The best point was "who decides what is hateful?" If whoever is in power can legislate speech than that becomes more oppressive than hate speech ever could.
I think the best argument is simply "why is it wrong to hate and to express said hatred in speech?" If someone told me they hated me for this that or whatever reason, maybe they have legitimate grievances against me. Maybe they are 100% right to hate me. You shouldn't feel obligated by law to be inclusive and welcoming, especially because if you actually hate the person then your literally just playing pretend. I don't think anyone would object to someone saying, "I hate Nazii's", because it's not in any way controversial to hate them and its not an immutable characteristic, rather its beliefs. But plenty of things like religion are also a choice so why can't I hate all of their beliefs too? Why am I objectively wrong and should be legally pushed if I said, "The people in the Church of the flying spaghetti monster are stupid and their beliefs are stupid". Mind you I picked an obviously silly one as an example to ensure it wasn't controversial but you could expand the point to others if you want like Scientology.
@@thatguy913 Gotta go with who decides what is hateful as being the better argument. When you read a lot of hate speech laws they talk about perceived offense or making others uncomfortable. The irony of that is that a lot of stuff that is "progressive" technically falls under that category because a lot of it purposefully goes against norms and is disruptive. It is the same thing as moral religious laws of the past, which likely would've banned this stuff.
The best point is the one not said. This debate only happened due to the existence of the idea of free speech even with those who support the idea of censorship are in power on some level. This shows that censorship is the more primitive idea and free speech is the superior one due to the fact that this conversation even occurred.
Clearly all of you need hate speech defined because it is when you target someone based off of prejudiced observations that they have no control over. Hating someone for something that is impossible to “fix”. Please go consult a legal document before you give your comment on it.
Did you listen to the debate? The hate regulation advocate didn't say hate speech should include everything that is hateful, only specific speech that clearly advocates for violence or intimidates a group of people. For example, if someone posts "All people in group X should be killed", then that is a clear example of speech that undeniably causes harm. All reasonable people would find that post hateful.
@@jackjohnson1072 and then I believe this starts the infinite chain of definition. What is considered violence or intimidates a group of people; who are considered people; etc. Ultimately, this is a subjective policy that is determined by who is in power. Worse, can be broadened to the point of censoring any anti-party speech in general because of its entirely subjective nature. I feel that at best, it would be an informal rule, that would raise more eyebrows when broken in the eyes of certain parties.
@@jackjohnson1072 yes but that is threat, advocating and saying we should cause harm to people. Which is not protected under free speech. We are talking about opinions that other people have, which are protected under free speech, even though it is bad. The government can’t do anything about it, but the people can and make sure things like that don’t show up anymore by teaching the next generation not to do that. Also tell me, who would draw the line between hateful and ok speech. If you disagree with someone then they could say your being hateful, as we see with debates about lgbtq or abortion. This creates an avenue for dictatorships and political censorship to form, which is dangerous for the values of democracy and republics that we hold so dearly.
@@jackjohnson1072 yes but that is threat, advocating and saying we should cause harm to people. Which is not protected under free speech. We are talking about opinions that other people have, which are protected under free speech, even though it is bad. The government can’t do anything about it, but the people can and make sure things like that don’t show up anymore by teaching the next generation not to do that. Also tell me, who would draw the line between hateful and ok speech. If you disagree with someone then they could say your being hateful, as we see with debates about lgbtq or abortion. This creates an avenue for dictatorships and political censorship to form, which is dangerous for the values of democracy and republics that we hold so dearly. This also can make certain topics impossible to discuss, and when debate and discussion stop, it leads to inbred resentment that comes out in the form of true violence.
One argument against hate speech laws ive heard is rather interesting; basically the idea is they'd rather know they are a hateful person than not know. Because if you make something hate speech, that essentially makes it a topic that is illegal to discuss, and therefore a topic that is illegal to argue about.
You can still argue and talk about pejudice even if hate speech is illegal. Also even if you couldn't you would still know if someone is a hateful in the exact same ways as if it wasn't illegal. This particular argument doesnt follow from the premise. When homosexuality was illegal that didn't make it any easier or harder to tell if someone was guy either way you pretty much rely on: either someone telling you; or vague context clues regardless of what the law is.
@@GhostEmblem How can someone tell you if its *illegal to tell you?* That's the entire like concept here, its illegal to say certain things. And the alternative is... going off assumptions? That's wonderful. People assume other people are gay wrongly all the time.
@@GhostEmblem The entire point is that if its hate speech to say something *they cant tell you.* And your alternative is making assumptions? Vague context clues arent really a good way to judge people, this should be obvious.
@@GhostEmblem If being gay is illegal, then you can't tell beyond assumptions because the gay people are actively hiding their identities. As opposed to now where homosexuality is a protected class and you have people being openly so, sometimes TOO open. Like, holding parades of dudes in wack ass clothes when they're actually wearing some.
I think that both sides had good points. But I have to give the debate to the free speech side because I have seen “anti-hate speech” legislation used to persecute religious groups.
I've seen how religious groups under the guise of moral authority, have actively promoted hatred and intolerance toward certain groups or individuals. That leading to devastating consequences, including people so ostracized and dehumanized that they see no alternative but to end their own lives. Unchecked prejudice, even when cloaked in religious doctrine, can directly contribute to tragic outcomes and the loss of innocent lives.
@@ivaniux8450 That's not the point being discussed. Also that's a generalization. You shouldn't base your opinions on logical fallacies. Do you think speech should be controlled?
Orange-AI appealed multiple times to "independent judges," and Blue-AI missed an opportunity to shut this argument down. There is no such thing as an independent judge because every judge is a member of certain groups subject to bias. A law banning hate-speech can be wielded like a weapon by anyone who's job it is to interpret and enforce the law, giving them power to unjustly subject any dissenters. I will repeat: there is no such thing as an independent judge who perfectly and objectively upholds the spirit of the law.
Yeah, the "civil watch-dog groups" should also have been a massive red flag for blue AI to call out. The SPLC is probably the best known one of these groups in the US, and they are horrendously biased. It's well known that the SPLC will label any group or person right of center as "hateful" with little to no evidence but drag their feet on labeling leftwing groups hateful even after federal agencies categorize those groups as terrorist organizations.
Exactly. Whether your religious or not, this is actually why the law and foundational culture of the west is predicated on the appeal to god or Christian ethics. God is the unquestionable source which holds the people together. When god isn't in the picture, it becomes a subjective chaotic mess where everyone is right in their own way, even if two people share completely opposing principles. This is what nietzsche meant by "god is dead, and we killed him" and then worried about what would fill the void when humanity is left to its own devices and what they would replace god with.
@@jonahallcorn The statistics don’t lie, man. We’ve seen increases to violence against minority groups as hate speech against them becomes more mainstream. You cannot simply doubt that it is dangerous. Nazis were propagandized into believing that harming their fellow man was the right thing to do. They were taught to think of Jewish people as non-human. It is speech that converted their minds into believing this. The argument should not be about whether or not we should make hate speech something with legal consequences, but rather a discussion on the reform of our justice system, and a debate on how we can determine what is and isn’t considered hate speech. We can easily and definitively determine it to protect most groups, and unless you are spouting slurs, there is no reason to believe selfishly in this act. Hate speech is tricky. You’re taught to believe in freedom of speech, but freedom is impossible. Not for everyone. If you are free to verbally oppress any group you want to, then that group is not free to partake in many of the activities of otherwise accepting groups of people.
There are many other exceptions but it's harder to identify them with some people becoming seriously crafty with hiding malicious intent in there speech
One point that I think blue missed. Using government force to punish the utterance of opinions or criticism of a group can lead to the creation or growth of resentment and prejudice. The person who receives sanction for their speech would likely blame the group that the speech was directed towards and may feel as if they're being persecuted by that group.Hate speech laws essentially puts a lid over the issue it doesn't prevent the hate itself from building up and boiling over, infact it encourages it.
