Author Topic: New Rule Against Hate Speech  (Read 2897 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Harry Black

  • International Man of Mystery
  • Global Moderator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 14344
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: 2420
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: 14344
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.

Offline SkeptiQueer

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7568
  • 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: 7139
  • 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: 14344
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.

Offline PANTS!

  • One leg at a time.
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10977
  • What seals? I auditioned for this job.
Re: New Rule Against Hate Speech
« Reply #36 on: September 29, 2018, 04:19:13 PM »
Wait!  Can I still use the term "carb nazi"?

* PANTS! runs for cover
Now where I come from
We don't let society tell us how it's supposed to be
-Uptown, Prince 👉

The world is on its elbows and knees
It's forgotten the message and worships the creeds

Offline Quetzalcoatl

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4061
Re: New Rule Against Hate Speech
« Reply #37 on: October 11, 2018, 03:45:30 PM »
I didn't see this until recently. While the new rule is ripe for being abused, especially if dog whistles are included, it doesn't have to be. We shall see how it turns out.

Offline stands2reason

  • Empiricist, Positivist, Militant Agnostic
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9928
Re: New Rule Against Hate Speech
« Reply #38 on: October 17, 2018, 12:55:31 PM »
I didn't see this until recently. While the new rule is ripe for being abused, especially if dog whistles are included, it doesn't have to be. We shall see how it turns out.

I'm pretty sure dogwhistle is just a synonym for "political metaphor". This means the readers gets to decide, using no independent standard, what they think something means. There is an additional layer of irony as well: dogwhistle implies that normal people can't hear it, only the people who are part of a hate group understand what it means. So, what does it mean if you accuse someone of using a dogwhistle?

It is a weird double standard. Usually, if someone says something indirectly (metaphorically), according to social conventions one should only respond to it in kind: indirectly. Normally, taking the metaphor from what someone said and acting as though they literally said it is considered a stereotype/trope of mental illness.


Offline SkeptiQueer

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7568
  • DEEZ NUTZ
Re: New Rule Against Hate Speech
« Reply #39 on: October 17, 2018, 01:10:35 PM »
I didn't see this until recently. While the new rule is ripe for being abused, especially if dog whistles are included, it doesn't have to be. We shall see how it turns out.

I'm pretty sure dogwhistle is just a synonym for "political metaphor". This means the readers gets to decide, using no independent standard, what they think something means. There is an additional layer of irony as well: dogwhistle implies that normal people can't hear it, only the people who are part of a hate group understand what it means. So, what does it mean if you accuse someone of using a dogwhistle?

It is a weird double standard. Usually, if someone says something indirectly (metaphorically), according to social conventions one should only respond to it in kind: indirectly. Normally, taking the metaphor from what someone said and acting as though they literally said it is considered a stereotype/trope of mental illness.

No, dogwhistle refers to in-group coded language. It's useful because the audience who's supposed to hear the message knows what it means. Lee Atwater described it well in the "You say 'forced bussing' instead" quote that you'll welcome to look up. Part of the purpose of the dogwhistle is to be able to play dumb.
HIISSSSSSSS

Offline Calinthalus

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5520
    • My Page
Re: New Rule Against Hate Speech
« Reply #40 on: October 17, 2018, 01:14:06 PM »
I didn't see this until recently. While the new rule is ripe for being abused, especially if dog whistles are included, it doesn't have to be. We shall see how it turns out.

I'm pretty sure dogwhistle is just a synonym for "political metaphor". This means the readers gets to decide, using no independent standard, what they think something means. There is an additional layer of irony as well: dogwhistle implies that normal people can't hear it, only the people who are part of a hate group understand what it means. So, what does it mean if you accuse someone of using a dogwhistle?

It is a weird double standard. Usually, if someone says something indirectly (metaphorically), according to social conventions one should only respond to it in kind: indirectly. Normally, taking the metaphor from what someone said and acting as though they literally said it is considered a stereotype/trope of mental illness.

