Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
I mean, the first two of those are indeed illegal in a lot of countries, and Libel and Slander are crimes that are more specific versions of the third.
Though I don't really have any idea what New Zealand's hate speech laws look like, and trying to police any of that on the internet runs into gnarly jurisdiction problems.
Edited by Gilphon on Mar 17th 2019 at 4:26:16 AM
The thing is there are oftentimes asterixes on those FOS exceptions; ie that you need to prove malicious intent, or a lack of vigorous enforcement, especially when it comes to the Internet, and an unwillingness to push back against people testing boundaries with stuff like dog-whistling.
Edited by CaptainCapsase on Mar 17th 2019 at 4:33:22 AM
![]()
I;d feel like a universal problem needs a universal solution. And that the UN and international treaties (in case the former causes participants to pull a Brexit) would have to be the ones to set the foundation for internet-centric hate speech laws.
Edited by MorningStar1337 on Mar 17th 2019 at 2:29:10 AM
I think the bottom line is that we cant prevent people from being assholes, or some of them from acting out their asshole beliefs by killing people. And the fact is that these attacks are rare, and completely ineffective (a race war in not about to start due to an attack like this). It sounds cruel, but if necessary, the rest of humanity can live with it (we have, for milennia). Every solution that I've heard so far has carried higher potential costs to the general public than the problem itself.
Edited by DeMarquis on Mar 17th 2019 at 6:13:55 AM
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.
"The rest of humanity"...as in, for the white people who aren't actually targeted by neo-nazis? It feels, at best, incredibly cynical to offer up the lives of Muslims, black people, latin@s, and Jewish people as bargaining chips because it's too "unrealistic" to make any attempt to stop the far right from continuing to murder them.
In the long term, many more people will be killed by those who wish to censor free speech then then by allowing it. Consider for a moment that regimes that suppress free speech have killed millions and have done it with a frightening regularity. Let us allow that the cost of free speech is fifty people a month in attacks like the ones that just happened. For that to equal the cost of only a million lives would take sixteen hundred years.
I think there is an onus for us to do something: to do nothing is I feel a benefit of privilege.
The problem however I have is that I can't pin down an agenda for them. Yes, I know that their beliefs appear to be rooted in White Supremacy and fear of the other... but where is the political wing? There is no Alt-Right alternative government or legal system waiting in the wings. Their only strategy would appear to be pure accelerationism with the belief that when it all burns down they will finally be left alone. They are not going to claim the rubble.
(And while yes, the Republican Party are carrying water for the Alt-Right I don't see them supporting the overthrow of the US Constitution just yet)
I'm just trying to compare with other belief systems that terrorists use. I mean, so called Islamic State wants to establish a caliphate. Completely different political system. Others might have had nationalist or separatist aspirations (IRA, ETA). All of these are concrete aims that while you might not support and almost certainly disagree with the tactics used to achieve these aims, it at least gives you a starting point when discussing with them and thus eventually bringing them back into the fold of society at large.
I don't know where to begin when it comes to the Alt-Right.
I dont any of that really matters. You're taking the claims of so-called "alt right" ideologues at face value. I dont see any reason to. Mass murder ultimately doesnt have it's roots in ideology, it isnt a form of organized violence, the way the mafia, or a real terrorist organization like the Daesh, the IRA or the Black Hand were. Mass shooting incidents have their roots in psycho-pathology, and the social conditions that breed such pathology. The ideology is just an excuse to openly manifest destructive emotions that otherwise would be repressed. Besides, by the time someone joins an ultra-radicalized community, it is already too late to do anything except wait until they commit a crime. Catch em early, before they have any politics, and you will save more lives in the long run.
I'm done trying to sound smart. "Clear" is the new smart.It's hard to properly respond to something so obviously wrong... like, why do you think people do things? It's because of the values system they follow, i.e their ideology. Therefore, the entire reason that Nazis want to commit genocide and we (hopefully) do not is that our ideologies have fundamental differences.
