Author Topic: New Rule Against Hate Speech  (Read 7694 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Sawyer

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1231
Re: New Rule Against Hate Speech
« Reply #15 on: August 23, 2018, 05:02:13 PM »
The point here is that the term Nazi is a specific, hurtful label.  Not really any different from calling someone a commie.  If they don't outright identify as a Nazi, you calling it does meet this "definition" of hate speech.  If a transgender man wishes you to use the they/them pronouns and you refuse, it's hate speech.  If a right-winger wants you to quit calling him/her a Nazi...


I mean you can argue til the cows come home that "advocating for locking up illegal aliens is just what the Nazi's want" and it doesn't change a thing.  You are still calling them by a label that they don't accept/want.



This is the reason I don't really like hate speech regulations.  If you want to ban racial slurs, at least that has a solid definition.  But you can't limit speech based on prevailing opinion without devolving to an echo chamber.

Correct me if I'm wrong mod team, but merely labeling someone as something they do not like does not appear to automatically fall under the umbrella of hate speech.  By this standard we literally would not be able to call someone an anti-vaxxer if they come on the forum raving about thimerosal like a lunatic.  I think it's pretty clear the new rules would not prevent us from stating the obvious.

Offline Captain Video

  • Superhero of the Silver Screen
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2672
Re: New Rule Against Hate Speech
« Reply #16 on: August 23, 2018, 05:20:26 PM »
I would think you would have to hate someone pretty badly to call them a Nazi unless its true.  I would rather you called me an asshole or a fuckhead than a Nazi, its an extremely harsh statement.

“Don't explain computers to laymen. Simpler to explain sex to a virgin.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Offline AQB24712

  • Not a Euphemism.
  • Global Moderatrix
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • *****
  • Posts: 7991
  • Did you just call me..."Bacon girl"?
Re: New Rule Against Hate Speech
« Reply #17 on: August 23, 2018, 05:37:00 PM »
I agree that it is not appropriate to apply labels where they do not properly fit, or to apply labels of extremism merely because we feel the person is "as bad as X." I do think it's acceptable to express the opinion that Policy X tends toward Nazism. And I gather the new policy would still allow that.

Yes, this follows our general policy of criticizing the behavior, not the person.

I would rather you called me an asshole or a fuckhead than a Nazi, its an extremely harsh statement.

Duly noted.  :fu:
"There's only one rule that I know of, babies—God damn it, you've got to be kind."  Kurt Vonnegut
"You can bet your last money it's all gonna be a stone gas, honey."  Don Cornelius
"Wow! You spark up my entire thinking faculty."  A scammer/bot on a dating site

Offline daniel1948

  • Hasn't
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7491
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: New Rule Against Hate Speech
« Reply #18 on: August 23, 2018, 06:33:02 PM »
I think that calling someone an asshole or a fuckhead would violate other sections of the rules. Considering how many assholes and fuckheads there are on the internet, it says something good about the SGU forums that I cannot offhand think of any members I'd apply either of those words to. Even a few people with whom I disagree most vehemently, I'd not have applied those terms to.

I had a teacher in high school, though, who was most definitely a neo-Nazi. And an incompetent teacher.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline arthwollipot

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7970
  • Observer of Phenomena
Re: New Rule Against Hate Speech
« Reply #19 on: August 23, 2018, 07:11:46 PM »
I see no reason to call anyone any derogatory name. Insults are for the schoolyard, not for intelligent and reasonable debate. Is it such a radical idea to suggest that we discuss the issues without resorting to name-calling?
Self-described nerd

Online CarbShark

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9573
Re: New Rule Against Hate Speech
« Reply #20 on: August 23, 2018, 08:29:34 PM »
I see no reason to call anyone any derogatory name. Insults are for the schoolyard, not for intelligent and reasonable debate. Is it such a radical idea to suggest that we discuss the issues without resorting to name-calling?

The question is should that language be punished by the moderators or should they just stand back and let it all be?

Or should members themselves call out other when their language gets unpleasant?

 
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • *****
  • Posts: 6801
Re: New Rule Against Hate Speech
« Reply #21 on: August 23, 2018, 10:29:16 PM »
I think that directed insults are already covered by existing rules.
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

Offline daniel1948

  • Hasn't
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7491
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: New Rule Against Hate Speech
« Reply #22 on: August 23, 2018, 10:33:38 PM »
I see no reason to call anyone any derogatory name. Insults are for the schoolyard, not for intelligent and reasonable debate. Is it such a radical idea to suggest that we discuss the issues without resorting to name-calling?

The question is should that language be punished by the moderators or should they just stand back and let it all be?

Or should members themselves call out other when their language gets unpleasant?

 

The moderators are not punishing anybody. This is effectively a private space with rules for participation. People who don't obey the rules don't get to come inside. We can argue about what the rules should be, but in the end it's the moderators, acting as the agents of the owner(s) who decide. Just like a restaurant that decides not to let anyone in unless they're wearing shoes and a shirt. Or a nudist club that chooses not to let anyone inside if they're wearing clothes.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Online CarbShark

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9573
Re: New Rule Against Hate Speech
« Reply #23 on: August 24, 2018, 01:28:34 PM »
I see no reason to call anyone any derogatory name. Insults are for the schoolyard, not for intelligent and reasonable debate. Is it such a radical idea to suggest that we discuss the issues without resorting to name-calling?