No, dogwhistle refers to in-group coded language. It's useful because the audience who's supposed to hear the message knows what it means. Lee Atwater described it well in the "You say 'forced bussing' instead" quote that you'll welcome to look up. Part of the purpose of the dogwhistle is to be able to play dumb.
The problem is, if you aren't part of the in-group and/or don't follow that group you have no idea the phrase/term is a dog whistle at all.  I know plenty of people that don't know what an "88" tattoo means, for instance.  I don't like the idea of policing speech where it is assumed that everyone knows what some hate group uses as dog whistles.  Most people don't have the time or energy to devote to keeping up with it.
"I think computer viruses should count as life. Maybe it says something about human nature, that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. Talk about creating life in our own image."
--Stephen Hawking

Offline SkeptiQueer

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7568
  • DEEZ NUTZ
Re: New Rule Against Hate Speech
« Reply #41 on: October 17, 2018, 01:38:18 PM »
I didn't see this until recently. While the new rule is ripe for being abused, especially if dog whistles are included, it doesn't have to be. We shall see how it turns out.

I'm pretty sure dogwhistle is just a synonym for "political metaphor". This means the readers gets to decide, using no independent standard, what they think something means. There is an additional layer of irony as well: dogwhistle implies that normal people can't hear it, only the people who are part of a hate group understand what it means. So, what does it mean if you accuse someone of using a dogwhistle?

It is a weird double standard. Usually, if someone says something indirectly (metaphorically), according to social conventions one should only respond to it in kind: indirectly. Normally, taking the metaphor from what someone said and acting as though they literally said it is considered a stereotype/trope of mental illness.

No, dogwhistle refers to in-group coded language. It's useful because the audience who's supposed to hear the message knows what it means. Lee Atwater described it well in the "You say 'forced bussing' instead" quote that you'll welcome to look up. Part of the purpose of the dogwhistle is to be able to play dumb.
The problem is, if you aren't part of the in-group and/or don't follow that group you have no idea the phrase/term is a dog whistle at all.  I know plenty of people that don't know what an "88" tattoo means, for instance.  I don't like the idea of policing speech where it is assumed that everyone knows what some hate group uses as dog whistles.  Most people don't have the time or energy to devote to keeping up with it.

I'm not sure I'm following what the problem is. If someone points out that a term is a dogwhistle, and the other part stops using it, there's no problem.
HIISSSSSSSS

Offline Calinthalus

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5520
    • My Page
Re: New Rule Against Hate Speech
« Reply #42 on: October 17, 2018, 02:19:57 PM »
Because intent matters.  A dogwhistle only exists in the mind of the speaker.  If it wasn't intended as a dogwhistle why should we police them and expect them to change their language because some racist shithead has claimed that phrase for themselves?
"I think computer viruses should count as life. Maybe it says something about human nature, that the only form of life we have created so far is purely destructive. Talk about creating life in our own image."
--Stephen Hawking

Online Rai

  • PIZZASAURUS
  • Global Moderator
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • *****
  • Posts: 6382
Re: New Rule Against Hate Speech
« Reply #43 on: October 17, 2018, 02:29:23 PM »
Because intent matters.  A dogwhistle only exists in the mind of the speaker.  If it wasn't intended as a dogwhistle why should we police them and expect them to change their language because some racist shithead has claimed that phrase for themselves?

Dogwhistles exist in a context only.

"The First Dacian War ended in 88 AD" is not a dogwhistle, for example. There is very little chance for the right combination of context and coded phrase to be an honest mistake.

Offline stands2reason

  • Empiricist, Positivist, Militant Agnostic
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9928
Re: New Rule Against Hate Speech
« Reply #44 on: October 17, 2018, 05:32:20 PM »
Because intent matters.  A dogwhistle only exists in the mind of the speaker.  If it wasn't intended as a dogwhistle why should we police them and expect them to change their language because some racist shithead has claimed that phrase for themselves?

If only there was an idiomatic expression or two to describe the situation:

"It takes one to know one." or "When you point a finger, you have three pointing back at you."

Uh-oh, I just accidentally turned that into a Nazi dogwhistle! Hint: how do you position your hand to make sure you don't have any fingers pointing back at you?

Wait for it...

(click to show/hide)

There, now you can't use a popular idiomatic expression for describing psychological projection without being accused of Nazi.

 

personate-rain