I think that's true for a lot of things. I know a lot of people that grew up colour blind, and were never racist, but now that certain ethnicities are given benefits over others, it creates racism, the exact opposite of what those enforcing these things claim to be fighting.
@@willow1698 It stated multiple times and through different arguments that we need to work towards a better society. If this better society existed it would be right. In our real and ugly world, it is wrong.
Both sides have good arguments, however I have to side with free speech. Hate regulation mainly seems like a good idea if you're the one calling the shots, however you will likely not have control over what constitutes hate speech and how far that regulation will go. In my opinion the real problem here is regulation. Regulating things is hard and without dissenting voices, we will lose touch with reality.
I tend to be a free speech absolutist too, but what should be regulated is misinformation. Social media platforms also have the right to crack down on certain content.
@@joseaguirre744 Then thats not absolutist free speech. I'm the opposite, I believe any space that you should be able to exchange any idea, and thought freely. who's to judge misinformation, when in the past 5 years its displayed that is what all Gov and media displays. Unless there is triple consequence for them, there shouldn't be any for the public.
@@GatlingHawk yeah but bots, governments, and corporations would flood the system. The area of the people’s internet is dead. misleading and lying can still get you sued for defamation
this goes for a lot of other things too, like guns -- once the regulation starts, when does it stop? Until the only firearms we're allowed to own are homemade single shot muskets like in Taiwan?
Some comments are dividing this into liberal vs conservative but I don't think it matters whether you're liberal or conservative on this topic. I'm very liberal for the most part but 100% in favor of free speech. I don't even like that judges can censor people in court rooms. Don't think it will help someone's case but I think a defendent should be able to say "f*ck you" without being held in contempt and thrown in jail because the judges feelings are hurt. Thoughts?
Being impolite can get you fined or sent to jail? That would make a little sense if the person is making the trial take an unnecessary amount of time. But if it's just an insult...
"f you" is not hate speech. I'm a liberal, and I would like free speech if we lived in a perfect society. In this real and ugly one we should not allow hate speech.
I agree, I’m a conservative person but some things I lean left with. Free speech and it’s debate or conversation stems deeper than political affiliation. I think one problem is, that radicals on both sides don’t care what the pro and cons are about something if the party advocates or denies something. The radicals will just follow their party because that’s their party.
In the 1970's, the conservatives wanted to censor immoral and pornographic speech. It was the liberals who defended free speech, partially via the ACLU. But now it is the conservatives who champion freedom of political speech, and the left which promotes hate speech laws. Liberal used to mean, championing individual liberty. And freedom of speech is an essential individual liberty. We Libertarians and Classical Liberals have been consistently in favor of free speech for centuries.
The problem with hate speech laws is that the people who end up determining what is legal and illegal to say are always the people you least want in that position.
The Hate Regulation side ignores the counter hate speech which becomes protected speech, ie, some groups can have hate apeech at them because they are not the preferred groups. I love how both sides avoid the current anti-men, anti-Christian, and anti-white environments that exist. The "debate" cannot acknowledge current direct issues because of censorship within these models.
In America we have Free Speech. This is clarified in our First Amendment. The Bill of Rights are not given to us by our Government but were identified by our Founding Fathers as things that are inherent rights and not something bestowed on us by other people. That being said, Free Speech is exactly what it says. Either you have the right to speak freely or the Government has power over you limiting what you think and say aloud. Any governmental variation of control however well meaning is just that , removing our rights to speak freely.
The Fathers never intended their government to be perfect. They saw problems with the rule they were under, and crafted what they believed to be a better system. They intended for the law to be designed so problems in it could be addressed and fixed.
As a professional hater. I agree that speech should be regulated under direct threats and extremist statements. I think it's important to state your opinion and to find an audience who both agrees and disagrees to argue from an educational standpoint whether you are right or simply insecure and in doing so you find both cultural ethic and deep rooted understandings
I'd agree with direct threats (as most of the time this is already considered potential for a crime) - but extremist groups might be a bit too subjective. I have a feeling they'd just ban all opposing political ideology as "extremist"
A.i talks about countries with hate speech laws arent dictatorships. while are slowly and actively becoming that. people are going to jail for memes, or pointing out issues with government or cultural groups within their own or other
The best way to counter hate is with love, not laws. Give a good argument or reason for hateful people to appreciate you, not cry to big daddy government to punish people saying mean words. It'll only make them hate you more.
The prob with that is that a lot of people don't respond to love with love and it becomes harder to address issues when the plain field is not evened out since u'll find people using their harmful rhetoric on you as you try your best to spread love.
Hate speech should not be illegal. Advocating for the commission of a crime is illegal. Who gets to decide what is hate speech is a big problem. It just takes one tyrant to shut down actual debate by labeling at hate speech.
What if the speech isn't intended to encourage physical violence by the one that says it, but is interpreted by others as being violently encouraging? If someone cheers, "Fight! Fight! Fight!" at a rally, who decides whether that's them speaking metaphorically of the pursuit of a cause, or literally to injure and murder people? When someone says they'll put another person in "The Crosshairs", is that a statement of threat? "And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere." What about that? Is that encouragement to violence? How do you decide?
Huge problem with hate speech being controlled is that wishing pedophiles would have something bad to them becomes a form of hate speech even though these people did an unforgivable action against another human being.
@@SpeedUpThatComputer That’s a.. Slippery Slope fallacy. Simply put, we can word a law in such a way that it excludes them. So let’s consider this: When engaging in speech that does all 3 of the following: 1. Targets a wide-sweeping audience consisting of an entire group of people, or calls upon that audience in negative light. 2. Targets a feature that the recipient has little to no control over, such as height, race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, or sexuality. 3. Targets a group that inherently does not wholly cause harm to others by their nature. If you can find a work-around or an issue with this proposal, please let me know. We can find a solution that will satisfy everyone aside from extremists.
Here's a problem with illegalizing hate speech, I say something with good intentions like a compliment or a warning to they way they live but the person takes it as hate. Good friends will tell you things you don't always want to hear because they want the best for you.
"xy group is lesser than human, and should be eradicated or subjicated." Saying that it does not exist does not make it any better. People should just accept everybody as equal, and don't fall into biases. That is never going to happen tho, but in that perfect world I would like free speech.
@@albertcastro3500 the definition of said thing is too subjective, and is determined not by recourse to questions of fact, but by recourse to de facto power.
You should do whether or not income tax or tariffs are good for the US economy or even any country. There’s been much debate around this and I would love to see AI properly debate this with all the facts out there disposal.
Only the ignorant fall for words. As the old saying goes "Think for yourself, Dont fall for words that have never held power to begin with." or " believe nothing you hear, or half of what you see"
I think the best counter to the hate speech argument in the public forum is the case of anonymous vs ISIS. ISIS promoted hate speech, and crossed multiple lines. Because their hate was visible, groups like anonymous took action and exposed the bad actors and worked with local authorities to combat litteral terrorism. The error with the AI vs AI is the assumption that people are like machines. That they learn solely based on the content they are fed online. The reality is that people are generally good people, with empathy, emotions, and a desire for social connection with one another. People are opposed to hate speech on an individual level. They can fall into the trap of hate when they lack a real connection with those being vilified.
If you truly believe that "people are generally good people" you have learned NOTHING from history. The outpouring of hate on social media and on MSM during the US presidential election exposed deep-seated hatred in the American public. On behalf of the American people, or more correctly American-style capitalism, the most aggressive in the capitalist world, the US government has suborned foreign politicians, assassinated foreign politicians, financed terrorists, undermined and overthrown foreign governments for having a different view of politics or a different view of American exploitation in their local foreign economy. These are verifiable facts that you are not taught in school, in college or university.
How do they choose which AI to argue on which side? Consistently, the blue lady always argues for the side I agree with. I would like to see the other way round sometimes
Yeah the blue lady is usually given the "correct" view. That may seem subjective, but given historical analysis we already know the correct answers to these questions.. Like the open border episode..
