The examples from before are actual examples.
The vagueness of the laws makes them examples of people arrested for opposing immigration, rather than people arrested for hate speech only.
Jiro
Karma: 4,250
And, I repeat, you’ve shifted the goalposts (from “people are prosecuted for objecting to immigration” to “people could be prosecuted for objecting to immigration”)
Those two things are connected.
The fact that the laws are broad enough that they could be used to prosecute almost anyone opposed to immigration implies that, for the subset of people who are prosecuted, “violated the law” is an excuse and “arrested for opposing immigration” is what’s actually going on.
Suppose there’s some drug, let’s call it cake, that 51% of people use.
If most people use cake, but aren’t arrested for it, then it’s entirely plausible that the people who get arrested “for using cake” are really being arrested for some other reason with cake as the excuse.
Governments love to do this—create laws that lots of people violate, and selectively prosecute when politically expedient.
I suspect I’ve been nerdsniped by a wrong question somehow.
“What if X happened?” means “what if X happened, and the set of things I can and do think of when analyzing events in the implied context otherwise stayed the same?” This set doesn’t include a complete causal chain (and, since you’re a finite human, couldn’t possibly do so.)
“What if quantum computers could solve P-=NP?” doesn’t mean you should consider the effect that quantum computers have on other things because when you think about those other things your chain of reasoning normally won’t go all the way back to the relevant math and physics.
You could choose to go back to math and physics anyway, but by doing so you are misreading the question—the question implies “only go back as far as you normally would go.” You could also say “well, the implied context is ‘make deductions about math and physics’”, in which case yeah, it’s a good objection, but you may not be very good at reading implied contexts.
Suppose I say “these days there’s so much racism that you can get arrested for being black”. You express some slight skepticism about this. I present five examples of black people getting arrested. You point out that they were arrested for assault, tax fraud, libel, and theft. I say “A subset of them arrested is still people being arrested”.
I’d respond “is assault defined in such a way that it can be used against most black people, and it just isn’t because of government whim? If so, then being arrested for assault could be described as being arrested for being black.”
Of course, you would answer “no, assault isn’t defined that way”. Then I’d say that since assault has a narrow definition, a black person who’s arrested for assault was arrested specifically for assault, not arrested for being black with assault as the excuse.
Needless to say, I’d answer the corresponding question differently for hate speech.
What you originally said is that people are being prosecuted for objecting to immigration.
They are. A subset of them prosecuted is still people being prosecuted. Using “hate speech” as an excuse to prosecute them doesn’t mean it doesn’t count, since “hate speech” is so broad it can apply to anyone.
As for the weaker claim you are making now: it may well be true that laws around “hate speech” are too vague and too broad.
The original claim is directly related to the “weaker” claim, because if “hate speech” is broad, prosecuting them for it is just an excuse for prosecuting them for something else; they’re really being prosecuted because they don’t like immigration.
I invite you to show me a law valid in (let’s say) the UK, France, or Germany, that makes it a criminal offence for someone to say, for instance..
But that waters down the previous statement. It no longer claims that immigrants have high crime rates, and uses the vague term “stable”. If you were asked to clarify and you said “by stable I mean low crime, since immigrants are disproportionately criminals”, that’s still hate speech.
(And of course the government could say “he said ‘stable’, but that’s a dogwhistle for ‘high crime’. Illegal hate speech.”)
But here are a few other concrete examples of people saying anti-immigration things without being prosecuted.
That’s not what I asked for. What I asked for was
in a way which can’t easily be painted as ‘hate speech’,
And there’s a reason why. “Hate speech” censorship works by having vague, broad, rules that let the governments censor anything they want related to the subject. The fact that the government hasn’t actually chosen to use this unlimited discretion all the time, yet, doesn’t mean that they don’t have it.
Are you claiming that not only were those statements not prosecuted as hate speech, but they can’t be prosecuted as hate speech?
for instance, in 2020-09 he said that Pakistani immigrants to France “have nothing to do here. They are thieves, they are murderers, they are rapists, that’s all they are. They must be sent back and they must not even come”. It seems to me that there’s a pretty clear difference between that and merely “objecting to immigration”.
If he wanted to claim that such immigrants are merely disproportionately criminals, thus not using the literally false word “all”, would he be permitted to do that? Would it matter if they actually are disproportionately criminals?
