What exactly is hate speech?

[aldiboronti]

From the SDMB registration agreement: (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=423183)

Hate speech, insults, and purposely inflammatory remarks (i.e., trolling) will not be tolerated.

I was refreshing my memory of the rules when it suddenly struck me that I have no clear idea of how the SDMB defines hate speech. So what does constitute hate speech?. I checked the definition on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech) but it seems far broader than would fit. For instance, attacking a group of people based on their ideology is included and that clearly isn't in force here (nor should it be.)

Could a misogynist set forth his principles on the board? A White Supremacist? Someone who hates fat people? A eugenecist?

I have no intention of testing any limits, I'm just interested as to how exactly you define hate speech.

[Contrapuntal]

From the SDMB registration agreement: (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=423183)



I was refreshing my memory of the rules when it suddenly struck me that I have no clear idea of how the SDMB defines hate speech. So what does constitute hate speech?. I checked the definition on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech) but it seems far broader than would fit. For instance, attacking a group of people based on their ideology is included and that clearly isn't in force here (nor should it be.)

Could a misogynist set forth his principles on the board? A White Supremacist? Someone who hates fat people? A eugenecist?

I have no intention of testing any limits, I'm just interested as to how exactly you define hate speech.They know it when they see it. That's the best you're going to get.

[BigT]

I don't know about the board, but I find that the Wikipedia definition is pretty accurateOriginally from Wikipedia:
Hate speech is a term for speech that attacks or disparages a person or group of people based on their social or ethnic group, such as race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion or lack thereof, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, ideology, social class, occupation, appearance (height, weight, skin color, etc.), mental capacity, and any other distinction that might be considered by some as a liability. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech)For the board, it seems the question is mostly which of those examples is considered a valid target of hate speech. But the basic idea that you must be "disparag[ing] a person or group of people based on their social or ethnic group" seems to hold true.

[C K Dexter Haven]

Like with every other rule, we really don't want to try to set up legal definitions. It would take volumes, and once we'd set up a definition that hate speech is abcdefghij, someone would want to push the envelope and ask about how about just abcdefghi.

So, no, you're not going to get a clear-cut definition. We've usually followed US anti-discrimination rules and said that degrading or insulting comments directed at a group (based on religion, ethnicity, disability, nationality, gender or sexual orientation.) Ageism hasn't been so much of an issue. From the Wikipedia cited by BigT, I can't see us caring much about "social groups" (insulting jocks or nerds, for instance, is a different order of magnitude from insulting a nationality or religion.)

We've fortunately had very few instances of hate speech, and they've usually been clear and overt . We tend to attract a fairly intelligent group of posters, who are pretty much accepting of other ethnicities, religions, gender orientations, etc. We can disagree, without insulting the other party.

If you're worried whether some snarky aside or Pit-comment might be mistaken as "hate speech" when it wasn't intended, I don't think that's really a worry. There's usually no question when we stumble on hate speech.

[Liberal]

White separatists have been allowed (by Gaudere) to debate here under the same rules as everyone else. Some years back, there was a lady from Stormfront who spent a few weeks debating, and she did comport herself admirably. Although her ideas were wrongheaded and her arguments were mostly weak, she expressed her views with civility and as much sensitivity as one could expect. She wasn't calling anyone names or using ugly words. She just advocated segregation. And I should add that not every aspect of her argument was bogus. I recall that she linked to a reputable source (if the US government can be considered a reputable source) that reported on a phenomenon that amounted to a sort of voluntary segregation, not just among whites but among blacks as well. Of course, that was years ago, and I think the trend has shifted somewhat, at least from what I've observed.

[Zoe]

I see hate speech against people with disabilities (eating disorders, mental illnesses) and differing orientations (including regionalism and religion) frequently. They don't come from a lot of different people, but the comments show up often.

[Skammer]

We've usually followed US anti-discrimination rules and said that degrading or insulting comments directed at a group (based on religion, ethnicity, disability, nationality, gender or sexual orientation.) I've seen plenty degrading or insulting comments directed at a religious group on this board. Should we start reporting them as hate speech?

