Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Banning Hate Speech

PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2010 10:45:51 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Is banning Hate Speech unconstitutional (and for those outside the U.S., the foreign equivalent/concept of Constitutionality will suffice)?

Discuss....
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2010 10:50:08 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I don't see an exception for hate speech in the first amendment.

In fact, I don't see any exceptions.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2010 10:52:46 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/16/2010 10:50:08 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I don't see an exception for hate speech in the first amendment.

In fact, I don't see any exceptions.:

Me neither. All it needs to do is pass the litmus test of "Clear and Present Danger," as best I can tell.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Atheism
Posts: 2,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2010 10:53:11 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Provoking violence against you isn't too smart, but if you really want to, there's not a damn thing we can do about it. So, in essence, if the KKK didn't attack others, it would be allowed. Sigh. The US is a pot of idiocy.
I miss the old members.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2010 10:56:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/16/2010 10:53:11 AM, Atheism wrote:
Provoking violence against you isn't too smart, but if you really want to, there's not a damn thing we can do about it. So, in essence, if the KKK didn't attack others, it would be allowed. Sigh. The US is a pot of idiocy.:

Freedom of ideas, speech, and expression = idiotic?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2010 10:59:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/16/2010 10:52:46 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 7/16/2010 10:50:08 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
I don't see an exception for hate speech in the first amendment.

In fact, I don't see any exceptions.:

Me neither. All it needs to do is pass the litmus test of "Clear and Present Danger," as best I can tell.

That's not in the Constitution either.

The only constitutional way to go about it is to treat something as an action, and tell them they can feel free to say it if if they manage to detach it from the action.

Hate speech laws don't manage to make it out as an action in any way that wouldn't trivilalize the amendment :P.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2010 11:14:30 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Hate speech laws don't manage to make it out as an action in any way that wouldn't trivilalize the amendment :

Morever, I see it setting a dangerous precedence that further threatens Free Speech based on loose interpretations.

For instance, I read an article on how a UK woman protested having a Gay Pride parade on her street. She was arrested for a "hate crime." Uhhhhhh.... a little draconian, eh?

The way I see it, she has every right to protest the parade. She may not win, because with the permits, there is no reason to say they cannot have the parade. She may not have gotten her way (and perhaps shouldn't) but she damn well should have the right to her own opinion without being imprisoned for her thought crimes.

We're sacrificing lambs on the alter of political correctness, and I abhor it.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2010 12:05:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Hate speech that openly advocates violence towards a particular group should be banned yes. For example, somebody could say "N*ggers are pigs and should return to being slaves." That would be permissible as it's free speech. Something like "N*ggers are pigs and we should all band together to exterminate them." is threatening speech. That should be banned. Words are powerful.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2010 2:42:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Depends on what you think of as hate speech. Really I'm just opposed to threatening groups. Everyone can have their own opinion though, and they have a right to express it, even if its hateful. But when you start talking about someone should be killed for it, it becomes wrong.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2010 4:00:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/16/2010 2:42:35 PM, lovelife wrote:
Depends on what you think of as hate speech. Really I'm just opposed to threatening groups. Everyone can have their own opinion though, and they have a right to express it, even if its hateful. But when you start talking about someone should be killed for it, it becomes wrong.

Yea, I have no problem with people speaking their mind, but as soon as said speech leads to violence then action needs to be taken. That was the point I was trying to make in my previous post.
feverish
Posts: 2,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2010 4:18:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/16/2010 10:45:51 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Is banning Hate Speech unconstitutional (and for those outside the U.S., the foreign equivalent/concept of Constitutionality will suffice)?

Discuss....

http://www.debate.org...
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2010 5:28:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/16/2010 4:00:00 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 7/16/2010 2:42:35 PM, lovelife wrote:
Depends on what you think of as hate speech. Really I'm just opposed to threatening groups. Everyone can have their own opinion though, and they have a right to express it, even if its hateful. But when you start talking about someone should be killed for it, it becomes wrong.

