Author Topic: New Rule Against Hate Speech  (Read 3821 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline PANTS!

  • One leg at a time.
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11055
  • What seals? I auditioned for this job.
Re: New Rule Against Hate Speech
« Reply #45 on: October 17, 2018, 11:28:23 PM »
Lol.  Who knew strawmen wore pearls to clutch.  Did you get the vapors at the thought of not being allowed to be a douche whenever you want?
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 brilligtove

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6174
  • Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity, you deal with.
Re: New Rule Against Hate Speech
« Reply #46 on: October 18, 2018, 12:40:51 AM »
On these forums I have learned about dogwhistles by
1) Using a phrase to mean something fairly direct and innocent.
2) Being told it's a dogwhistle by other members (sometimes with some hostility).
3) Asking what the heck provoked such a strong response.
4) Having that person explain the dogwhistle and associated context.

At no point did a mod step in because, not surprisingly, it was quickly obvious that there was ignorance being dealt with in that situation, not coded language.

I would much prefer if (2) involved less aggression - but that's not how people react to strangers blowing dogwhistles that they are the target of. I'm not worried that our mods will suddenly drastically alter their behaviour from a principle of charity to uncharity.
evidence trumps experience | performance over perfection | responsibility – authority = scapegoat | emotions motivate; data doesn't

Offline stands2reason

  • Empiricist, Positivist, Militant Agnostic
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10071
Re: New Rule Against Hate Speech
« Reply #47 on: October 18, 2018, 12:50:53 AM »
Lol.  Who knew strawmen wore pearls to clutch.  Did you get the vapors at the thought of not being allowed to be a douche whenever you want?

Not sure who that was directed at, but please show us examples of etiquette that indicates some ulterior motive regarding this rule (regulation of hate speech).

OK, so we have a "cleansing" of hate from our society according to neo-liberal standards—an every-growing list of hate words/phrases. OK, whatever. That's some silly conspiracy stuff. But seriously, it's kinda ridiculous that one is regulating profane language, but there is no standard of what is such. i.e. where is the list of hate phrases and what they mean? I need to know what I am not allowed to say.

Offline stands2reason

  • Empiricist, Positivist, Militant Agnostic
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10071
Re: New Rule Against Hate Speech
« Reply #48 on: October 18, 2018, 12:55:22 AM »

Offline brilligtove

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 6174
  • Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity, you deal with.
Re: New Rule Against Hate Speech
« Reply #49 on: October 18, 2018, 01:01:47 AM »
This seems relevant.

Constructive
evidence trumps experience | performance over perfection | responsibility – authority = scapegoat | emotions motivate; data doesn't

Online Rai

  • PIZZASAURUS
  • Global Moderator
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • *****
  • Posts: 6442
Re: New Rule Against Hate Speech
« Reply #50 on: October 18, 2018, 01:18:42 AM »
Lol.  Who knew strawmen wore pearls to clutch.  Did you get the vapors at the thought of not being allowed to be a douche whenever you want?

Not sure who that was directed at, but please show us examples of etiquette that indicates some ulterior motive regarding this rule (regulation of hate speech).

OK, so we have a "cleansing" of hate from our society according to neo-liberal standards—an every-growing list of hate words/phrases. OK, whatever. That's some silly conspiracy stuff. But seriously, it's kinda ridiculous that one is regulating profane language, but there is no standard of what is such. i.e. where is the list of hate phrases and what they mean? I need to know what I am not allowed to say.

Are you seriously asking for a Nazi-English dictionary?

Offline stands2reason

  • Empiricist, Positivist, Militant Agnostic
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10071
Re: New Rule Against Hate Speech
« Reply #51 on: October 18, 2018, 02:02:28 AM »
Are you seriously asking for a Nazi-English dictionary?

Oh, I thought this was a conversation about hate speech. I'll admit, this is mostly for intellectual curiosity. There are obvious reasons why I wouldn't expect something like that to be maintained on this site. And indeed, this conversation is almost not for this site.

This is the thread about the actual implementation of the rule, not a general debate threat about regulating speech and consequences of hate speech. But I guess the point is such a thread might not even be needed. The adults/ conservatives made their points, and they remain uncontested.

To use a more serious example: I genuinely have a hard time understanding why Richard Dawkins is considered Islamophobic. Especially considering what he wrote in the God Delusion. I think he has equal disdain, and in proportion to the individual organizations and sects as they restrict free-thought and scientific literacy. A clear example of finding someone’s values offensive, but not being able to find a motive for hate.

Offline moj

  • beer snob
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9815
Re: New Rule Against Hate Speech
« Reply #52 on: October 18, 2018, 11:13:25 AM »
Are you seriously asking for a Nazi-English dictionary?

Oh, I thought this was a conversation about hate speech. I'll admit, this is mostly for intellectual curiosity. There are obvious reasons why I wouldn't expect something like that to be maintained on this site. And indeed, this conversation is almost not for this site.

This is the thread about the actual implementation of the rule, not a general debate threat about regulating speech and consequences of hate speech. But I guess the point is such a thread might not even be needed. The adults/ conservatives made their points, and they remain uncontested.

To use a more serious example: I genuinely have a hard time understanding why Richard Dawkins is considered Islamophobic. Especially considering what he wrote in the God Delusion. I think he has equal disdain, and in proportion to the individual organizations and sects as they restrict free-thought and scientific literacy. A clear example of finding someone’s values offensive, but not being able to find a motive for hate.