The only thing that I could possibly justify banning is threats, but even then some people try to argue that any arguing against them could be considered as a threat.
Depends if the you have an authoritarian leadership or not that many people in parliament where by power is divided to a large and diverse group of people whereby it becomes harder to take advantage of it.....or Maybe the political system of which you speak of is that effed up
Again a very good video. I have a bit the feeling it would be so good if all these videos would have options to watch it with other language subtitles. Im afghani and those videos would help so much if more people could understand the content.
once hate speech is illegal it becomes too easy to make ALL speech Illegal. Make the BIG words illegal and pretty soon its illegal to say "Fat" or "Stupid" or "Spaz" If you don't let us hate on blacks or gays YOU don't have permission to hate on Trump or MAGA HATE Speach MUST apply to ALL Hate not just hate upon minorities. That means no hate on EA games, No hate on broccoli no hate on ANY ONE THAT would be Tyranny.
It gets fun when you throw manipulation and bad actors into the mix. Suppose you did ban Hate Speech; Then you go and post some memes and trick some idiots into pushing the idea that [This-Word-You-Don't-Like] is now a racist slang. Now, that word can be banned and punished. You can make any topic Hateful by assuming that anything not of-that-topic is excluded. Math is Hate Speech because it upsets Stupid people. Grammar is Hate Speech, because it upsets illiterate people. Any rival political party is Hateful because it's Contrarian. Freedom is hateful, because Freedom can be used to justify violence. And just like that, you've outlawed every word, every religion, every thought that isn't working directly to your autocratic benefit.
Hate speech shouldn't be illegal but hate being spread is problem...let me explain...there is no prob in saying "fat" but when people start using words like "whale","elephant","hippo" to describe someone, there is an issue here...some people do get offended when being called fat..while others get away with calling others all types of things like "hippo" and that's just not okay...like let's be for real what kind of hater doesn't think that what they say is "okay"or"harmless" when it clearly shows Malintent.
@@Darlock8647 Comedy shows malicious intent, then? How do you decide what words are being used as substitute for cruelty? The problem with holding "Hate" in contempt, is that doing so requires you to assume the intent of every other person. And worse, it's blind to genuine hate, if that hate is more subtle or cerebral. Like the founder of Planned Parenthood literally wanting to put Black babies to death for sake of eugenics. They never said mean words, so their Hate is not only forgiven by the same people currently demanding censorship, but Margaret Sanger is often treated as a hero by the Left, despite being an actual racist. And that's not forgetting the double standards from the same people, that will denounce "Hate", but will literally walk up to people of differing ideology or opinion and proceed to flip tables, yank wires, shove, punch, scream in faces, and attempt to murder political leaders... in the name of "Tolerance". This is why Free Speech is important, because it is the only thing that balances out the disparity between the abusively powerful and the people who are actually oppressed. You can't regulate that shit away.
I feel like free speech should be regulated from hate in order for people to appropriately express themselves without the use of offensive language because in most instances, hate speech could be interpreted as so if it doesn't align with one's beleif system....or actually hate speech if it targets a group of people...what am trying to say is that in most cases it becomes a sensitive issue whereby the underlying cause is not addressed if hate is being perpetuated or if people are being censored.
If they regulate what is hate speech then it could go from “ you can’t say racist things” to just blinking could be considered hateful. It would be hard to say anything because literally anything you say could be considered hate speech. Like this one lady says that saying good morning is racist. Speech can’t be regulated if it’s subjective.
One little problem I have with this is that unlike humans Ai docent have an open mind. When humans debate we listen and change our oppions in the end but these Ai just completely ignore what each other say and talk in a vacuum.
People are not capable of understanding their own culture not to mind 500 others with all lies tying them in different ways to others. How do you control that? You can't.
That was a great debate. Noteworthy points on either side. Although I would have to say the dangers of restricting free speech far outweighs the struggles we face in light of it. There seems to be an inherent assumption from the AI advocating for regulation that the government would handle it very well, and also includes further teams and to to do…I think we’ve all seen time and time again how often (and predictably) government has misused power and resources.. great debate thanks for sharing.
No for 2 main reasons. 1: I want to hear people say what they genuinely believe so I can accurately judge on whether I am willing to interact and support them. 2: Hate is up to interpretation, any topic that can be considered uncomfortable can be labeled as hateful. Unfortunately most topics worth considering are uncomfortable.
This debate between the AI IMO was a draw What the free speech side should've mentioned is in nations where hate speech laws exist is there more tolerant views of minorities? I can look at India where it's illegal to deliberately with malicious intent attempt to out rage a religious minority. Yet we can see with Muslims getting killed by Hindu extremists and the leader of that nation being a Hindu nationalist saying inciteful rhetoric. If you don't like that example How about France where they consistently rank higher on the question would you not want to live with someone of a different race? Or in Germany where we see the right-wing party on the rise and many immigrants reporting more discrimination and less acceptance than their American counterparts? Or the Netherlands where we saw Jews being attacked and Palestinian flags being ripped apart. The truth is I don't think these laws make a more accepting society and that's what actually matters
Of course not. Because the "hate" is only regulated in one direction. It's biased, unfair treatment that puts certain groups on a pedestal over others, resulting in the "lesser" groups resenting the "greater" one.
The problem with this is that hate speech is subjective to individuals, and subject to psychopathic victimhood, such as we can see in modern era, where asking what do you bring to the table is treated as sexist
Hate speech is NOT speech that upsets you or makes you feel uncomfortable, hate speech is speech that arouses someone to physically attack you, possibly kill you for being "different". The failure to understand this ASPECT of hate speech is what allows it to continue unabated.
@Darlock8647 My personal belief is that the fact some words are regulated allows stigmas to be created, I personally believe that if everyone could say anything, the words overtimr would have less overall power due to not being offensive anymore, and would just be used as descriptive words, yet I agree with you, as there's too many bad actors in the world for my idea to even start
@5eyoshi I agree with you too... censoring certain words only when they are being used to describe someone inappropriately....like take for example the word "fat". being called that word isn't hate speech but when you're being called a "whale", that's not okay but that doesn't mean we should censor the word "whale" everytime..but only censor it when it's being used in appropriately. That's why I agree with free speech when the right people are representing their contradicting ideas.
Depends....the truth can viewed as hate speech from someone ignorant and sensitive while Malicious intent could be disguised as truth from clever and cunning people who can easily gaslight you into thinking that you're sensitive and ignorant..... Hate and hate speech is subjective if someone is ignorant enough
Year 2045: you may only use love speech. All negative people will be loved for a minimum of 8 months in a jail cell. To be released, you must say you loved it.
Do you mean hate speech that leads to physical action (i.e. physically harming someone based on what was said)? "The pen is mightier than the sword." Hate speech without any call for physical violence can also cause harm. Psychological harm should also not be allowed. If a person is constantly bombarded by social media posts, videos, news articles, etc. that their particular group is worthless, it can lead serious mental problems. Cyber bullying has lead many students and adults to seek suicide as an option, and this rate is rising in the USA.
@@tanvirrahman7339 Good thing we live in a society that demonizes such hateful behavior (unless the target is white, straight, not trans, male, or any combination) to the point where the social consequences can be just as bad or worse than hypothetical legal ones. And anti harassment laws and platform ToS exist to deal with cyberbullying. Nevermind the almighty Block Button and the even mightier "get off the computer". Twitter is not a real place.
Its an interesting video. However, you cant fix tolerance by fiat. The fact is clear, no amount of civility is without some conflict. Once you push the conflict into a legal system, you not only have to define everything unbiasedly, but the causes a social backlash. Anyone that interested in this and why it cant be a legal standard, should read about; the collapse of the third riche, the arab movement against isreal, the post empire era in china before the rise of communism, the tribal wars in southern Africa, the expansion of the holy roman empire, or the expanse of the mongel empire. They are some more easily digestable places to start. Your next level, than try the Pakistan-India conflict. That usually has so many factors its actually hard to track if you cant see them properly.