Yea, I have no problem with people speaking their mind, but as soon as said speech leads to violence then action needs to be taken. That was the point I was trying to make in my previous post.

Yea I saw that after I posted that lol.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
cjl
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2010 5:54:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/16/2010 5:28:36 PM, lovelife wrote:
At 7/16/2010 4:00:00 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 7/16/2010 2:42:35 PM, lovelife wrote:
Depends on what you think of as hate speech. Really I'm just opposed to threatening groups. Everyone can have their own opinion though, and they have a right to express it, even if its hateful. But when you start talking about someone should be killed for it, it becomes wrong.

Yea, I have no problem with people speaking their mind, but as soon as said speech leads to violence then action needs to be taken. That was the point I was trying to make in my previous post.

Yea I saw that after I posted that lol.

Still, the point was made:)
PalinFan
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2010 6:06:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Hate Speech should not be banned it would violate the first amendment and at the end of the day we need to recognize that they are just words; though hateful and detestable in nature. The law should only punish individuals when there are specific threats made or hate crimes planned/ committed.
Super Man does not come close to the power of Jesus Christ - GodSands
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2010 6:17:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/16/2010 6:06:14 PM, PalinFan wrote:
Hate Speech should not be banned it would violate the first amendment and at the end of the day we need to recognize that they are just words; though hateful and detestable in nature. The law should only punish individuals when there are specific threats made or hate crimes planned/ committed.

Hey... you're not allowed to make sense.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2010 6:24:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/16/2010 6:06:14 PM, PalinFan wrote:
Hate Speech should not be banned it would violate the first amendment and at the end of the day we need to recognize that they are just words; though hateful and detestable in nature. The law should only punish individuals when there are specific threats made or hate crimes planned/ committed.

I disagree--hate speech is not "just words". Whether it's those doing the hate speech or ignorant followers, it breeds violence and discrimination.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2010 6:27:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/16/2010 6:24:28 PM, TulleKrazy wrote:
At 7/16/2010 6:06:14 PM, PalinFan wrote:
Hate Speech should not be banned it would violate the first amendment and at the end of the day we need to recognize that they are just words; though hateful and detestable in nature. The law should only punish individuals when there are specific threats made or hate crimes planned/ committed.


I disagree--hate speech is not "just words". Whether it's those doing the hate speech or ignorant followers, it breeds violence and discrimination.

Yes, which is why there should be some, although very limited censorship.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2010 6:27:39 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/16/2010 6:24:28 PM, TulleKrazy wrote:
At 7/16/2010 6:06:14 PM, PalinFan wrote:
Hate Speech should not be banned it would violate the first amendment and at the end of the day we need to recognize that they are just words; though hateful and detestable in nature. The law should only punish individuals when there are specific threats made or hate crimes planned/ committed.


I disagree--hate speech is not "just words". Whether it's those doing the hate speech or ignorant followers, it breeds violence and discrimination.

That's an appeal to probability.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2010 6:31:42 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/16/2010 6:27:39 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/16/2010 6:24:28 PM, TulleKrazy wrote:
At 7/16/2010 6:06:14 PM, PalinFan wrote:
Hate Speech should not be banned it would violate the first amendment and at the end of the day we need to recognize that they are just words; though hateful and detestable in nature. The law should only punish individuals when there are specific threats made or hate crimes planned/ committed.


I disagree--hate speech is not "just words". Whether it's those doing the hate speech or ignorant followers, it breeds violence and discrimination.

That's an appeal to probability.

And hate speech is an appeal to what, exactly? Logic? It doesn't accomplish anything good, unless you can think of a way.
PalinFan
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2010 6:32:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/16/2010 6:24:28 PM, TulleKrazy wrote:
At 7/16/2010 6:06:14 PM, PalinFan wrote:
Hate Speech should not be banned it would violate the first amendment and at the end of the day we need to recognize that they are just words; though hateful and detestable in nature. The law should only punish individuals when there are specific threats made or hate crimes planned/ committed.


I disagree--hate speech is not "just words". Whether it's those doing the hate speech or ignorant followers, it breeds violence and discrimination.