The question is should that language be punished by the moderators or should they just stand back and let it all be?

Or should members themselves call out other when their language gets unpleasant?

 

The moderators are not punishing anybody. This is effectively a private space with rules for participation. People who don't obey the rules don't get to come inside. We can argue about what the rules should be, but in the end it's the moderators, acting as the agents of the owner(s) who decide. Just like a restaurant that decides not to let anyone in unless they're wearing shoes and a shirt. Or a nudist club that chooses not to let anyone inside if they're wearing clothes.

By "punish" I mean warn and ban, and, yes in discussing what the rules should be we are discussing what language and behavior warrants punishment (warnings, suspensions, bans) by the moderators.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline superdave

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5725
Re: New Rule Against Hate Speech
« Reply #24 on: August 24, 2018, 01:47:30 PM »
I took an indefinite break from the forum because some of the speech was getting too over the top for me.  In light of this announcement, I will tentatively put my toe back in the water.

(and seriously I don't post for like 3 months and I'm still stopped going outside?)
I disavow anyone in the movement involved in any illegal,unethical, sexist, or racist behavior. However, I don't have the energy or time to investigate each person and case, and a lack of individual disavowals for each incident should not be construed as condoning such behavior.

Offline daniel1948

  • Hasn't
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7491
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: New Rule Against Hate Speech
« Reply #25 on: August 24, 2018, 05:17:52 PM »
By "punish" I mean warn and ban...

Okay. You have a very different definition of the word than I do. Fair enough.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • *****
  • Posts: 6801
Re: New Rule Against Hate Speech
« Reply #26 on: August 24, 2018, 06:15:35 PM »
Warnings are explicitly not a punishment, though.  They are private communication between the mod team and users for the purpose of reminding them of the rules, with the secondary purpose of allowing the mod team to track users’ behavior over time.
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

Online CarbShark

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9573
Re: New Rule Against Hate Speech
« Reply #27 on: August 24, 2018, 07:51:15 PM »
Warnings are explicitly not a punishment, though.  They are private communication between the mod team and users for the purpose of reminding them of the rules, with the secondary purpose of allowing the mod team to track users’ behavior over time.

I was going to use the word "sanction" but that has double meanings that are opposites. In one sense it is penalizing in another it's approving.

The point was should these be things we want moderators to act on or members handle themselves with feedback, etc.?
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline daniel1948

  • Hasn't
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7491
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: New Rule Against Hate Speech
« Reply #28 on: August 24, 2018, 08:20:59 PM »
Warnings are explicitly not a punishment, though.  They are private communication between the mod team and users for the purpose of reminding them of the rules, with the secondary purpose of allowing the mod team to track users’ behavior over time.

I was going to use the word "sanction" but that has double meanings that are opposites. In one sense it is penalizing in another it's approving.

The point was should these be things we want moderators to act on or members handle themselves with feedback, etc.?

It really doesn't matter what we want. It's not our site. The site owner gets to make these decisions, or delegate them to the mods.

FWIW, I was on an unmoderated chat board many years ago. The owner just basically said anything goes. It was a bit of wild west. Members came down hard on behavior they disapproved of. For a few years it seemed to work well, at least I enjoyed it. But as members drifted off and others arrived the character changed, and I quit using it. A few years after that I decided to poke my head back in but it had gone defunct. My own opinion is that a well-moderated board is a pleasanter place to be. You may have a good group of people that control themselves and each other pretty well, but people drift away and others drift in and the character can change considerably. A polite board can become a nasty one. Bad moderation is no good either, but I think we have good moderation here.
Daniel
----------------
"Anyone who has ever looked into the glazed eyes of a soldier dying on the battlefield will think long and hard before starting a war."
-- Otto von Bismarck

Offline brilligtove

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6461
  • Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity, you deal with.
Re: New Rule Against Hate Speech
« Reply #29 on: August 24, 2018, 10:01:02 PM »
As with all laws and rules, there is a noticeable gap between reality and the description of what is or should be. Judgement and judges exist to fill those inevitable spaces.

Our mods have been pretty good at being hands off in general and hands on in particular. I think these rules clarify what's fine and fatal in our community without being overly restrictive. While I would have preferred a slightly diffenent approach, I think our mods good judgement guided by this rule will help discourse over discord.

I took an indefinite break from the forum because some of the speech was getting too over the top for me.  In light of this announcement, I will tentatively put my toe back in the water.

(and seriously I don't post for like 3 months and I'm still stopped going outside?)

I did something similar, for similar reasons.

(I wonder if there should be two levels under the avatar - one for post count and another for post frequency. :) )
evidence trumps experience | performance over perfection | responsibility – authority = scapegoat | emotions motivate; data doesn't

 

personate-rain
personate-rain