[C K Dexter Haven]

If you see such, Zoe (or anyone else, of course), please hit the REPORT POST button (the little ! in the red triangle in the upper right corner of the post) and let the mods decide. There's often a fine line between a "friendly joke" about (say) a mental illness, vs hate-speech directed against the disabled. Anyhow, please REPORT it and let the mods decide.

As Liberal has noted, it should be possible to hold civil discussion with people whose ethics are different from yours. A racist, bigot, anti-semite, homophobe, whatever-else who can engage in civil discourse without insulting other posters (or groups) should be able to converse on these Message Boards. Who knows, someone might find the right words to talk them out of their bigotry?

[ToeJam]

Heh... there's a reason the Pit's become a bit more friendly in the last year or so, and it's because of reasons similar to this.

It's a slippery slope, and I don't really have a dog in this fight, but I'm fine with it being undefined. Just... amusing to see how such a small seeming incident at the time rolled into no usage of certain words, moderator changes, and even splinter boards. In retrospect, who really saw that coming?

[Contrapuntal]

We've usually followed US anti-discrimination rules and said that degrading or insulting comments directed at a group (based on religion, ethnicity, disability, nationality, gender or sexual orientation.)I reported a post where the term "Indian giver" was used to describe someone derogatorily. No action was taken. Why do you suppose that is?

[Argent Towers]

I reported a post where the term "Indian giver" was used to describe someone derogatorily. No action was taken. Why do you suppose that is?

The rules concerning which expressions are insulting are utterly arbitrary. There is no logic to them at all, other than that some groups are "out of bounds" and others aren't. Nobody would ever report someone for saying "go Dutch" even though that expression originated as an insult insinuating that the Dutch are cheap. Probably no one even knows that.

[ToeJam]

I reported a post where the term "Indian giver" was used to describe someone derogatorily. No action was taken. Why do you suppose that is?

Probably because you could get away with saying that on prime time TV and people wouldn't raise a fuss. I sorta use that as the litmus for what's harsh or not. If it would get in trouble playing at 8pm on a major channel, it's probably not kosher.

I guess you just got gypped there.
d&r

[C K Dexter Haven]

"Hate speech" is usually more than just a single word or phrase. There are some exceptions, such as "nigger" or "kike" that imply a lower-than-human status, and which tend not to exist outside of hate-speech rants.

We certainly agree that phrases like "Indian-giver" or "Dutch-treat" or "Oriental" or "wop" are insulting, but they're also commonly used by people who are NOT intending insult, and certainly not intending hate speech. We don't want to try implementing some sort of "political correctness" -- requiring people to say personufacturing or huperson beings, sort of thing. We want this to be a place where people can have open discussions, and where practically anything goes. At the same time, we don't want to give a forum to out-and-out racism and bigotry. So, we try to find the reasonable balance.

[Contrapuntal]

"Hate speech" is usually more than just a single word or phrase. There are some exceptions, such as "nigger" or "kike" that imply a lower-than-human status, and which tend not to exist outside of hate-speech rants.

We certainly agree that phrases like "Indian-giver" or "Dutch-treat" or "Oriental" or "wop" are insulting, but they're also commonly used by people who are NOT intending insult, and certainly not intending hate speech. We don't want to try implementing some sort of "political correctness" -- requiring people to say personufacturing or huperson beings, sort of thing. We want this to be a place where people can have open discussions, and where practically anything goes. At the same time, we don't want to give a forum to out-and-out racism and bigotry. So, we try to find the reasonable balance.A poster had to change her name from "Hottentot" because one person complained, even though she meant no offense, and no one around here had used it derogatorily.

[C K Dexter Haven]

I personally think there's a diff between username and posting. If I post something and mention Spanish fly, and then get told by someone that "Spanish fly" is offensive to Spaniards, I can learn from it, and then decide whether I want to continue to use that term in the future. If the term is my username, it'll appear everywhere I ever post. There's a major diff, seems to me.

We've had to deal with LOTS of usernames that are offensive in lots of different ways. We all learned from the "Hottentot" situation, most of us had no clue it was offensive. As I say, we don't want to be in the "politically correct" camp, but we don't want anyone causing hurt or spewing racism. There's not always a clear dividing line.

[Pray for peace]

Probably because you could get away with saying that on prime time TV and people wouldn't raise a fuss. I sorta use that as the litmus for what's harsh or not. If it would get in trouble playing at 8pm on a major channel, it's probably not kosher.