Should said violence arise, then it is appropriate for the law to take action. Hate speech does not breed discrimination, racism in individuals is a large result of their socialization as a child. Any adult listening to a racist's ravings will not themselves become racists as they are already set in their ways.
Super Man does not come close to the power of Jesus Christ - GodSands
MikeLoviN
Posts: 746
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2010 6:41:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/16/2010 6:31:42 PM, TulleKrazy wrote:
At 7/16/2010 6:27:39 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/16/2010 6:24:28 PM, TulleKrazy wrote:
At 7/16/2010 6:06:14 PM, PalinFan wrote:
Hate Speech should not be banned it would violate the first amendment and at the end of the day we need to recognize that they are just words; though hateful and detestable in nature. The law should only punish individuals when there are specific threats made or hate crimes planned/ committed.


I disagree--hate speech is not "just words". Whether it's those doing the hate speech or ignorant followers, it breeds violence and discrimination.

That's an appeal to probability.

And hate speech is an appeal to what, exactly? Logic? It doesn't accomplish anything good, unless you can think of a way.

Just because something doesn't accomplish any good isn't automatic grounds for banning it. Just throwing that out there.

Unless it involves direct threats, in which case it would likely already fall under some form of conspiracy laws, then the effects of hate speech are indirect at best. Besides, how exactly would you define "hate speech" anyway? Seems like it could be pretty subjective, which is never good thing when it comes to enforcement.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2010 6:45:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/16/2010 6:31:42 PM, TulleKrazy wrote:
At 7/16/2010 6:27:39 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/16/2010 6:24:28 PM, TulleKrazy wrote:
At 7/16/2010 6:06:14 PM, PalinFan wrote:
Hate Speech should not be banned it would violate the first amendment and at the end of the day we need to recognize that they are just words; though hateful and detestable in nature. The law should only punish individuals when there are specific threats made or hate crimes planned/ committed.


I disagree--hate speech is not "just words". Whether it's those doing the hate speech or ignorant followers, it breeds violence and discrimination.

That's an appeal to probability.

And hate speech is an appeal to what, exactly? Logic? It doesn't accomplish anything good, unless you can think of a way.

That's not even a response. It in no way changes the fact that you're committing a logical fallacy.

Plus, the criteria for whether speech is permitted isn't whether it "accomplishes anything good". If you put forward a standard that idiotic, you eliminate a HUGE part of our freedom.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2010 6:47:23 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/16/2010 6:32:23 PM, PalinFan wrote:
At 7/16/2010 6:24:28 PM, TulleKrazy wrote:
At 7/16/2010 6:06:14 PM, PalinFan wrote:
Hate Speech should not be banned it would violate the first amendment and at the end of the day we need to recognize that they are just words; though hateful and detestable in nature. The law should only punish individuals when there are specific threats made or hate crimes planned/ committed.


I disagree--hate speech is not "just words". Whether it's those doing the hate speech or ignorant followers, it breeds violence and discrimination.

Should said violence arise, then it is appropriate for the law to take action. Hate speech does not breed discrimination, racism in individuals is a large result of their socialization as a child. Any adult listening to a racist's ravings will not themselves become racists as they are already set in their ways.

I'd like to introduce you to Canada: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Some people can turn a blind eye to blatant discrimination but I won't. Hate speech encourages people to see others as less than human to make them feel less guilty about their actions. It goes deeper than just killing, it's a persistent state of feeling unsafe and no matter what 'category' of human being you fall into, you should have the right to feel safe. Good on you for not being a sheep, but there are too many people out there who are dumb as hell and words are never 'just words'. They invoke emotion and they are impetus for action.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2010 6:52:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/16/2010 6:41:43 PM, MikeLoviN wrote:
At 7/16/2010 6:31:42 PM, TulleKrazy wrote:
At 7/16/2010 6:27:39 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 7/16/2010 6:24:28 PM, TulleKrazy wrote:
At 7/16/2010 6:06:14 PM, PalinFan wrote:
Hate Speech should not be banned it would violate the first amendment and at the end of the day we need to recognize that they are just words; though hateful and detestable in nature. The law should only punish individuals when there are specific threats made or hate crimes planned/ committed.


