that hurting another person's feelings is bad automatically

  13. I originally clicked on this because someone said Hank said some words i never expected him too and I was quite suprised but this video was definitely educational and not as outraging as I was expecting. This is a good video.

  14. What about use of contentious language being a two edged sword? The victim could be the target (taking offence as intended) or the user (betraying defective thinking perhaps) or both.

  15. I disagree with Ross because baby is used as a term of endearment, to express that the person you are calling baby is as loved and cherished as your baby and you love your children a whole whole lot.

  16. I'm slightly disappointed that he didn't bust out with the dreaded N word, I would love to have seen him stumble through that one lol. Now I'm just being mean, sorry!!!

  17. I have noticed something. You mentioned at first how valuable context is when it comes to language, but these two arguments seem to completely ignore them, for example; the word 'baby' in the context you gave us it is used as a show of affection and caring but if he were to say: "you are such a baby!" That would be a harmful word.

  18. uhhhhhhh.. i don't understand the dislikes lmao. If you dislike this video, you probably shouldn't watch any of this series.

  19. I have a problem with the idea around 7:20
    Yes, definitions of a word said to another beeing can be understood as transferred onto them, so, using the given example, there could(!) be an interpretation that a man calling his SO baby could mean she is helpless and dependent like a baby, or that she understands it in that particular way, BUT a lot of words have multiple parts in their description, so baby also can be meant or interpreted as something most valuable in someone's life and that one would do everything for that person, without taking away any aspect of freedom. If you call your SO "honey" you want to say he/she is sweet, and not that he/she is sticky. In German we also call our SO "Schatz" (treasure), and no one means, that his Schatz should be hidden in the most back room in the house or buried on a lonely island (at least I hope so).
    Connotations are in discussions like that often seen as limited to just one perspective, and that's very delicate.

  20. Children told they are intelligent (as in being put in the "smart classes" or receiving constant praise for being intelligent) in some cases causes them to try harder and in others they assume that since they are so intelligent they will succeed without effort. Make of that what you will. Also, are they comparing an adult's brain to child's brain?

  21. It is entirely possible to subjugate the negative meaning of a word with a positive one through simply disregarding the negative connotations of that word and inaugurating and endorsing a positive one. It only takes time for the people to adopt the new meaning, should they be so accepting.

  22. does anyone feel irony here…
    that in the very last episode he was talking about being understood correctly…

    then reading the comments section of this video

  23. A doubleplus good episode of Crash Crouse, brought to you by ministry of peace and love!

    Joins us in the next video when Hank reeducates us so that we can see that 2+2=5.

    Long live Big Brother!

  24. I think the idea that you are going with that words can do harm but I feel that it is highly unlikely that you could legislate hate speech without removing freedom of speech. I think it is almost to subjective. If we could know someone's intent in how they are using their words we could do it easy. However in every case knowing how every person is meaning the word is what really in worthy of punishment. You mention that even though a person may not mean to be offensive in their speech they could hurt someone's feelings with some words that could be considered hate speech. I don't think this person should be punished, they may have not known, should the learn and not do it again? Sure, but what if they mess up next time, now it is hate speech where it wasnt before? The lines cannot be clear enough. Words as we talked about in #26 are so subjective based off the cultural bubble. Some people prefer terms to define their race and not others, but that bar is constantly moving, especially with our "PC" culture…
    I do believe words can bring harm but we shouldn't be quick to legislate because it is not easy.

  25. For everyone in the comment this is philosophy because is is bedrock to our we proceed with an argument with another interlockiter (sorry didn’t know how to spell that) and wants to make sure you are communicating your ideas so others understand what you mean and can be used to build arguments.

  26. I disagree to an extent. The only way specific culturally identified "bad words" hurt is by the reciever of the words treating them as if they are bad or taking them to heart. Words lose their power if they are ignored. By saying they are bad is effectively putting a Streisand effect on them.