Tolerance is more common in societies that have a measure of equality in resources. Intolerance is more associated with societies that create a level of inequality that presents as a significant poverty-stricken segment.
@judewarner1536 Resources are jot defined by the people in any abstract way. Tolerance is not economically viable. The Holodomore is an example of what ethic groups being targeted looks like based on political ideology. The people have to accept a thing as being equal, nothing on paper will make that a fact. That's why reading the Gulage Archipelago opened my mind up to the fact, that people don't accept equality in economic systems. It's not realistic since buisness can change at any time, and the available resources are not attached to the idea of equality people accept.
@judewarner1536 That alone is an assumption. Tech is the largest indicator you're speaking of, yet that does not prove that tolerance is due to anything. The society accept differences that point towards a different understanding, and that is what tolerance is defined as. It is not an indication to define resources to show tolerance. Coal is not tolerant because it's used. The tolerance is accepting what happens as a result of using it. That is not equivalent tolerance. When in the most impoverished parts of the world, they accept people for their differences, so that idea of tolerance is from a bigoted stance. Money is not the end all of the world, so tying toleance to wealth is a classist view. It's not likely that if everyone made an identical wadge, the intolerant basis would vanish, and that is well known to be the case.
I've seen a few of these videos now, and I feel like I have placed a distinct personality over the orange and blue AI's based on frequent 'go-to' phrases. E.g. the Orange AI likes to point out 'the world is not that simple' pretty often and the AI tends to be hardline on the status quo
If you want to see “who decides what is hateful” just looks at Hong Kong, now when people criticize the government and the party are considered hate speech on the authority, you can go to prison because hate speech. And the double standard on hate speech ban enforcement on British government are well displayed how hate speech law fail.
The problem with the hate speech bot is that it’s speaking in ideals failing to take into consideration the human condition and biases humans have. As well multiple of its claims are more subjective then it likes to believe defining “hate” is subjective. “Vulnerable community” is subjective, “minority communities” get more privileged in this instance, and are always viewed as oppressed in the AI’s eyes. It’s overall an incredibly flawed worldview, and even more flawed framework.
Before watching it, I say that hate speech’s shouldn’t be illegal but you’ll face the consequences for doing hate speech but I’ll see if my mind changes after finishing the video
People are in prison in the UK for speech. Some for saying things that are factually accurate, but apparently hateful. Free speech is the only way forward.
Hate speech should never be illegal, at least not without a due process because people always have at least some bad days, and getting arrested just because of that could be so punitive. I think with communities having the right to say "Respect others in conversation, if you can't communicate without respecting others, at least give a good explanation so we can empathizise with your point of view, you have 1 day to think what you wanted to say and explain yourself clearly. If you still fail to do so, you'll get a warning, next 2 times the behaviour repeats, you're suspended until you ask for forgiveness and not do it again for 15 days (any apropriate period of time), if you've been suspended for 3 times in this way, you're automaticly expelled until one of our psycologist determined your mental health is good enough to be again part of us" is enough to regulate hate speech without compromising freedom of speech, if corruption hits the leaders of the community, you have plenty of time to think in a way to go against it
Speech that calls for violence is illegal (note: does not include calls for justice under the law such as calling for the death penalty for heinous crimes) Ai calling for hate regulation was just gaslighting us. 😂😂😂
The determining factor has to be who determines what is hateful and what is not. There is too much nuance and bias. I'd rather deal with someone who hates me in open debate than ban them!
please please please put disclaimers encouraging people to think for themselves and take this with extreme skepticism.. we're in such a delicate time with misinformation and people jumping to conclusions based on bais, this type of content will almost certainly cause people to trench themselves in whatever belief it is they already have. it will convince an insignificant number of people to actually have civil debate.
Red had more point than i expected but the ultimate clap bsck is "Who decied what is hate" You cant case by case evey phrase for every tone, situation and language. Its futile to try to police it effectively. The banned ograses list sbould be short and well known
"What good is a neat legal line if it leaves entire communities feeling unsafe and unwelcome in their own society?" Good argument against legal regulation, as any legal remedy has to be a neat clean legal standard. If you allow communities to police themselves then they can make more contextual decisions when things are blurry. This becomes especially true when one word or phrase is hate speech to another and the alternative is hate speech to the other group. This happened in the US back in the late 90's between African American and Black. African American implies African decent, and separates people out from being just plain American. Some found this othering harmful, while others felt that the official sounding term was a rational term while Black was unofficial and used as an othering tool by pointing out their skin color, a key visible difference. Both felt slighted at the other's term and there was contention on which was hate speech (back then called a slur) and which was the proper term. There was no national unity for this, and offense would be taken either way by different groups. This issue went away when everyone agreed to hate Muslims due to 9/11, but the point is that no term is universally bad or good, context matters.
The best point was "who decides what is hateful?" If whoever is in power can legislate speech than that becomes more oppressive than hate speech ever could.
I think the best argument is simply "why is it wrong to hate and to express said hatred in speech?" If someone told me they hated me for this that or whatever reason, maybe they have legitimate grievances against me. Maybe they are 100% right to hate me.
You shouldn't feel obligated by law to be inclusive and welcoming, especially because if you actually hate the person then your literally just playing pretend. I don't think anyone would object to someone saying, "I hate Nazii's", because it's not in any way controversial to hate them and its not an immutable characteristic, rather its beliefs. But plenty of things like religion are also a choice so why can't I hate all of their beliefs too? Why am I objectively wrong and should be legally pushed if I said, "The people in the Church of the flying spaghetti monster are stupid and their beliefs are stupid".
Mind you I picked an obviously silly one as an example to ensure it wasn't controversial but you could expand the point to others if you want like Scientology.
@@thatguy913 Gotta go with who decides what is hateful as being the better argument. When you read a lot of hate speech laws they talk about perceived offense or making others uncomfortable. The irony of that is that a lot of stuff that is "progressive" technically falls under that category because a lot of it purposefully goes against norms and is disruptive. It is the same thing as moral religious laws of the past, which likely would've banned this stuff.
The best point is the one not said. This debate only happened due to the existence of the idea of free speech even with those who support the idea of censorship are in power on some level. This shows that censorship is the more primitive idea and free speech is the superior one due to the fact that this conversation even occurred.
Clearly all of you need hate speech defined because it is when you target someone based off of prejudiced observations that they have no control over. Hating someone for something that is impossible to “fix”. Please go consult a legal document before you give your comment on it.
@thatguy913 good point. Should we not hate Hitler?
The answer is no, because the definition of "hate" is subjective.
Did you listen to the debate? The hate regulation advocate didn't say hate speech should include everything that is hateful, only specific speech that clearly advocates for violence or intimidates a group of people.
For example, if someone posts "All people in group X should be killed", then that is a clear example of speech that undeniably causes harm. All reasonable people would find that post hateful.
@@jackjohnson1072oy vey, the goyim knows. Shut it down
@@jackjohnson1072 and then I believe this starts the infinite chain of definition. What is considered violence or intimidates a group of people; who are considered people; etc. Ultimately, this is a subjective policy that is determined by who is in power. Worse, can be broadened to the point of censoring any anti-party speech in general because of its entirely subjective nature. I feel that at best, it would be an informal rule, that would raise more eyebrows when broken in the eyes of certain parties.
@@jackjohnson1072 yes but that is threat, advocating and saying we should cause harm to people. Which is not protected under free speech. We are talking about opinions that other people have, which are protected under free speech, even though it is bad. The government can’t do anything about it, but the people can and make sure things like that don’t show up anymore by teaching the next generation not to do that. Also tell me, who would draw the line between hateful and ok speech. If you disagree with someone then they could say your being hateful, as we see with debates about lgbtq or abortion. This creates an avenue for dictatorships and political censorship to form, which is dangerous for the values of democracy and republics that we hold so dearly.