If you think it’s possible to object to immigration in Europe in a manner similar to other political views, in a way which can’t easily be painted as ‘hate speech’, I’d like to know some examples of things which can be said, without watering down objections to immigration.
“Incentives are relatively good” doesn’t mean “bad things can’t happen”. Of course it’s still possible for bad things to happen.
I would, however, point out that it’s hard to have a factory full of 10000 child actors, and hard to make significantly more money by ensuring the child actors have bad working conditions. And while there are jokes about out of work actors, an actor who does have a job is likely to be paid more than a factory worker. And there are laws about child actors which discourage some kinds of exploitation.
Yes, some of this is true of other jobs. But a system which evolves piecemeal without being directly designed will mostly involve jobs that are likely to turn up in real life. It won’t include all categories of safe jobs. I suspect that the number of children who are able and willing to do office paperwork for normal office wages just isn’t very big.
The typical way of being anti-immigration “involves hate speech” because “hate speech” is so broadly defined that it’s just about impossible not to.
it’s up to the anti-immigration activists to find a way to protest that wouldn’t be hate speech.
European governments get to define hate speech, so activists can’t find such a way, if the governments don’t want them to have one.
Should society eliminate schools, for high-IQ LessWrong posters at the end of the bell curve in lots of things? Or should society eliminate schools for children in general?
A lot of the answers here are based on typical-minding from people who are not typical.
Societies evolve. Regardless of why the law was originally created, laws that follow principles are easier to keep going than laws that violate them. In a functional society most of the surviving laws will follow principles even if they were created for other reasons. While this won’t be true of every single law, it’s a huge influence.
Also, I think you’re not granting enough charity to whether that set of carveouts could be described by principles. Jobs that are inherently part time, high status, small scale, or involve parents, and are not dangerous, are much more likely to be good for, or at least not harmful to, the children. You could describe that a “bizarre list”, but I’d call that a “list of jobs where the incentives are relatively good”.
The question was how this is different from school. Adults having jobs is also different from school.
In addition, the part about parents having control over children and children’s money doesn’t apply to parents of adults with jobs.
If “being paid” means not only that children get money, but also that the people paying them are motivated by profit, that creates bad incentives on the part of those people. If children are paid but parents still have control over the children and the money, that creates bad incentives for the parents.
To hopefully be a little clearer: Calling something hate speech, and banning it for that reason, is the method by which Europe bans this kind of speech. Saying “it doesn’t count because they’re just banning hate speech” is equivalent to “it doesn’t count because they’re banning it in the way they usually do”.
If the typical method of doing X automatically makes it not count—just because it’s using the typical method—then of course you’ll have trouble finding examples of X.
What else could the “as a cause” in “socialist firms as a cause area” possibly mean, except “as an EA cause”? The title wouldn’t make sense if it just meant “as a cause, but not as any particular kind of cause”, and the only particular type of cause being discussed is EA.
I also don’t think that “alleviating misery” in this context can mean anything other than “alleviating misery, because you are EAs and EAs want to get rid of misery”.
That’s like saying “I wanted an example of someone being put in jail for just marijuana possession, and also not being arrested.”
“Hate speech” is the excuse used by Europe to prosecute people for objecting to immigration. It’s something you guys made up in order to stop free speech.
It’s not hard to google this.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41295-020-00215-4 (paywall, but the synopsis is enough to prove that they exist)
https://www.fairus.org/blog/2016/08/31/free-speech-except-about-illegal-immigration
Here’s a trans politics one: https://archive.ph/9ugnq
>Give up on the Holocaust deniers, and no one else can be sure what other Schelling point you’ve committed to, if any...
>
>...unless they can. In parts of Europe, they’ve banned Holocaust denial for years and everyone’s been totally okay with it.I’d say this has aged poorly, except it was evident at the time this was written as well, if not quite as much. Europeans have managed to slippery-slope from banning Holocaust denial to banning political speech that could be painted as related to an oppressed group in any way, so you get people prosecuted for objecting to immigration or to trans politics.
If someone can do a thing X, which is nice and beneficial and should be encouraged, but which also makes it possible for you to do a thing Y, which hurts them and makes them regret doing X, then it is rude for you to do Y.
If X is “a racist, who hates even seeing blacks, opening a store” and Y is a “a black person entering the store”, by your definition Y is rude. I would disagree.
That’s the whole point fo having a vague law—so you can selectively prosecute with plausible deniability.