  27. Dang. Hank can’t even say, “Ross said that calling a significant other baby is bad,” without people saying that he wants to create institutional censorship. Isn’t the whole point of this show to learn about what various philosophers believed about certain things, weather you agree with them or not?

  28. The problem is when ideologues change or expand the definitions of words to encompass things it shouldn't. Arguing that "hate speech" is "fighting words" is a prime example, and it's completely wrong. Much of this video is baseless or speculative. The actual damages haven't been proven.

  29. My conclusion is that the
    freedom of speech is limited by the amount of significance of words at play, which the lack and limitations of freedom and words at that current moment be subjected to the current political, religious dogma along with petty fallacy arguments carrying ethics, morality, reasonable, and sometimes logical, situations that in itself is also a stigma that brings burden when its remembered, or forgotten.

  30. This vid is great but the whole time I couldn’t stop thinking about the “Some of you bout to be. Real. Mad. At me. But. It must. Be. Said.”

  31. Questioning the definition of hate speech in the comments does nothing but attempt to excuse more harmful means of communication
    Just don’t call people by slurs you cretins its not that hard

  32. Not sure if I agree with "murder" being a thick concept. The legal definition of "murder" is not "to kill someone", but rather an unlawful premeditated killing of one person by another. So…the "evaluative content" of the word is simply a necessary condition for an act to meet the definition of a "murder"…right?

  33. Ugh, there's no such thing as "hate speech!" Why does this topic get its own video on CrashCourse? Freedom of speech has long been supported both political "sides" in America! The ACLU (a very liberal organization) has defended the rights of Nazis and the KKK to publicly rally and speak about their evil and disgusting beliefs, not to ban "hate speech."

    Furthermore, this video is unscientific. There is NOT a recognized philosophical topic about "hate speech" or "speech as violence." The "expert" cited in the video is a LAWYER, not a recognized philosopher! Finally, the idea that "harmful words" actually affect a person's identity or actions is not supported by psychological research. The closest thing to this is "Stereotype Threat" which has been debunked by further research and the "Replication Crisis."

    This entire video is NOT philosophy, it is POLITICS!

  34. The reason this video has gotten the backlash is because of the portrayal of this controversial subject of the video. He states that these words are "fighting words" and then says that it incites violence. Just because the teacher says "choose for yourself" doesn't mean that he/she was not teaching based on their ideas

  35. Hate speech is stupid, the only speech that should be legally controlled is calls to violence or actually cause or encourage violence .

  36. Hate speech and fighting words are their own language. Just a thought. The language can signal, if heard by outsiders, that the users of said language, are not prepared nor capeable to use, oh idk, ANY OTHER SPEECH AT THAT TIME, because their language has become all consuming and is actively using up all their emotional resources. Meaning all their resources for compassion, kindness, charity, dignity, and self awareness could be included as well, all are bound up and put away that this language can have use in their mouths.
    IF you, or someone you know, is a native user of this language, please know, that is not to say that the most excellent qualities listed as resources, as stated above, are not an element of humanity you are lacking. Indeed not! It is to be noted that these resources are not useable while actively expressing this formidable and at times overwhelmingly popular language. At least, that is the illusion it gives to non native speakers.
    Please also know, as with any language, knowledge is power. Use this language according to the dictates of your conscious, and remember, the law of the land is not written in your native language. Nor will it be protected as a defense in a court of law.

  37. I didn't expect a political argument with no bounds to reality in my philosophy course. Hate speech clearly has reason to exist. Because a person is harmed by it does not make their subjective and completely sensitive experience and attitude a rightful and just reason to legally harm another being. Hate speech is speech, and giving the power for anyone to lock you up for non-physical harm is very clearly a path we should not take, especially if we legitimately fear a big government as we should.