@@jackjohnson1072 yes but that is threat, advocating and saying we should cause harm to people. Which is not protected under free speech. We are talking about opinions that other people have, which are protected under free speech, even though it is bad. The government can’t do anything about it, but the people can and make sure things like that don’t show up anymore by teaching the next generation not to do that. Also tell me, who would draw the line between hateful and ok speech. If you disagree with someone then they could say your being hateful, as we see with debates about lgbtq or abortion. This creates an avenue for dictatorships and political censorship to form, which is dangerous for the values of democracy and republics that we hold so dearly. This also can make certain topics impossible to discuss, and when debate and discussion stop, it leads to inbred resentment that comes out in the form of true violence.
One argument against hate speech laws ive heard is rather interesting; basically the idea is they'd rather know they are a hateful person than not know.
Because if you make something hate speech, that essentially makes it a topic that is illegal to discuss, and therefore a topic that is illegal to argue about.
You can still argue and talk about pejudice even if hate speech is illegal. Also even if you couldn't you would still know if someone is a hateful in the exact same ways as if it wasn't illegal. This particular argument doesnt follow from the premise. When homosexuality was illegal that didn't make it any easier or harder to tell if someone was guy either way you pretty much rely on: either someone telling you; or vague context clues regardless of what the law is.
@@GhostEmblem How can someone tell you if its *illegal to tell you?*
That's the entire like concept here, its illegal to say certain things.
And the alternative is... going off assumptions? That's wonderful. People assume other people are gay wrongly all the time.
@@GhostEmblem The entire point is that if its hate speech to say something *they cant tell you.* And your alternative is making assumptions? Vague context clues arent really a good way to judge people, this should be obvious.
@@GhostEmblem
If being gay is illegal, then you can't tell beyond assumptions because the gay people are actively hiding their identities. As opposed to now where homosexuality is a protected class and you have people being openly so, sometimes TOO open. Like, holding parades of dudes in wack ass clothes when they're actually wearing some.
Also, if you wouldn’t want your enemies legislating speech, don’t set up the mechanisms to make it possible.
I think that both sides had good points. But I have to give the debate to the free speech side because I have seen “anti-hate speech” legislation used to persecute religious groups.
Agreed it could be used to persecute literally anyone. “Hate” is subjective since it’s based on emotion.
I've seen how religious groups under the guise of moral authority, have actively promoted hatred and intolerance toward certain groups or individuals. That leading to devastating consequences, including people so ostracized and dehumanized that they see no alternative but to end their own lives.
Unchecked prejudice, even when cloaked in religious doctrine, can directly contribute to tragic outcomes and the loss of innocent lives.
@@ivaniux8450so 2 wrongs make a right?
@@ivaniux8450so 2 wrongs make a right? As long as it's the government under the guise of morality pushing intolerance that you agree with it's fine?
@@ivaniux8450
That's not the point being discussed. Also that's a generalization. You shouldn't base your opinions on logical fallacies. Do you think speech should be controlled?
Who decides what hate speech is? And censoring it gives it more power.
Orange-AI appealed multiple times to "independent judges," and Blue-AI missed an opportunity to shut this argument down. There is no such thing as an independent judge because every judge is a member of certain groups subject to bias. A law banning hate-speech can be wielded like a weapon by anyone who's job it is to interpret and enforce the law, giving them power to unjustly subject any dissenters. I will repeat: there is no such thing as an independent judge who perfectly and objectively upholds the spirit of the law.
Yeah, the "civil watch-dog groups" should also have been a massive red flag for blue AI to call out. The SPLC is probably the best known one of these groups in the US, and they are horrendously biased. It's well known that the SPLC will label any group or person right of center as "hateful" with little to no evidence but drag their feet on labeling leftwing groups hateful even after federal agencies categorize those groups as terrorist organizations.
Exactly. Whether your religious or not, this is actually why the law and foundational culture of the west is predicated on the appeal to god or Christian ethics.
God is the unquestionable source which holds the people together. When god isn't in the picture, it becomes a subjective chaotic mess where everyone is right in their own way, even if two people share completely opposing principles.
This is what nietzsche meant by "god is dead, and we killed him" and then worried about what would fill the void when humanity is left to its own devices and what they would replace god with.
3:08 Slippery Slope fallacy.
4:00 Strawman.
The blue one isn’t exactly a good debater, either.
@@lmao9692 The slippery slope isn't always a fallacy though
@ In this case, it is.
Short answer: No.
Longer answer: With the exception of threats and calls to violence, no speech should ever be policed.
This was a supreme court case
@@jonahallcorn The statistics don’t lie, man. We’ve seen increases to violence against minority groups as hate speech against them becomes more mainstream. You cannot simply doubt that it is dangerous. Nazis were propagandized into believing that harming their fellow man was the right thing to do. They were taught to think of Jewish people as non-human. It is speech that converted their minds into believing this.
The argument should not be about whether or not we should make hate speech something with legal consequences, but rather a discussion on the reform of our justice system, and a debate on how we can determine what is and isn’t considered hate speech. We can easily and definitively determine it to protect most groups, and unless you are spouting slurs, there is no reason to believe selfishly in this act.
Hate speech is tricky. You’re taught to believe in freedom of speech, but freedom is impossible. Not for everyone. If you are free to verbally oppress any group you want to, then that group is not free to partake in many of the activities of otherwise accepting groups of people.
Agreed
Online threats should be fine tho
There are many other exceptions but it's harder to identify them with some people becoming seriously crafty with hiding malicious intent in there speech
One point that I think blue missed. Using government force to punish the utterance of opinions or criticism of a group can lead to the creation or growth of resentment and prejudice. The person who receives sanction for their speech would likely blame the group that the speech was directed towards and may feel as if they're being persecuted by that group.Hate speech laws essentially puts a lid over the issue it doesn't prevent the hate itself from building up and boiling over, infact it encourages it.
I think that's true for a lot of things. I know a lot of people that grew up colour blind, and were never racist, but now that certain ethnicities are given benefits over others, it creates racism, the exact opposite of what those enforcing these things claim to be fighting.
Exactly. That's some good Marxian thinking.
Blue is missing reality. It describes a perfect world which does not exist.
@@ANDR0iD Not rlly. Why do you say that?
@@willow1698 It stated multiple times and through different arguments that we need to work towards a better society. If this better society existed it would be right. In our real and ugly world, it is wrong.
Both sides have good arguments, however I have to side with free speech. Hate regulation mainly seems like a good idea if you're the one calling the shots, however you will likely not have control over what constitutes hate speech and how far that regulation will go. In my opinion the real problem here is regulation. Regulating things is hard and without dissenting voices, we will lose touch with reality.
I tend to be a free speech absolutist too, but what should be regulated is misinformation. Social media platforms also have the right to crack down on certain content.
@@joseaguirre744 That's already been proven to spread lies and hide the truth by labeling it as "misinformation".
@@joseaguirre744 Then thats not absolutist free speech. I'm the opposite, I believe any space that you should be able to exchange any idea, and thought freely.
who's to judge misinformation, when in the past 5 years its displayed that is what all Gov and media displays. Unless there is triple consequence for them, there shouldn't be any for the public.
@@GatlingHawk yeah but bots, governments, and corporations would flood the system. The area of the people’s internet is dead. misleading and lying can still get you sued for defamation
this goes for a lot of other things too, like guns -- once the regulation starts, when does it stop? Until the only firearms we're allowed to own are homemade single shot muskets like in Taiwan?
Some comments are dividing this into liberal vs conservative but I don't think it matters whether you're liberal or conservative on this topic. I'm very liberal for the most part but 100% in favor of free speech. I don't even like that judges can censor people in court rooms. Don't think it will help someone's case but I think a defendent should be able to say "f*ck you" without being held in contempt and thrown in jail because the judges feelings are hurt.
Thoughts?
Being impolite can get you fined or sent to jail? That would make a little sense if the person is making the trial take an unnecessary amount of time. But if it's just an insult...