I disagree--hate speech is not "just words". Whether it's those doing the hate speech or ignorant followers, it breeds violence and discrimination.

That's an appeal to probability.

And hate speech is an appeal to what, exactly? Logic? It doesn't accomplish anything good, unless you can think of a way.

Just because something doesn't accomplish any good isn't automatic grounds for banning it. Just throwing that out there.


Yeah, I know.

Unless it involves direct threats, in which case it would likely already fall under some form of conspiracy laws, then the effects of hate speech are indirect at best. Besides, how exactly would you define "hate speech" anyway? Seems like it could be pretty subjective, which is never good thing when it comes to enforcement.

I'd rather not give examples but here's one definition: "n.
Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group."
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2010 6:54:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/16/2010 6:47:23 PM, TulleKrazy wrote:
I'd like to introduce you to Canada: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Some people can turn a blind eye to blatant discrimination but I won't. Hate speech encourages people to see others as less than human to make them feel less guilty about their actions. It goes deeper than just killing, it's a persistent state of feeling unsafe and no matter what 'category' of human being you fall into, you should have the right to feel safe. Good on you for not being a sheep, but there are too many people out there who are dumb as hell and words are never 'just words'. They invoke emotion and they are impetus for action.

That's all well and fine, but where do you draw the line? Must we go around like Germany, denying citizens rights to opinions that do not condone or promote violence? Do we act like Israel, and take every little utterance of disappointment with a country as "anti-Semetic" or whatever, and treat it as hate speech and an "impetus for action" in the negative sense?

Hate speech might not be preferable, but banning it brings too many risks. Besides, it is much better to tackle the issue head on, rather than try and dictate to citizens what their opinions must be. Let them be idiots - we'll correct the record for them. Surely someone on a debate site has to understand that.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2010 7:08:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/16/2010 6:47:23 PM, TulleKrazy wrote:

Some people can turn a blind eye to blatant discrimination but I won't. Hate speech encourages people to see others as less than human to make them feel less guilty about their actions. It goes deeper than just killing, it's a persistent state of feeling unsafe and no matter what 'category' of human being you fall into, you should have the right to feel safe.

Certainly. You have the right to be safe from physical violence. Beyond that, only private property owners have the right to ban particular types of speech on their property. The government has no such power.

Good on you for not being a sheep, but there are too many people out there who are dumb as hell and words are never 'just words'. They invoke emotion and they are impetus for action.

You've got to be kidding. You want to ban speech because it's emotionally evocative and might lead to a crime being committed? Do you want to throw people in jail for expressing a sexual desire for someone who wants nothing to do with it? After all, it evokes emotions and might lead to rape. Plus, expressing those desires don't accomplish anything good. Those are your standards, right?
PalinFan
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2010 7:08:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/16/2010 6:47:23 PM, TulleKrazy wrote:
At 7/16/2010 6:32:23 PM, PalinFan wrote:
At 7/16/2010 6:24:28 PM, TulleKrazy wrote:
At 7/16/2010 6:06:14 PM, PalinFan wrote:
Hate Speech should not be banned it would violate the first amendment and at the end of the day we need to recognize that they are just words; though hateful and detestable in nature. The law should only punish individuals when there are specific threats made or hate crimes planned/ committed.


I disagree--hate speech is not "just words". Whether it's those doing the hate speech or ignorant followers, it breeds violence and discrimination.

Should said violence arise, then it is appropriate for the law to take action. Hate speech does not breed discrimination, racism in individuals is a large result of their socialization as a child. Any adult listening to a racist's ravings will not themselves become racists as they are already set in their ways.

I'd like to introduce you to Canada: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Are trying to imply that Canada has a history of racism?
Some people can turn a blind eye to blatant discrimination but I won't. Hate speech encourages people to see others as less than human to make them feel less guilty about their actions. It goes deeper than just killing, it's a persistent state of feeling unsafe and no matter what 'category' of human being you fall into, you should have the right to feel safe. Good on you for not being a sheep, but there are too many people out there who are dumb as hell and words are never 'just words'. They invoke emotion and they are impetus for action.

