Mihaela Popa-Wyatt - How Hate Speech Works

Hate speech poses puzzles for philosophers of language, society and politics.
In this talk, I shall examine slurs, as a case study in hate speech. There are several questions arising. Why do some slurring utterances offend more than others? How do slurring utterances work in a conversation so as to offend? What other effects do slurring utterances have? How do slurring utterances have effects beyond the immediate conversation in which they are uttered?
These questions can be answered by drawing on the idea of conversational games, the theory of speech acts and an understanding of how social roles influence conversation. Within a conversational game, slurring speech acts are exercises of power which change the rules governing the game. A further problem is how slurring utterances have effects beyond the conversation, such as contributing to changes in social norms. This effect can be explained by a system of hierarchical social and conversational games. Building on this idea of a hierarchical game, I will identify the ingredients required to model hate speech and its social effects.

[@kirklazenby1]

This is not philosophy, this is a political broadcast. This person should be sacked

[@Dr.ShivashankarNambiar]

Why is she not including the word Kaffir as one of the most deadly slurs?
Are Muslims a suppressed group?
What are the markers of oppression?
In UK who are the oppressed groups and oppressor groups?
Why is this philosopher so superficial?

[@paxdriver]

She has no idea which words are even offensive, never mind the vastly more oppressed groups like the poor, unhoused, unhealthy, or elderly. By far those 4 are more violated and exploited groups than any race, gender or religion and she didn't even mention them because a Sidney Poitiers movie caught her fancy as a perfect example of shifting power dynamics - as if that doesn't also happen in sports movies, or wall street movies, or romcoms from Hallmark.