Re: But that violent video games aren't good is true regardless who says it.
That's not how a debate works, friend. The person asserting something has the burden of proof. In other words, all is allowed save until an argument against it can be constructed. If violent games had a net-zero benefit, then they should not be banned. A lack of benefit isn't a reason to exclude.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The real answer to hate speech
"what's the objective opposite of "cause harm to others"? It's not simple."
The objective opposite is "that action, idea or speech which causes the maximum benefit or happiness to others." These issues MUST start at the macro level before we talk about the micro, but an objective good is that which benefits the most people in the most quantity while correcting for any harm or negative impact on others.
In other words, it ends up being a math equation. If you can weight the good done to the people concerned while subtracting the weighted (where we can argue about how we weight this), you get a number. Positive numbers are objectively good, negative numbers are objectively bad, and some outcomes can end up more or less good or bad based on their number. How we arrive at that number is insanely complicated, and it never really is a number, but our own intuition, but when we take moral questions down to their bedrock, this process becomes evident.
Take gun control, for instance. Let's say as a hypothetical we know or have strong reason to believe that outlawing all firearms everywhere in our country will lead to 1000 less deaths per year in the country (I'm not saying this is even remotely true, just a hypothetical). Let's say we also know that outlawing these guns will have a negative impact on hunters, on people who might need them to protect themselves (and may indeed be counted as deaths from crime if gun bans were enacted), and that there is a loss of freedom, however great or small that freedom might be. The moral question is does value of the negatives outweigh the positives of the 1000 lives, understanding we have to take into account who those 1000 lives are, how they live, how, if at all, they contribute to their own deaths, etc. It's complicated, but the process is simply a weight of benefit versus harm.
"I'll let that "good speech" comment slide here as that didn't come across objective (what exactly is good speech anyway? That's subjective)"
I really do hate that kind of cop out. What it does is to paint morality as some kind of subjective thing that cannot be quantified, discussed logically, or expressed in any kind of scientific terminology, which I think is laughably false. Morality is subject to all the same material laws the rest of our world and philosophy is subject to. Areas of moral ambiguity or areas in which we simply haven't applied enough thought capital to, or areas where a moral certainty might not exist (areas of which I think there are less in quantity than most people think).
If what I said above is true, than there can certainly be "good speech" as an objective reality. We just need to train our brains to understand how to see morality and goodness in a consequential or even scientific light....
I think we can dial your sentiment back a bit. I don't think the answer to hate speech is to "get over it." I think the answer to hate speech is better, more logical, good speech. We're all competing on the field of ideas and its important that bad ideas aren't left lingering or unchallenged.
"If someone steals stuff out of your luggage, that's no fun for you, but it does not pose a threat to aviation security"
In which case why are the TSA pimping locks that have been made useless? If the TSA is pimping the locks, then it means it involves security. If it doesn't, then the TSA is pimping locks for other reasons, a notion I find extremely tantalizing....
"Having a picture of him with the much darker-skinned cop who was involved in all this totally undermines that whole narrative, but we'll just pretend that didn't happen. Nope, this is all about racism, folks!"
So....your contention is that an African American can't be racist against an Arab-American or a Persian-American? In other words, there's white people and then everything else is lumped together? I love when someone's claim that there's no racism in a story in itself shows their subtle racist bias....
I'm confused as to who is actually sitting on a couch and watching the weather channel rather than taking a cursory look at the Weather.com widget on their smart phones? Isn't the TV portion of all of this completely outdated and unnecessary?
All: you should be seeing the new text at the top of the post, discussing how completely fuck-fooled I was by the two hoax sites I linked to in this post. Thank you, as always, to our community for pointing out that these were hoax sites.
Please know that I fucking hate getting fooled like this....