  38. All the people in the comments upset that they got told that being a dickhead is bad. Get over yourselves and grow up. Bad words = bad lol

  39. Jesus how insulting to all females that we would be stupidly manipulatable enough to turn into a baby on command? duhh hocus pocus

  40. There seems to be two forms of contentious verbal action, one being the slaying a sacred cows, “the sun is the center of the galaxy not the earth” type of thing and verbal abuse, both are connected at the hip by the subjective arbitrary state of personal offence, setting precedent by a subjective such as offence is steering down a dark road

  41. Omg this is so left wing it’s flying in circles clock wise. I disagree with so much of it. Mainly I never meet a college age dude that thought sluts were bad.. another thing, there was a man who named his kids loser and winner and they grew up to be the opposite, winner in prison and loser a successful businessman. Hate speech is so subjective and it would be used to lock up anyone against the liberals. We all know how it would play out.

  42. You can't just present a bunch of arguments for censorship with no counterpoints or alternative perspectives, and then say you're not telling me what to say. Your opinion is very clear to anyone who manages to sit through this drivel.

  43. I was expecting him to pose an argument for Free speech as defined in America, but sadly there wasn't one, only arguments that chip away at free speech.

  44. YouTube tried to trick me into skipping this video by suggesting episode #29 after I watched #27. Anyone else experienced this?

  45. I was wondering how progressives justify attacking free speech. Good job supplying some more nails for the coffin. This won’t end well.

  46. The backlash against this video is completly justified. Given that Hank presents the idea of a lawyer while leaving out the reasoning behind important supreme court cases in regards to First Amendment. If you are interested in a discussion then read the rest of my comment and give me a clear definition of hate speach that does not result in any of the legal cases that I have mentioned and does not rely on the prosecuter or judge deciding what the intent was without any evidence.

    9:02
    The problem with Hate Speach is that it is always ill defined and in order for the legislation to be effective the judge would have to be able to interpreted and decide upon intent, this results in vague laws. Another problem is that certain ideologues such as national socialism often meet the criteria for hate speach and thus they are banned and people advocating said ideologies are or even providing information as to the ideas of said ideolgoues are punished, given the vagueness of hate speechs laws there is a real risk of courts interpreting intent and sentencing a person for their intent or for ideas being banned.

    My counter argument is simple, the courts should not have the power to interprete what attitute a person has when they speak or write or had when they said or wrote something.
    In the UK the courts do have this power, this has resulted in an individual named Marcus Mechan being tried and convicted of sending an offensive message. He hade a Joke (it was a joke even if you consider it to have been in poor taste) were he clearly stated his intent and the punchline, but thanks to the vague laws (such is the case in countries were hate speech exists) the judge had the right to interprete his intent and tell him, "no this was not your intent, this was your intent" and thus he was found guilty.

    Hate speech laws do also make it illegal to share an opinion on a certain group or idea, because accourding to the philosophy behind hate speach, groups can be defamed and the standard for what counts as defamation is also lowered. For instance, saying that gay people are evil or immoral beacause of them being gay is considered hate speach. Expressing a desire for an outcome "I enjoy it if gay people were executed is also hate speach." The problem is always. Who decides what those protect groups are? And what opionions are allowed to be said about said groups?

    There was another case in New Zealand or Australia were a woman got fined or jaled because she offended muslims for calling mohammend a pedophile.
    First of all, mohammend has never been proven to exist in a court of law, at least not those two countries, so there is no defemation. Second of, she got prosecuted under hate speach laws because she hurt the feelings of the protected groups.

    The "No one is telling you what you should or shouldn't say here. That's not my job." Does not really help here given the above mentioned case and similar ones are not new and have happened in several countries were hate speech laws exist.

  47. I am concerned that Jason has a round chambered but no magazine in his rifle. It's usually a bad idea from a safety perspective.

  48. Hank. You're such a good person. The fact that you even did this video says a lot avout how willing you are to teach. The world needs more Hank Greens!

  49. Pretty soon after I got laid off my sister-in-law started calling me the literal equivalent of "baby" in our language. It was super demeaning and game me the powerless, dependent feels during my visit. But I was too polite to outright shoot her down for it, even though 2 years ago she was unemployed while I worked and I used dignified words to address her.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *