Author Topic: New Rule Against Hate Speech  (Read 1548 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Harry Black

  • International Man of Mystery
  • Global Moderator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 14220
Re: New Rule Against Hate Speech
« Reply #30 on: August 26, 2018, 05:49:30 PM »
I'll have to see this in practice, but I generally don't like the hate speech definition here.  It's pretty Potter Stewart isn't it?  I fall more in the Hugo Black end of that particular argument.


Still, I'm all for throwing out people who intentionally misgender, use racist language and hurl misogynistic insults at people.  I just thought that was already covered by the existing rules.
Insults directed at specific people who are members is against the rules but insulting groups of people in the abstract was not.
This allowed certain users to take sly digs at certain oppressed groups and also to outright promote genocide.

Lets see how this goes. I predict almost no change in how discourse generally happens and plays out.

Also, fwiw, calling someone a nazi who promotes multiple nazi policies and engages in rhetorical defence of actual nazis is not always an insult any more than calling someone who advocates for a free market a libertarian is an insult and at a time when they are marching in our streets and gaining air time on major news outlets, I think its often a fair thing to bring up.

Offline Captain Video

  • Superhero of the Silver Screen
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2364
Re: New Rule Against Hate Speech
« Reply #31 on: August 26, 2018, 11:01:21 PM »
I'll have to see this in practice, but I generally don't like the hate speech definition here.  It's pretty Potter Stewart isn't it?  I fall more in the Hugo Black end of that particular argument.


Still, I'm all for throwing out people who intentionally misgender, use racist language and hurl misogynistic insults at people.  I just thought that was already covered by the existing rules.
Insults directed at specific people who are members is against the rules but insulting groups of people in the abstract was not.
This allowed certain users to take sly digs at certain oppressed groups and also to outright promote genocide.

Lets see how this goes. I predict almost no change in how discourse generally happens and plays out.

Also, fwiw, calling someone a nazi who promotes multiple nazi policies and engages in rhetorical defense of actual nazis is not always an insult any more than calling someone who advocates for a free market a libertarian is an insult and at a time when they are marching in our streets and gaining air time on major news outlets, I think its often a fair thing to bring up.

I defend a nazis right to free speech and marching regardless of how evil I think they are, am I a nazi for doing so? 

Also the way some of you talk about libertarians the word can absolutely come across as an insult. Much the same way when some people rudely talk about Communists or Socialists. However in this case I believe it was outright name calling and broke the forums rules as well as being "Hate speech"

People say they have seen such behaviors from the one or two members in question here, I have not, Im not saying it has not happened, so far I see a few people with misguided conservative ideas, I also think those on the far left are just as misguided and those ideas with a strong authoritarian streak from both sides are equally evil ideas.

If anyone can show me actual posts that "prove" someone is a Nazi or even a racist rather than a far right conservative I don't understand why they are still members in the first place nor why "special policy" needs to be designed. Especially since you predict no changes anyway. If proof exists, Just get rid of them.

I also say this with respect in that none of this decision making has anything to do with me anyway, Im just presenting my opinions as a member. YOU are actually in the position of power here along with the other mods which decisions I will fall in line with. I genuinely believe you and the other mods care about your members or I would not be here. I generally will not even argue with those that don't give a shit about other people.
“Don't explain computers to laymen. Simpler to explain sex to a virgin.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

Online Harry Black

  • International Man of Mystery
  • Global Moderator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 14220
Re: New Rule Against Hate Speech
« Reply #32 on: August 27, 2018, 03:59:55 AM »
To be clear, when I say 'defending nazis' I dont mean defending their free speech.

And to be very clear, my clarification on why I think its sometimes acceptable to call someone a nazi, and the implications of perhaps being a nazi, dont have anything to do with this policy.

Online SkeptiQueer

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7456
  • DEEZ NUTZ
Re: New Rule Against Hate Speech
« Reply #33 on: August 27, 2018, 07:28:48 AM »
I'll have to see this in practice, but I generally don't like the hate speech definition here.  It's pretty Potter Stewart isn't it?  I fall more in the Hugo Black end of that particular argument.


Still, I'm all for throwing out people who intentionally misgender, use racist language and hurl misogynistic insults at people.  I just thought that was already covered by the existing rules.
Insults directed at specific people who are members is against the rules but insulting groups of people in the abstract was not.
This allowed certain users to take sly digs at certain oppressed groups and also to outright promote genocide.

Lets see how this goes. I predict almost no change in how discourse generally happens and plays out.

Also, fwiw, calling someone a nazi who promotes multiple nazi policies and engages in rhetorical defense of actual nazis is not always an insult any more than calling someone who advocates for a free market a libertarian is an insult and at a time when they are marching in our streets and gaining air time on major news outlets, I think its often a fair thing to bring up.

I defend a nazis right to free speech and marching regardless of how evil I think they are, am I a nazi for doing so? 

Also the way some of you talk about libertarians the word can absolutely come across as an insult. Much the same way when some people rudely talk about Communists or Socialists. However in this case I believe it was outright name calling and broke the forums rules as well as being "Hate speech"

People say they have seen such behaviors from the one or two members in question here, I have not, Im not saying it has not happened, so far I see a few people with misguided conservative ideas, I also think those on the far left are just as misguided and those ideas with a strong authoritarian streak from both sides are equally evil ideas.

If anyone can show me actual posts that "prove" someone is a Nazi or even a racist rather than a far right conservative I don't understand why they are still members in the first place nor why "special policy" needs to be designed. Especially since you predict no changes anyway. If proof exists, Just get rid of them.

I also say this with respect in that none of this decision making has anything to do with me anyway, Im just presenting my opinions as a member. YOU are actually in the position of power here along with the other mods which decisions I will fall in line with. I genuinely believe you and the other mods care about your members or I would not be here. I generally will not even argue with those that don't give a shit about other people.
Howabout the two posts defending the Protocols as real evidence of a global Jewish conspiracy?  Or the numerous posts defending literal Nazis chanting literal Nazi slogans at UTR 1? Or does someone have to swear fealty to the Furher unt Vaterland before it counts? What's the standard for evidence for Nazis?
HIISSSSSSSS

Offline daniel1948

  • Hasn't
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7083
  • Cat Lovers Against the Bomb
Re: New Rule Against Hate Speech
« Reply #34 on: August 27, 2018, 08:16:21 AM »
... I defend a nazis right to free speech and marching regardless of how evil I think they are, am I a nazi for doing so? ...

No, you are not.

I, on the other hand, oppose hate speech, regardless of who the speaker is, and I will note that Nazis are by definition a hate group and therefore are often seen engaging in hate speech. I parted ways with the A.C.L.U. on this issue way back when they defended the right of self-avowed Nazis to march in a neighborhood with a high percentage of Jewish holocaust survivors. This was hate speech and I felt the A.C.L.U.'s position that all speech is protected was wrong. I also felt that other issues should have taken priority within a limited budget. I support the Center for Constitutional Rights instead, as I feel they choose their issues more wisely.
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 Harry Black

  • International Man of Mystery
  • Global Moderator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 14220
Re: New Rule Against Hate Speech
« Reply #35 on: August 27, 2018, 09:06:24 AM »
Lets try and keep this thread tightly on course and use it to discuss these specific rules we are trying out and how we might improve them if needed.

To discuss free speech and hate speech in general, someone could start another thread in politics.

 

personate-rain