Sure people have the right to feel safe and i recognize this, however people have the right to speak freely as well (and only the latter is referenced specifically in the constitution), so we as a society have to figure out a way to protect both of those rights. The only sensible way to achieve this would be to only act when a threat or a hate crime has taken place. And yes there are idiots and bigots out there, but that does not justify the creation of a nanny state that diminishes everyone's personal autonomy.
Super Man does not come close to the power of Jesus Christ - GodSands
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2010 7:09:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/16/2010 6:54:19 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 7/16/2010 6:47:23 PM, TulleKrazy wrote:
I'd like to introduce you to Canada: http://en.wikipedia.org...

Some people can turn a blind eye to blatant discrimination but I won't. Hate speech encourages people to see others as less than human to make them feel less guilty about their actions. It goes deeper than just killing, it's a persistent state of feeling unsafe and no matter what 'category' of human being you fall into, you should have the right to feel safe. Good on you for not being a sheep, but there are too many people out there who are dumb as hell and words are never 'just words'. They invoke emotion and they are impetus for action.

That's all well and fine, but where do you draw the line? Must we go around like Germany, denying citizens rights to opinions that do not condone or promote violence? Do we act like Israel, and take every little utterance of disappointment with a country as "anti-Semetic" or whatever, and treat it as hate speech and an "impetus for action" in the negative sense?

Hate speech might not be preferable, but banning it brings too many risks. Besides, it is much better to tackle the issue head on, rather than try and dictate to citizens what their opinions must be. Let them be idiots - we'll correct the record for them. Surely someone on a debate site has to understand that.

I agree that there is a line that should be drawn. And again, there are ways of saying things in a way that, while still offensive, I wouldn't categorize as "hate speech" per se. I would qualify Mel Gibson's rant as hate speech punishable by law, to be honest, simply because of the terms used and the context in which he used them. Canada has the right idea when it comes to banning hate speech--the problem is actually enforcing it.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2010 7:15:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 7/16/2010 7:09:36 PM, TulleKrazy wrote:
Canada has the right idea when it comes to banning hate speech--the problem is actually enforcing it.

Section 13 is subjective interpretation at best. While the right idea is in mind for enforcement (it certainly gives Parliament and authorities the power to search and prosecute cases), the actual meaning of "hate speech" is never defined except by acts of Parliament, which are equally vague and subjective.

So while we can grant Parliament the power to act upon "hate speech," in an enforceable way, "hate speech" itself is never clearly defined. That is the problem with Section 13 - the lack of a definition, and the appeal to Parliament to define it, based on whatever whims it and the HRC dream up at any given moment.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2010 7:35:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Ugh I can't post fast enough and I'm not sure how to quote two different people at once so I'll say this in response to Cody and Palin...

"Do you want to throw people in jail for expressing a sexual desire for someone who wants nothing to do with it? After all, it evokes emotions and might lead to rape."

haha There is a difference between 'expressing sexual desire' and saying it in an aggressive manner.

In Canada, some reggae artists were banned from performing in the country because many of their lyrics are just hate speech. It's gone unrecognized for so long because most people can't understand what they're saying. But they use words like "chichimon" or "battymon" to describe gays and their lyrics describe killing them (eg. "battymon fi dead!") and torturing them. Of course, there are people who won't take it to heart or don't even know what they're saying. But the fact that there is music out there that even young kids are listening to like this disturbs me. If you want to think that the hate speech in this kind of music is irrelevant to the hate crimes that are rampant in Jamaica (and Southern Ontario, for that matter) then that's up to you. I'm not here to change anybody's mind...

Palin-- Sure, people have the right to speak freely. You may freely pick up a dictionary or thesaurus and speak to me like a human being.

Volkov-- I'm not too familiar with how the lack of a definition has impacted previous cases... but I still think it's better than pretending there is no problem.