I guess you just got gypped there.
d&r

Yeah, you really are batshit crazy. :)

[aldiboronti]

Probably because you could get away with saying that on prime time TV and people wouldn't raise a fuss. I sorta use that as the litmus for what's harsh or not. If it would get in trouble playing at 8pm on a major channel, it's probably not kosher.

I guess you just got gypped there.
d&r

The rules prime time TV applies should not be a guide for anybody. The advertisers (and they're the ones with the clout there) are fearful of giving the slightest offence to practically anybody, it might harm product sales. They err so far on the side of caution that it becomes silly. That''s not a yardstick that anyone else should use.

[C K Dexter Haven]

Yeah, you really are batshit crazy. :)OK, I understand that this is a joke, but... We don't permit personal insults in this forum, not even as a joke.

[Pray for peace]

OK, I understand that this is a joke, but... We don't permit personal insults in this forum, not even as a joke.

Sorry, I should have been more clear. My comment wasn't meant as a personal insult at all. I'm new to SDMB, but I've been surprised by how often the phrase "batshit crazy" is used in a joking manner to characterize a third party, rather than as a direct insult. I think it's an offensive phrase, but I do understand that (as I've seen it used at SDMB), it's intended as a good-natured joke rather than as an insult to people with mental illness. I just wish that mental illness was something that people felt less OK joking about.

[Contrapuntal]

Probably because you could get away with saying that on prime time TV and people wouldn't raise a fuss. I sorta use that as the litmus for what's harsh or not. If it would get in trouble playing at 8pm on a major channel, it's probably not kosher.

I guess you just got gypped there.
d&rWell, Ive heard someone called a nigger on NYPD Blue. Just last night someone was called "faggy" on a Will and Grace re-run, and "faggot" on the Daily Show. All those are off limits here.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Clearly, more concrete rules will be needed when the sitcom version of the SDMB is launched. <laughter><applause>

[ToeJam]

I just wish that mental illness was something that people felt less OK joking about.

Heh, and I don't think I really agree- but then again I might, it all depends. Hence the "I'll know it when i see it"- most things sit well with me, but if it doesn't, then it def. probably deserves a second look, because most things don't phase me.

But it's fine with me. Though when I think of tv shows- I think more along the lines of House, and other dramas where you can certainly say plenty of things just as long as you don't get grossly offensive. Mainly, I just wanted an excuse to use the gypped line.

And no harm, no foul on your insult to moi- I don't really give that much thought to it. But thanks for trying to explain yourself (as I didn't get the reference/joke).

[Contrapuntal]

"Hate speech" is usually more than just a single word or phrase. There are some exceptions, such as "nigger" or "kike" that imply a lower-than-human status, and which tend not to exist outside of hate-speech rants.

We certainly agree that phrases like "Indian-giver" or "Dutch-treat" or "Oriental" or "wop" are insulting, but they're also commonly used by people who are NOT intending insult, and certainly not intending hate speech. We don't want to try implementing some sort of "political correctness" -- requiring people to say personufacturing or huperson beings, sort of thing. We want this to be a place where people can have open discussions, and where practically anything goes. At the same time, we don't want to give a forum to out-and-out racism and bigotry. So, we try to find the reasonable balance.Let's try another tack then. In this post (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10682722&postcount=8), in this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=10682787&highlight=white+trash#post10682787), Ed Zotti says that phrases that single out an entire ethnicity in a derogatory way are hate speech. Indian Giver singles out an entire ethnicity, and claims that they are thieves. I fail to see how common usage creates a pass.

I now see that you support this view as well. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10682872&postcount=12)

The fact that "Indian Giver" used to be OK is irrelevant. "Nigger" used to be OK.

[Oakminster]

Under the wikipedia definition of Hate Speech, most of the usual suspects in GD would have to be banned for things routinely posted about Christians, Conservatives, Republicans, the South, Southerners, or pretty much anyone else that doesn't follow the strong leftist slant that pervades this board.

[Mr. Moto]

When the rule was reiterated some time back by Ed I asked point blank about the casual use of "retard" and "retarded". I never got a straight answer at all.

I can't see why other words are strictly forbidden and these are allowed. It would be foolish to demand consistency throughout, but in this particular case it seems pretty clear.