To be honest, your position that psychopathology is the pure reason behind mass murder seems highly reductive and simplistic in a manner that reminds me of pseudo-science. It may seem comforting to assume that only sociopaths and other mentally abnormal people could engage in crimes against humanity but frankly, I think history shows the falseness of that position. Movements like Nazism or Legionarism show that 'normal' people can be complicit (sometimes enthusiastically) in atrocities.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangNot to mention that people need to stop assuming that only the mentally ill are capable of mass murder because people have and will kill for whatever stupid reasons or beliefs they have. It seems like every time we get a mass shooting, people are quick to jump on that "the shooter was mentally screwed up" bandwagon because it's either the easiest thing to pin the blame on or they don't want to admit that murders can have actual bad thoughts and motives for murdering others.
I do remember how Trump was going on and on about the mentally ill when we had the Las Vegas mass shooting not too long ago and pretended he wanted improvements to mental health. Fun times, that one.
Remember, these idiots drive, fuck, and vote. Not always in that order.
It depends on how we define mental illness; for my part, I would take a more radical stance argue any and all anti-social behaviors should be considered through the lens of neuropathology, since there's no scientific basis for "free will", and evidence from both neuroscience and physics to the contrary of the usual notion that our decisions are anything other than a product of an elaborate but ultimately deterministic electrochemical process.
That's actually why I don't believe in punitive justice; there's no evidence that it deters crimes, which from my perspective would be the only defensible reason to hand down a punishment. I'm not in favor of prison abolition of course, but in my view sentencing should be based on public interest and have an eye towards rehabilitation where feasible.
Edited by CaptainCapsase on Mar 17th 2019 at 10:14:51 AM
Certain branches of quantum theory would suggest that all events in the universe are fundamentally random and non-deterministic. That question has yet to be decisively settled. Anyway, using scientific determinism as a way to absolve people of responsibility is nihilistic and untenable. Punishments can affect behavior, ergo we may consider punishment as a part of our general toolkit for maintaining law and order.
This doesn't change whether you believe in determinism or not. You have constructed a non-sequitur by drawing a direct line from "I believe in determinism" to "punishment doesn't change behavior".
Anyway, you can't have it both ways. If you believe that the behavior of all people is fundamentally deterministic, than we can no more choose not to punish people than people can choose not to commit crimes. If they were going to, then they will, no matter what you or I do. Of course, me trying to persuade you of the logical fallacy of social determinism is something I cannot not do, just as you have no true free will in whether my argument is persuasive, and we have spiraled down into a singularity of circular logic.
The point is, that, whether it is true or not in a fundamental way, we must treat people as if they are free-willed in order to have any sort of functioning society. However, we cannot ignore the role of psychology, biochemistry, and other factors in shaping people so that they are more likely to make certain choices.
Edited by Fighteer on Mar 17th 2019 at 10:10:09 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"- 1) Take control of the government (Trump et al)
- 2) Kick out all the libtards (not working so far)
- 3) Kill/exile all the minorities (trying their best
- 4) ???
- 5)
ProfitUtopia!
If this looks stupid and nonsensical, well, I didn't say they had a good plan, just a plan.
![]()
Yes, but on the macroscopic scale, ie for practical purposes involving human behavior, the universe is essential deterministic, and more to the point, the fundamental randomness in the Copenhagen interpretation of QM isn't any more conducive to free will than the clockwork universe of classical physics, it just replaces a preordained destiny with a roll of God's dice, and there's no more willful agency involved.
You can call it nihlistic if you want (and in an Anti-Nihilist sense I'd sort of agree with you), but I'd counter that it's not circular if you subscribe to a consequentialist moral framework, (ie utilitarianism) which is a natural fit for this insight. Also, while punishment can change people's behavior, it's generally not for the better; compare punishment focused America's 60% recidivism rate to rehabilitation focused Norway's 20%, and it's obvious which approach to dealing with anti-social behavior works better.
Edited by CaptainCapsase on Mar 17th 2019 at 10:21:13 AM
I think you are conflating multiple concepts. Empirically studying criminal incarceration practices to determine which is better at reducing recidivism is a completely legitimate, rational exercise regardless of whether you believe in free will.
As for determinism itself, we yet lack the knowledge and computational power to perfectly predict behavior at the individual level, and relating to people as if they are deterministic machines instead of free-willed beings is empirically unhelpful.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"If we can't tell whether or not we have free will, then doesn't it even matter either way?
Either we do, and our actions are of our own choices and volition, or we don't and, whether we know it or not, our actions are going to be what they are going to be.
