Chris Mahan wrote,
> which begs the question, what
do you mean by "communicative?" I
> assume you
> mean that the only thing it does is to describe or express
> something else,
> but has not force in and of itself.
Your assumption was incorrect.
But judging from the rest of his response, my assumption was
correct. Chris, you just do not understand the point. I
suggest you read Austin's book and perhaps take a couple of courses in
the philosophy of language.
It looks like few people have interest in the question of hate speech, so
I will not belabor the point. But for everyone besides Chris, I do
want to add one more thing, to clarify my earlier points. One of
Wikipedia's key policies is to respect contributors, and an important
behavioral guideline is to avoid personal attacks. One reason I am
so concerned about hate speech is that I do not feel it is strictly
covered by this policy and this guideline -- because hate speech is
impersonal. Strictly speaking, I did not feel WHEELER was
attacking me "personally," I felt he was attacking me
"impersonally." It was not directed at me personally
(which is explicitly against our policy) because it was not about me,
personally. But it was about Jews, so since I am a Jew it is about
me, just me, impersonally. If this is not clear, all I can ask is
that you read any of the countless explanations of the rationale behind
hate speech legislation or hate crime legislation. The point is not
that you should agree that we need hate speech legislation, just to
understand how hate speech is different from other forms of rude or
insulting or disrespectful speech. Perhaps all I have been asking
for is recognition of another reason for mediation or arbitration beyond
the ones listed.
Steve