"f you" is not hate speech. I'm a liberal, and I would like free speech if we lived in a perfect society. In this real and ugly one we should not allow hate speech.
@@ANDR0iDno in a perfect world we could regulate hate speech but in this reality human nature will always manipulate and abuse control and authority
I agree, I’m a conservative person but some things I lean left with. Free speech and it’s debate or conversation stems deeper than political affiliation. I think one problem is, that radicals on both sides don’t care what the pro and cons are about something if the party advocates or denies something. The radicals will just follow their party because that’s their party.
In the 1970's, the conservatives wanted to censor immoral and pornographic speech. It was the liberals who defended free speech, partially via the ACLU. But now it is the conservatives who champion freedom of political speech, and the left which promotes hate speech laws. Liberal used to mean, championing individual liberty. And freedom of speech is an essential individual liberty. We Libertarians and Classical Liberals have been consistently in favor of free speech for centuries.
The problem with hate speech laws is that the people who end up determining what is legal and illegal to say are always the people you least want in that position.
The topic of Censorship
The Hate Regulation side ignores the counter hate speech which becomes protected speech, ie, some groups can have hate apeech at them because they are not the preferred groups. I love how both sides avoid the current anti-men, anti-Christian, and anti-white environments that exist. The "debate" cannot acknowledge current direct issues because of censorship within these models.
Great vid again! However, personally I like when your vids have small sections with the AI judges judging each section of the conversation.
Hey Jon! Please do a behind-the-scenes video! I'm curious how these are conducted.
In America we have Free Speech. This is clarified in our First Amendment. The Bill of Rights are not given to us by our Government but were identified by our Founding Fathers as things that are inherent rights and not something bestowed on us by other people. That being said, Free Speech is exactly what it says. Either you have the right to speak freely or the Government has power over you limiting what you think and say aloud. Any governmental variation of control however well meaning is just that , removing our rights to speak freely.
The Fathers never intended their government to be perfect. They saw problems with the rule they were under, and crafted what they believed to be a better system. They intended for the law to be designed so problems in it could be addressed and fixed.
As a professional hater. I agree that speech should be regulated under direct threats and extremist statements. I think it's important to state your opinion and to find an audience who both agrees and disagrees to argue from an educational standpoint whether you are right or simply insecure and in doing so you find both cultural ethic and deep rooted understandings
I'd agree with direct threats (as most of the time this is already considered potential for a crime) - but extremist groups might be a bit too subjective.
I have a feeling they'd just ban all opposing political ideology as "extremist"
@@BickleyLTOexactly. Calling the opposition extremists, hateful, dangerous etc. has been a political tactic since forever.
you really used chatgpt
A.i talks about countries with hate speech laws arent dictatorships. while are slowly and actively becoming that. people are going to jail for memes, or pointing out issues with government or cultural groups within their own or other
The fact that you had to add a trigger warning for a debate of ideas is Ludacris
The warning is obviously a joke. Otherwise this post was made by a lunatic and would never post decent to hate speech.
The best way to counter hate is with love, not laws. Give a good argument or reason for hateful people to appreciate you, not cry to big daddy government to punish people saying mean words. It'll only make them hate you more.
The prob with that is that a lot of people don't respond to love with love and it becomes harder to address issues when the plain field is not evened out since u'll find people using their harmful rhetoric on you as you try your best to spread love.
Hate speech should not be illegal. Advocating for the commission of a crime is illegal. Who gets to decide what is hate speech is a big problem. It just takes one tyrant to shut down actual debate by labeling at hate speech.
If we can define hate speech as speech that deliberately encourages physical violence against someone or a group then yeah i guess
What if the speech isn't intended to encourage physical violence by the one that says it, but is interpreted by others as being violently encouraging? If someone cheers, "Fight! Fight! Fight!" at a rally, who decides whether that's them speaking metaphorically of the pursuit of a cause, or literally to injure and murder people? When someone says they'll put another person in "The Crosshairs", is that a statement of threat?
"And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere." What about that? Is that encouragement to violence? How do you decide?
Huge problem with hate speech being controlled is that wishing pedophiles would have something bad to them becomes a form of hate speech even though these people did an unforgivable action against another human being.
@@SpeedUpThatComputer That’s a.. Slippery Slope fallacy. Simply put, we can word a law in such a way that it excludes them.
So let’s consider this:
When engaging in speech that does all 3 of the following:
1. Targets a wide-sweeping audience consisting of an entire group of people, or calls upon that audience in negative light.
2. Targets a feature that the recipient has little to no control over, such as height, race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, or sexuality.
3. Targets a group that inherently does not wholly cause harm to others by their nature.
If you can find a work-around or an issue with this proposal, please let me know. We can find a solution that will satisfy everyone aside from extremists.
Was strange that blue basically accepted red's topicality and still produced a draw.
Here's a problem with illegalizing hate speech, I say something with good intentions like a compliment or a warning to they way they live but the person takes it as hate. Good friends will tell you things you don't always want to hear because they want the best for you.
There's no such thing as hate speech.
what do you mean by that
There's no such thing as illegal hate speech.
"xy group is lesser than human, and should be eradicated or subjicated." Saying that it does not exist does not make it any better. People should just accept everybody as equal, and don't fall into biases. That is never going to happen tho, but in that perfect world I would like free speech.
Hate speech is a thing , question is should it be illigal
@@albertcastro3500 the definition of said thing is too subjective, and is determined not by recourse to questions of fact, but by recourse to de facto power.
A debate about Biblical Old Earth and Biblical Young earth please!
They are both fairy tales
@MAGNETO-i1i Uh no, Only one of them is not true
@@_Helix_Nebulous there are no proof of any of them
@@_Helix_Nebulous What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
Grab a science book once in your lifetime ffs
You should do whether or not income tax or tariffs are good for the US economy or even any country. There’s been much debate around this and I would love to see AI properly debate this with all the facts out there disposal.
We're about to see the results in real life
@ yea lol
Those who are deaf are immune to hate speech.
Silencing speech leads to physical violence, people will not be silenced, that’s the whole point of speech. If an idea is wrong it can be debated.
Yes! Rednecks are brilliant at debate.
Only the ignorant fall for words. As the old saying goes "Think for yourself, Dont fall for words that have never held power to begin with." or " believe nothing you hear, or half of what you see"
I think the best counter to the hate speech argument in the public forum is the case of anonymous vs ISIS.
ISIS promoted hate speech, and crossed multiple lines. Because their hate was visible, groups like anonymous took action and exposed the bad actors and worked with local authorities to combat litteral terrorism.
The error with the AI vs AI is the assumption that people are like machines. That they learn solely based on the content they are fed online.
The reality is that people are generally good people, with empathy, emotions, and a desire for social connection with one another. People are opposed to hate speech on an individual level. They can fall into the trap of hate when they lack a real connection with those being vilified.
If you truly believe that "people are generally good people" you have learned NOTHING from history. The outpouring of hate on social media and on MSM during the US presidential election exposed deep-seated hatred in the American public.
On behalf of the American people, or more correctly American-style capitalism, the most aggressive in the capitalist world, the US government has suborned foreign politicians, assassinated foreign politicians, financed terrorists, undermined and overthrown foreign governments for having a different view of politics or a different view of American exploitation in their local foreign economy. These are verifiable facts that you are not taught in school, in college or university.
The Biggest question is not is hate speech legal or illegal but who defines what hate speech is and if they can use that power to attack other speech.
Or you could just have freedom of speech and not have to worry about crazy tyrannical things like that
We shoukd get rid of all scammers, though.
These videos are extremely enlightening I've shared them with all my friends. I've seen them all. Great work
I'm for free speech so free speech won
How do they choose which AI to argue on which side? Consistently, the blue lady always argues for the side I agree with.
I would like to see the other way round sometimes
She always argues for the side you agree with? That might change soon.
Maybe the blue lady defends the idea of her programmer who has similiar ideas and beliefs with you. Just a possibility.
Yeah the blue lady is usually given the "correct" view. That may seem subjective, but given historical analysis we already know the correct answers to these questions..
Like the open border episode..
Historically, control speech is much more dangerous than hate speech
How about hate regulated speach
The only thing that I could possibly justify banning is threats, but even then some people try to argue that any arguing against them could be considered as a threat.
The ones with the power can define hate speech any unscrupulous way they want
Depends if the you have an authoritarian leadership or not that many people in parliament where by power is divided to a large and diverse group of people whereby it becomes harder to take advantage of it.....or Maybe the political system of which you speak of is that effed up
Banning something makes it more popular look at prohibition and the war on drugs.
Again a very good video. I have a bit the feeling it would be so good if all these videos would have options to watch it with other language subtitles. Im afghani and those videos would help so much if more people could understand the content.
.
I’m working on that feature… hopefully in the new year. Thanks for the note
once hate speech is illegal it becomes too easy to make ALL speech Illegal. Make the BIG words illegal and pretty soon its illegal to say "Fat" or "Stupid" or "Spaz" If you don't let us hate on blacks or gays YOU don't have permission to hate on Trump or MAGA HATE Speach MUST apply to ALL Hate not just hate upon minorities. That means no hate on EA games, No hate on broccoli no hate on ANY ONE
THAT would be Tyranny.
It gets fun when you throw manipulation and bad actors into the mix. Suppose you did ban Hate Speech; Then you go and post some memes and trick some idiots into pushing the idea that [This-Word-You-Don't-Like] is now a racist slang. Now, that word can be banned and punished. You can make any topic Hateful by assuming that anything not of-that-topic is excluded. Math is Hate Speech because it upsets Stupid people. Grammar is Hate Speech, because it upsets illiterate people. Any rival political party is Hateful because it's Contrarian. Freedom is hateful, because Freedom can be used to justify violence. And just like that, you've outlawed every word, every religion, every thought that isn't working directly to your autocratic benefit.
Hate speech shouldn't be illegal but hate being spread is problem...let me explain...there is no prob in saying "fat" but when people start using words like "whale","elephant","hippo" to describe someone, there is an issue here...some people do get offended when being called fat..while others get away with calling others all types of things like "hippo" and that's just not okay...like let's be for real what kind of hater doesn't think that what they say is "okay"or"harmless" when it clearly shows Malintent.
@@Darlock8647
Comedy shows malicious intent, then? How do you decide what words are being used as substitute for cruelty? The problem with holding "Hate" in contempt, is that doing so requires you to assume the intent of every other person. And worse, it's blind to genuine hate, if that hate is more subtle or cerebral. Like the founder of Planned Parenthood literally wanting to put Black babies to death for sake of eugenics. They never said mean words, so their Hate is not only forgiven by the same people currently demanding censorship, but Margaret Sanger is often treated as a hero by the Left, despite being an actual racist.
And that's not forgetting the double standards from the same people, that will denounce "Hate", but will literally walk up to people of differing ideology or opinion and proceed to flip tables, yank wires, shove, punch, scream in faces, and attempt to murder political leaders... in the name of "Tolerance".
This is why Free Speech is important, because it is the only thing that balances out the disparity between the abusively powerful and the people who are actually oppressed. You can't regulate that shit away.
I feel like free speech should be regulated from hate in order for people to appropriately express themselves without the use of offensive language because in most instances, hate speech could be interpreted as so if it doesn't align with one's beleif system....or actually hate speech if it targets a group of people...what am trying to say is that in most cases it becomes a sensitive issue whereby the underlying cause is not addressed if hate is being perpetuated or if people are being censored.
If they regulate what is hate speech then it could go from “ you can’t say racist things” to just blinking could be considered hateful. It would be hard to say anything because literally anything you say could be considered hate speech. Like this one lady says that saying good morning is racist. Speech can’t be regulated if it’s subjective.
Request: Have the AIs debate Pascal's wager. Specifically, not whether it's "true", but which side of the bet is better
One little problem I have with this is that unlike humans Ai docent have an open mind. When humans debate we listen and change our oppions in the end but these Ai just completely ignore what each other say and talk in a vacuum.
These ai debates are better than most on UA-cam
People are not capable of understanding their own culture not to mind 500 others with all lies tying them in different ways to others. How do you control that? You can't.
That was a great debate. Noteworthy points on either side. Although I would have to say the dangers of restricting free speech far outweighs the struggles we face in light of it. There seems to be an inherent assumption from the AI advocating for regulation that the government would handle it very well, and also includes further teams and to to do…I think we’ve all seen time and time again how often (and predictably) government has misused power and resources.. great debate thanks for sharing.
Another great video.
I would be interested in knowing what prompts you use to make these debates and AI panels. For my own research. :)
These AI debates always help put me to sleep
Hate speech doesnt exist. Only speech you hate. And the speech you hate, I dont. Your feelings or opinions do not supercede mine.
No for 2 main reasons.
1: I want to hear people say what they genuinely believe so I can accurately judge on whether I am willing to interact and support them.
2: Hate is up to interpretation, any topic that can be considered uncomfortable can be labeled as hateful. Unfortunately most topics worth considering are uncomfortable.
This debate between the AI IMO was a draw
What the free speech side should've mentioned is in nations where hate speech laws exist is there more tolerant views of minorities?
I can look at India where it's illegal to deliberately with malicious intent attempt to out rage a religious minority.
Yet we can see with Muslims getting killed by Hindu extremists and the leader of that nation being a Hindu nationalist saying inciteful rhetoric.
If you don't like that example
How about France where they consistently rank higher on the question would you not want to live with someone of a different race?
Or in Germany where we see the right-wing party on the rise and many immigrants reporting more discrimination and less acceptance than their American counterparts?
Or the Netherlands where we saw Jews being attacked and Palestinian flags being ripped apart.
The truth is I don't think these laws make a more accepting society and that's what actually matters
Of course not. Because the "hate" is only regulated in one direction. It's biased, unfair treatment that puts certain groups on a pedestal over others, resulting in the "lesser" groups resenting the "greater" one.
If Jews never existed, then this debate would never have existed.
truthnuke
No you forgot the trans people.
@@duanemansel5704 they are the jews
@@duanemansel5704 The whole LGBTQ community is covered in the comment. I did not forget anything.
No. No bans on thoughts or speech only actions
The problem with this is that hate speech is subjective to individuals, and subject to psychopathic victimhood, such as we can see in modern era, where asking what do you bring to the table is treated as sexist
can not have free speech if you dont have hate speech. if words hurt you then your just in the wrong room
Hate speech is NOT speech that upsets you or makes you feel uncomfortable, hate speech is speech that arouses someone to physically attack you, possibly kill you for being "different". The failure to understand this ASPECT of hate speech is what allows it to continue unabated.
FREE SPEECH SHOULD BE ALLOWED!!!
Agreed but regulated in a way really bad people use it to their advantage.
@Darlock8647 My personal belief is that the fact some words are regulated allows stigmas to be created, I personally believe that if everyone could say anything, the words overtimr would have less overall power due to not being offensive anymore, and would just be used as descriptive words, yet I agree with you, as there's too many bad actors in the world for my idea to even start
@5eyoshi I agree with you too... censoring certain words only when they are being used to describe someone inappropriately....like take for example the word "fat". being called that word isn't hate speech but when you're being called a "whale", that's not okay but that doesn't mean we should censor the word "whale" everytime..but only censor it when it's being used in appropriately. That's why I agree with free speech when the right people are representing their contradicting ideas.
I didn't skip ahead but I did immediately open the comments heh
Kind speech that everyone agrees on doesn't need protection.
And the winner is education! Both mentioned the importance of education in combating hate speech.
I don't think the time limit improved the debate. The AI debaters are already respectful enough without that additional restraint.
The question is: who gets to define “hate speech”? Many comments considered “hate speech” today were/was not “hate speech” 25 years ago. What changed?