If those are the options, there's no reason not just behave as you were going to anyway, because you're either making your choice or your choice doesn't matter.
Edited by sgamer82 on Mar 17th 2019 at 8:34:10 AM
![]()
They're intimately related; punishment is fundamentally about retribution, about making people suffer for their actions, in no small part because of the fallacious zero-sum logic that natural evolution has ingrained in us, and because of the notion that we have willful agency. If the common interest requires that someone be subject to something that will cause them to suffer; ie being deprived of their freedom or even their life, so be it, but I do not regard such suffering as ethical or necessary for the sake of retribution, regardless of what a person has done; if hypothetically a mass murderer is persuaded to change their ways, and through some hypothetical mind-reading technology we are able to verify this is truthful and they do not present a credible risk to society, I would not see any issue with simply letting them go free with no jail time whatsoever.
We can evaluate evidence regarding the existence of free will, and draw conclusions according to that evidence. In many cases it doesn't make a person; whereas under one paradigm a serial killer is executed or imprisoned for life to give their victims justice, under the other they are sentenced as such because there's no realistic prospect of rehabilitating them, they are a continuing credible threat to others.
Edited by CaptainCapsase on Mar 17th 2019 at 10:41:03 AM
![]()
Also, somewhat ironically, changing your behavior because you believe in determinism means that your behavior can be changed by external information. This is what I mean about going down a logical rabbit hole. Claiming to no longer have individual responsibility because your actions are pre-determined by mechanistic forces is a choice.
Again, you've constructed a logical non-sequitur. Punishment (be it incarceration, fines, etc.) has multiple purposes and objectives, only some of which pertain directly to the individual being punished.
- Preventing that person from continuing or repeating their behavior.
- Causing that person to recognize the incorrectness of their actions and seek to change their behavior.
- Causing other people observing the punishment to recognize that the behavior has undesirable consequences and creating a disincentive to perform that same behavior.
- Relief, emotional, monetary, or otherwise, to the victim(s) of the behavior, if any.
- Upholding the rule of law in society: in particular, the ideas that both criminal and victim have been treated fairly and appropriately, and that the justice system is consistent in its application of the law.
Edited by Fighteer on Mar 17th 2019 at 10:44:40 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
I don't claim to lack individual responsibility, all of us have some degree of agency, and our introspection about it does have positive consequences, even if the outcomes would be identical no matter how many times you repeated them. You're also changing the definition of punishment which is defined by Merriam-Webster "the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offense."
Edited by CaptainCapsase on Mar 17th 2019 at 10:46:06 AM
Yeah, I think it's kind of bullshit to think that it'd be okay to let a mass murderer go free just because they are really sorry and promise not to do it again even if they do mean it. That doesn't take into account the victims and those close to them. As Fighteer mentioned, it's not just about the mass murderer.
Edited by M84 on Mar 17th 2019 at 10:47:39 PM
Disgusted, but not surprisedThe situation in which every single aspect of your choice is mechanistically identical if it were repeated simply cannot happen without reversing time, and then it isn't a different event; it's the exact same event. It is not clear to me that even the Copenhagen interpretation would make the claim that such an event could have a different outcome.
No, you're taking an overly narrow view of the word "punishment". The legal justice system does not use Merriam Webster as its authoritative reference on the use of these terms.
Edited by Fighteer on Mar 17th 2019 at 10:51:16 AM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
On the macroscopic scale (and the scale on which human cognition occurs) the outcome would likely be indistinguishable in all but a handful of the >10^500 possible universes, so for all meaningful purposes that statement would hold true, and once again that's a dodge.
Edited by CaptainCapsase on Mar 17th 2019 at 10:54:20 AM

That'd be legally difficult to pull off because of the first amendment, and the high bar for the exceptions to the first amendment, along with arguably the right to freedom of assembly.
While I appreciate the basic premise of freedom of speech, if I had the power to I'd explicitly make exceptions to freedom of speech, the press, and assembly for individuals or groups that are doing any of the following:
1. iniciting/promoting extralegal violence
2. Making/promoting bigoted statements against protected classes
3. Spreading information that is demonstrably false and actively harmful (ie anti-vaxxers)
Edited by CaptainCapsase on Mar 17th 2019 at 4:08:29 AM