?????? for real?

Offline stands2reason

  • Empiricist, Positivist, Militant Agnostic
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10071
Re: New Rule Against Hate Speech
« Reply #53 on: October 18, 2018, 11:47:21 AM »
?????? for real?

Yes, meaning most-all of the posts in this thread that actually make a point/argument. I guess calling someone a child could be considered hate speech vis a vis ageism (not sure if this is offensive because it implies age discrimination against young people is a real problem).

"I've heard about the new FCC rules on profanity. So, what am I not allowed to say?"
"What kind of pervert are you? We're not going to tell you specifically what content we are filtering. We just assume everyone always knows what the bad words are. If you use it, then we can assume (for ease of prosecution) that you know what it means."
"If and when you are brought up on charges, the individual judge will use the list of bad words that only exists privately in their head to make the judgement."

What is the actual case law on hate speech in the US? Skeptics are supposed to critically examine everything. Anyone that actually has an emotional knee-jerk reaction to this discussion is being played like a musical instrument. Even Worse are the ones that are acting liberal and pretending to be flabbergasted that the discussion is worth having.

Offline random poet

  • That's bullshit!
  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1957
  • On n'a jamais le temps, le temps nous a.
    • I have a LJ
Re: New Rule Against Hate Speech
« Reply #54 on: October 18, 2018, 01:31:07 PM »
I think you are using the word "liberal" when you mean "libertarian." Usually it's the conservatives who are pissed at liberals for being opposed to this type of hate speech, calling them SJW, snowflakes, etc. Your rants here are like a bizarro-world of craziness.
Aujourd'hui j'ai vu un facteur joyeux.

Offline SkeptiQueer

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7692
  • DEEZ NUTZ
Re: New Rule Against Hate Speech
« Reply #55 on: October 18, 2018, 01:37:31 PM »
?????? for real?

Yes, meaning most-all of the posts in this thread that actually make a point/argument. I guess calling someone a child could be considered hate speech vis a vis ageism (not sure if this is offensive because it implies age discrimination against young people is a real problem).

"I've heard about the new FCC rules on profanity. So, what am I not allowed to say?"
"What kind of pervert are you? We're not going to tell you specifically what content we are filtering. We just assume everyone always knows what the bad words are. If you use it, then we can assume (for ease of prosecution) that you know what it means."
"If and when you are brought up on charges, the individual judge will use the list of bad words that only exists privately in their head to make the judgement."

What is the actual case law on hate speech in the US? Skeptics are supposed to critically examine everything. Anyone that actually has an emotional knee-jerk reaction to this discussion is being played like a musical instrument. Even Worse are the ones that are acting liberal and pretending to be flabbergasted that the discussion is worth having.

Would you like to start by critically examining the strawman in your post?

How is the US law on hate speech relevant to this forum's rules?
HIISSSSSSSS

Offline stands2reason

  • Empiricist, Positivist, Militant Agnostic
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10071
Re: New Rule Against Hate Speech
« Reply #56 on: October 18, 2018, 02:58:12 PM »
Would you like to start by critically examining the strawman in your post?

How is the US law on hate speech relevant to this forum's rules?

Good point. I wasn't trying to argue that private platforms don't have the right to additionally regulate speech on them. I brought it up because I am suggesting that it might be relevant to look at a consistent, logically thought out, objective(?), legal standard of hate speech (with examples and case law) might inform the discussion. Unless there is some vehement disgust with the US version of hate speech laws, and maybe another version is better?

I think you are using the word "liberal" when you mean "libertarian." Usually it's the conservatives who are pissed at liberals for being opposed to this type of hate speech, calling them SJW, snowflakes, etc.


Starting to get off topic. (https://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=50722) But yes, I have a serious response. And screw it; I guess that counts as coming out. Let's just put it this way: the divide between what people think they know and what is actually happening is quiet stark, to put it mildly.

Offline amysrevenge

  • Baseball-Cap-Beard-Baby Guy
  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5709
  • The Warhammeriest
Re: New Rule Against Hate Speech
« Reply #57 on: October 18, 2018, 03:07:12 PM »
From what I casually understand of it, Americans are outliers among western democracies when it comes to hate speech regulations, extremely off the end of the spectrum on the "we don't really have any" side.
Big Mike
Grande Prairie AB Canada

Offline SkeptiQueer

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7692
  • DEEZ NUTZ
Re: New Rule Against Hate Speech
« Reply #58 on: October 18, 2018, 04:59:57 PM »
Would you like to start by critically examining the strawman in your post?

How is the US law on hate speech relevant to this forum's rules?

Good point. I wasn't trying to argue that private platforms don't have the right to additionally regulate speech on them. I brought it up because I am suggesting that it might be relevant to look at a consistent, logically thought out, objective(?), legal standard of hate speech (with examples and case law) might inform the discussion. Unless there is some vehement disgust with the US version of hate speech laws, and maybe another version is better?


Why would we presume the US case law is consistent, logically thought out, or objective? Case law is done piecemeal by judges based on lawsuits and trials, not by careful consideration. We'd be better off looking at a country that wrote hate speech laws intentionally rather than by accident. Further, I still don't know why we're looking at any country's laws in the discussion of this forum's rules.

We're just going to ignore the strawman in the post I quoted then? Not even going to acknowledge it?
HIISSSSSSSS

 

personate-rain
personate-rain