[silenus]

I see hate speech against people with disabilities (eating disorders, mental illnesses) and differing orientations (including regionalism and religion) frequently. They don't come from a lot of different people, but the comments show up often.

If we're not allowed to insult Texans, then the terrorists have already won. :D

[Gfactor]

When the rule was reiterated some time back by Ed I asked point blank about the casual use of "retard" and "retarded". I never got a straight answer at all.


You did? I searched and found several places where you spoke disapprovingly of that usage, but I didn't find one where you asked Ed Zotti or anybody else about it. Was this in an e-mail or a PM?

[Mr. Moto]

I believe email - I'll check later.

[Gfactor]

I believe email - I'll check later.

Up to you. I'll take your word for it.

[C K Dexter Haven]

I think that "Indian giver" is offensive and should not be used. The implicatation, as you say, is theivery. I think that "Dutch treat" has origins in stereotypes, but is not outrageously offensive. The implication is niggardly stinginess :)

However, I don't think of either of those as "hate speech." Hate speech (IMHO) is more than just a word or phrase, generally; hate speech is a diatribe. The word "nigger" is NOT, in itself, hate speech: we could have a discussion about the use of the word "nigger" in Huckleberry Finn, for instance, and it would be a literary discussion, not hate speech. To me, hate speech is a SPEECH, not just a phrase.

I personally find the word "retard" offensive; I wouldn't call it hate speech. I'd call it narrow-mindedness, stereotyping, and making light of serious disabilities.

[Zoe]

C K Dexter Haven: Hate speech (IMHO) is more than just a word or phrase, generally; hate speech is a diatribe. The word "nigger" is NOT, in itself, hate speech: we could have a discussion about the use of the word "nigger" in [i]Huckleberry Finn[/b], for instance, and it would be a literary discussion, not hate speech. To me, hate speech is a SPEECH, not just a phrase.

You have a right to your opinion, Dex, but I don't think I've ever seen "hate speech" defined as an actual "speech" before anymore than "freedom of speech" has to refer to a speech.

I think the word nigger is hate speech when it is used to put someone down as a member of a group or to denigrate the group as a whole by suggesting that any member is somehow inferior.

It has not always been hate speech. At one time it was common to refer to black people as "niggers" without any malice intended. As foreign as that may seem to us now, that was the common word used in many areas of this country even when a white person felt love or a genuine affection for a black person.

That's why Mark Twain's Huckleberry Finn called Jim a "nigger." That would have been the appropriate dialectical choice just as "Injun" Joe was in Tom Sawyer.

When the short story "Stagger Lee" was written -- sometime around mid-Twentieth Century -- the tone had changed and the use of "nigger" was definitely more loaded. Though Stagger Lee was also portrayed as a hero and the material was Board of Education approved, I always excused any students who were offended by the use of the word in literature from my class before reading the story aloud.

I wouldn't read the story aloud today without asking a student to lead a class discussion on hate speech the day before and then there would be the same opportunity to opt out. Then I would have more discussion afterwards.

I have very mixed feelings about controlled speech. I didn't like it the other day when a mod took a swipe at me. Part of that is because I don't think that Dopers should be discouraged from posting civil criticism of mod actions in this Forum. Part of me wanted him gagged from doing that sort of thing. Another part of me worships at the First Amendment Center in Nashville on the Vanderbilt Campus. Thanks to the mod, everything is fine now. But sometimes it is really hard for me to sit quietly and listen to bullshit.

It is not as hard for me to listen to informed criticism. I have a mental illness. It doesn't bother me if someone says that I am crazy. It doesn't bother me if "crazy" is used idiomatically either. It bothers me if "are you taking your meds?" is used as a put down for other people. It shouldn't be. People shouldn't be encouraged to feel ashamed of being on medication for their brain chemistry anymore than they would be for their pancreas. I wouldn't call that "hate speech" though.

The more that I write, the more I see Dex's point. Although I'm still not in agreement with him. One of the most recent examples of hate speech was an OP describing a visit to a doctor's office. Someone was going to be late for work because another person was holding up the line. He went on to describe that person's disability in great detail. That description was either intentional hate speech or the poster was greatly disturbed or both.