Someone please program these AI to realize that empathy is a myth.
there is no such thing as hate speech- only speech
Ughhh THANK YOU it’s like everyone has lost their sanity
Depends....the truth can viewed as hate speech from someone ignorant and sensitive while Malicious intent could be disguised as truth from clever and cunning people who can easily gaslight you into thinking that you're sensitive and ignorant..... Hate and hate speech is subjective if someone is ignorant enough
@@Darlock8647 you don’t understand
@@merlyonwilcoe1006 elaborate
Year 2045: you may only use love speech. All negative people will be loved for a minimum of 8 months in a jail cell. To be released, you must say you loved it.
Look at Germany and England
Can you do one on gun control next?
How do these works? Can you provide a tutorial or form ? I want to make these with my own questions
If hate speech leads to violence I can understand wanting to ban it, that's the only reason I can think of though.
Do you mean hate speech that leads to physical action (i.e. physically harming someone based on what was said)?
"The pen is mightier than the sword."
Hate speech without any call for physical violence can also cause harm. Psychological harm should also not be allowed.
If a person is constantly bombarded by social media posts, videos, news articles, etc. that their particular group is worthless, it can lead serious mental problems.
Cyber bullying has lead many students and adults to seek suicide as an option, and this rate is rising in the USA.
The removal of free speech has a higher potential for death
@@tanvirrahman7339
Good thing we live in a society that demonizes such hateful behavior (unless the target is white, straight, not trans, male, or any combination) to the point where the social consequences can be just as bad or worse than hypothetical legal ones. And anti harassment laws and platform ToS exist to deal with cyberbullying. Nevermind the almighty Block Button and the even mightier "get off the computer". Twitter is not a real place.
Its an interesting video. However, you cant fix tolerance by fiat. The fact is clear, no amount of civility is without some conflict. Once you push the conflict into a legal system, you not only have to define everything unbiasedly, but the causes a social backlash. Anyone that interested in this and why it cant be a legal standard, should read about; the collapse of the third riche, the arab movement against isreal, the post empire era in china before the rise of communism, the tribal wars in southern Africa, the expansion of the holy roman empire, or the expanse of the mongel empire. They are some more easily digestable places to start. Your next level, than try the Pakistan-India conflict. That usually has so many factors its actually hard to track if you cant see them properly.
Tolerance is more common in societies that have a measure of equality in resources. Intolerance is more associated with societies that create a level of inequality that presents as a significant poverty-stricken segment.
@judewarner1536 Resources are jot defined by the people in any abstract way. Tolerance is not economically viable. The Holodomore is an example of what ethic groups being targeted looks like based on political ideology. The people have to accept a thing as being equal, nothing on paper will make that a fact. That's why reading the Gulage Archipelago opened my mind up to the fact, that people don't accept equality in economic systems. It's not realistic since buisness can change at any time, and the available resources are not attached to the idea of equality people accept.
@judewarner1536 That alone is an assumption. Tech is the largest indicator you're speaking of, yet that does not prove that tolerance is due to anything. The society accept differences that point towards a different understanding, and that is what tolerance is defined as. It is not an indication to define resources to show tolerance. Coal is not tolerant because it's used. The tolerance is accepting what happens as a result of using it. That is not equivalent tolerance. When in the most impoverished parts of the world, they accept people for their differences, so that idea of tolerance is from a bigoted stance. Money is not the end all of the world, so tying toleance to wealth is a classist view. It's not likely that if everyone made an identical wadge, the intolerant basis would vanish, and that is well known to be the case.
I have never disagreed with the blue girl
How do you do this? Do you have a tutorial somewhere?
I've seen a few of these videos now, and I feel like I have placed a distinct personality over the orange and blue AI's based on frequent 'go-to' phrases. E.g. the Orange AI likes to point out 'the world is not that simple' pretty often and the AI tends to be hardline on the status quo
If you want to see “who decides what is hateful” just looks at Hong Kong, now when people criticize the government and the party are considered hate speech on the authority, you can go to prison because hate speech. And the double standard on hate speech ban enforcement on British government are well displayed how hate speech law fail.
The problem with the hate speech bot is that it’s speaking in ideals failing to take into consideration the human condition and biases humans have.
As well multiple of its claims are more subjective then it likes to believe defining “hate” is subjective. “Vulnerable community” is subjective, “minority communities” get more privileged in this instance, and are always viewed as oppressed in the AI’s eyes. It’s overall an incredibly flawed worldview, and even more flawed framework.
What can be hateful for one person can be fine for everyone else. Hate speech is too subjective to control.
Before watching it, I say that hate speech’s shouldn’t be illegal but you’ll face the consequences for doing hate speech but I’ll see if my mind changes after finishing the video
1:01 and these words slowly turn into weapons
Where did you get the AI?
People are in prison in the UK for speech. Some for saying things that are factually accurate, but apparently hateful. Free speech is the only way forward.
Hate speech should never be illegal, at least not without a due process because people always have at least some bad days, and getting arrested just because of that could be so punitive.
I think with communities having the right to say "Respect others in conversation, if you can't communicate without respecting others, at least give a good explanation so we can empathizise with your point of view, you have 1 day to think what you wanted to say and explain yourself clearly. If you still fail to do so, you'll get a warning, next 2 times the behaviour repeats, you're suspended until you ask for forgiveness and not do it again for 15 days (any apropriate period of time), if you've been suspended for 3 times in this way, you're automaticly expelled until one of our psycologist determined your mental health is good enough to be again part of us" is enough to regulate hate speech without compromising freedom of speech, if corruption hits the leaders of the community, you have plenty of time to think in a way to go against it
The debate wasn't a Draw, the judging panel is too ball strangled to make an actual judgement.
Speech that calls for violence is illegal (note: does not include calls for justice under the law such as calling for the death penalty for heinous crimes)
Ai calling for hate regulation was just gaslighting us.
😂😂😂
Laws are supposed to reflect the will of the people, not impose its will on the people.
The determining factor has to be who determines what is hateful and what is not. There is too much nuance and bias. I'd rather deal with someone who hates me in open debate than ban them!
The problem with hate speech is who decides what is hate speech?
please please please put disclaimers encouraging people to think for themselves and take this with extreme skepticism.. we're in such a delicate time with misinformation and people jumping to conclusions based on bais, this type of content will almost certainly cause people to trench themselves in whatever belief it is they already have. it will convince an insignificant number of people to actually have civil debate.
this is what ai should be used for not creating art and stealing the voices of people
Ai is used for everything my dude, if you’re scared of it then maybe you should go hide
How do you think the ai speech in this video works lol.
Never
No. Stupid speech should be illegal. If so, social media would vanish.
Do gender equality debate
Honestly, I don't even know where I stand on this
You need to stay out of politics.
You should do a video on lowering the voting age
Debating abt hate speech without any hate speech? Just doesn't sound right
Red had more point than i expected but the ultimate clap bsck is "Who decied what is hate" You cant case by case evey phrase for every tone, situation and language. Its futile to try to police it effectively. The banned ograses list sbould be short and well known
Can we have a Protestantism vs Catholicism debate?
"What good is a neat legal line if it leaves entire communities feeling unsafe and unwelcome in their own society?"
Good argument against legal regulation, as any legal remedy has to be a neat clean legal standard. If you allow communities to police themselves then they can make more contextual decisions when things are blurry. This becomes especially true when one word or phrase is hate speech to another and the alternative is hate speech to the other group. This happened in the US back in the late 90's between African American and Black. African American implies African decent, and separates people out from being just plain American. Some found this othering harmful, while others felt that the official sounding term was a rational term while Black was unofficial and used as an othering tool by pointing out their skin color, a key visible difference. Both felt slighted at the other's term and there was contention on which was hate speech (back then called a slur) and which was the proper term. There was no national unity for this, and offense would be taken either way by different groups. This issue went away when everyone agreed to hate Muslims due to 9/11, but the point is that no term is universally bad or good, context matters.