Re:Are popular toxicity models simply profanity detectors?
by Gareth321 on Tuesday January 25, 2022 @04:27AM
(#30069946)
>American history itself had tons and tons of situation where people risked a lot for saying things - including death.
You would think we would learn from these examples and make offensive speech more acceptable, rather than less.
I'm not sure how you conflated legality with social acceptance. My arguments center around the later.
Re:Are popular toxicity models simply profanity detectors?
by mbg721 on Tuesday January 25, 2022 @08:44AM
(#30071677)
I don't know that you can take dueling at face-value; dueling got to the point where you were expected to show up to the duel, but actually shooting someone dead was classless and would have made you a social pariah.
Re:Are popular toxicity models simply profanity detectors?
by throwaway0a5e on Tuesday January 25, 2022 @09:52AM
(#30072374)
>American history itself had tons and tons of situation where people risked a lot for saying things - including death. All within the scope you talk about. The time span you talk about include runup to civil war, civil war, reconstruction - all of which were full of political violence.
Now do European history pre-enlightement.
It was way, way worse. Shit talk the church and the inquisition slows up. Complain about the cut of your grain that the mill takes and the local lord threatens you lest other peasants start complaining.
The acceptance of freedom of speech as a general principal has greatly increased the civility of civilization.
American history itself had tons and tons of situation where people risked a lot for saying things - including death. All within the scope you talk about. The time span you talk about include runup to civil war, civil war, reconstruction - all of which were full of political violence.
This also when dueling was the thing. Where men of means were expected to shoot each other over words. If you did not, you was effectively over in that town. And the line between "duel worthy" offense and not could be very thin.
> Eliminating free speech will harm the most vulnerable in society; not the most powerful.
Moreover, we are not talking here about legal standard at all. Neither was legal standard EVER. You could legally seek to insult and offend people as much as you wanted. Nobody cared about intent. This is about when people say "you are jerk".
There is threat to free speech, especially with new proposed laws, but it has zero to do with intent vs effect.