[BigT]

The rules concerning which expressions are insulting are utterly arbitrary. There is no logic to them at all, other than that some groups are "out of bounds" and others aren't. Nobody would ever report someone for saying "go Dutch" even though that expression originated as an insult insinuating that the Dutch are cheap. Probably no one even knows that.

That's precisely the point. The saying has entered our lexicon in such a way that we no longer consider it an insult. I always took it to mean that Dutch people have a different social system where everyone paying for their own food is the norm for a date.

I also thought Indian-giver was a self-derogatory term, referring to something we gave the Native Americans, and then, after driving them out of their land, we took back.

I don't think the rules are arbitrary. They're based on actual societal rules of what is and isn't acceptable in the majority of social environments where the majority of us live.

[C K Dexter Haven]

I think we're in agreement, Zoe. A single word, out of context, is not necessarily hate speech. I said it needs "speech" but I didn't mean it needs a three page oratory. I meant it needs context, surrounding words or situation, to be identified as hate speech, which usually means surrounding words. Thus, if someone reported that you had used the word "nigger" in your post above, I can't (neither as mod nor as human being) assume that means you engaged in hate speech. And, of course, you didn't; you were talking literary history/analysis.

The words don't stand alone. The context of the words determines hate speech. It would be possible (indeed, happens alla time) for someone to write a post that was hate speech, that didn't involve ANY derogatory terms at all. A post calling for all [fill in ethnic group, race, or religion] in the US to be sent back to where they came from, for instance, could be written in the most polite terms and yet be hate speech. Or it could, in fact, be an honest (if misguided) discussion of a possible (albeit improbably) solution to a problem (for instance, if the group were "illegal immigrants from X"). It would all depend on context.

I don't object to "crazy" as a term in the way that I dislike "retarded."

The question of origin of phrases raises interesting points. In the Hottentot example we had a while back, most of us were completely unaware of the history of the word, or it's racist usage. We learned. But when a phrase has come into common usage, what do we do with it when we learn the origin was racist? And I think there's no easy answer that covers all cases, I think it just depends on HOW evil the term is. And where we want to draw the line between fighting racism and ... well, being silly about political correctness. As Zoe said, we heartily favor free-speech, and we don't want to be censoring unless we absolutely have to.

[Liberal]

I don't think you ever "absolutely have to" unless the speech itself is illegal — for example, if someone posted a short story in Cafe Society about a woman seducing her young son's best friend.

[Contrapuntal]

I think that "Indian giver" is offensive and should not be used. The implicatation, as you say, is theivery. I think that "Dutch treat" has origins in stereotypes, but is not outrageously offensive. The implication is niggardly stinginess :)

However, I don't think of either of those as "hate speech."But, but, but, Ed said it was. He said that singling out an entire ethnic group and referring to them derogatorily qualifies.

Why have rules against hate speech at all if it so elusive of detection that that it is impossible to define? Surely there are other reasons to sanction against offensive speech that don't at the same time place certain groups in a protected class.

[Liberal]

Why have rules against hate speech at all if it so elusive of detection that that it is impossible to define? Surely there are other reasons to sanction against offensive speech that don't at the same time place certain groups in a protected class.The problem is that their conclusion is their premise. (1) Hate speech is bad because we say it's bad. (2) The Bible is true because the Bible says it's true.

(1) and (2) same same.

When a person (or persons) is convinced that a conclusion is true, and then attempts to reason from it, a logical circularity develops. Your question can be answered only by Jabberwocky.

[Gfactor]

I've several posts from this thread thread to this (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=11791821)one that Carol Stream started about the Pit rules because the Carol Stream's question is about those and not about hate speech.

Carol, this isn't the Pit. Please don't hijack threads with unrelated questions.

[Carol Stream]

Carol, this isn't the Pit. Please don't hijack threads with unrelated questions.

It wasn't intended as a hijack. Dex always says to use the report button, but when the Mods (including you) don't respond, what else should we do except bring in up in a polite fashion to an Administrator? That's all I was trying to do.

Question about hate speech then. Are derogatory comments based on gender hate speech, or not?

[C K Dexter Haven]

As always: it depends on the context.

Especially with gender, there is good-natured ribbing, there's nasty insult, and there's hate speech. The same words or phrases in different context can be any of those.

[Czarcasm]

It wasn't intended as a hijack. Dex always says to use the report button, but when the Mods (including you) don't respond, what else should we do except bring in up in a polite fashion to an Administrator? That's all I was trying to do.Again, we don't give personal responses to all who press the "Report" button, and again, just because you don't immediately see results that personally satisfy you, doesn't mean that nothing has been done(or that we aren't talking about the situation).

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Is the statement "members of [Group X] tend to be [Y]" necessarily "hate speech" (assuming that Y is or is perceived as a negative trait), and does this depend on which group is being discussed?

[aldiboronti]

I started the thread wondering if there was a definition but I think it's all a matter of judgment and hate speech is speech which in the opinion of the moderators is hateful. It's far too slippery an animal to be nailed down. It may defy definition but presumably the staff know it when they see it. Unsatisfactory perhaps, but how could it be otherwise and I can't say I have any problems with the way it's been handled thus far.

[Contrapuntal]

I started the thread wondering if there was a definition but I think it's all a matter of judgment and hate speech is speech which in the opinion of the moderators is hateful. It's far too slippery an animal to be nailed down. It may defy definition but presumably the staff know it when they see it. Unsatisfactory perhaps, but how could it be otherwise and I can't say I have any problems with the way it's been handled thus far.Except there is no reason to have a hate speech rule. "Don't be a jerk" should cover it. The only thing having a hate speech rule accomplishes is that certain groups are in a protected class unnecessarily.

[C K Dexter Haven]

Except there is no reason to have a hate speech rule. "Don't be a jerk" should cover it. The only thing having a hate speech rule accomplishes is that certain groups are in a protected class unnecessarily.I don't disagree with your first two statements, Contrapuntal. When we started, we thought "Don't be a jerk" was the only rule we'd need. The other rules have been pretty much added over time, because the posters were unhappy with such a fuzzy guideline. Thus, we're torn between trying to leave things general, and trying to give specific guidance on what "being a jerk" means.

Defining "hate speech" isn't an issue outside the Pit (it's certainly covered under "no personal insults.") But in the Pit, where personal insults are allowed, the question was: are there limits? The answer was: Yes. (So I do disagree with your last statement.)

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

Defining "hate speech" isn't an issue outside the Pit (it's certainly covered under "no personal insults.")You've not addressed my question in post #41, but I deduce the answer from this line. Because you seem to be saying that all "hate speech" is a personal insult, while the example I gave is not a personal insult.

[mhendo]

Defining "hate speech" isn't an issue outside the Pit (it's certainly covered under "no personal insults.")See, i don't understand this at all.

It's quite possible to use hate speech, as we commonly understand the term, without making it a personal insult directed toward someone who is a member of the SDMB. Definitions of hate speech are generally based only on the particular individual at whom the speech itself is directed. If someone in a group starts ranting about how all faggots should be beaten, isn't that hate speech even if there's not a single gay person in the group?

If all that is true, then surely it's not simply enough to say that, outside the Pit, hate speech isn't an issue because it's covered under the "no personal insults" rule.

There's actually a recent example that i think is rather on point here. In the GD thread about the fake marine, one poster observed:These decorations are an official, meaningful, solemn military honor.

They are not something for random faggots to play with. In what possible world is that not hate speech? Even if it wasn't directed at a particular SDMB member, or at any individual posting in the thread, surely it qualifies under any reasonable definition of the term?

I'm ambivalent about whether we need the hate speech rule at all, but if we're going to have it, surely this is a cut-and-dried case for its enforcement?

And yet two moderators have specifically responded to that post without invoking the hate speech rule. One wrote:This is just plain inappropriate. You've been here long enough to know that.and the other specifically noted that he let it slide because it wasn't a personal insult:Your "faggot" comment was inappropriate, but I didn't give a warning because you were making a (nasty) generalization about a group rather than any specific posters. As i said, we can debate the merits of having the hate speech rule at all, but if we're going to have it, then at least its enforcement needs to demonstrate some basic concordance with the general understanding of what hate speech is. And referring to gay people as faggots, as far as i know, generally qualifies, particularly when there was clearly no irony and no humorous intent in the post.

[Carol Stream]

Again, we don't give personal responses to all who press the "Report" button, and again, just because you don't immediately see results that personally satisfy you, doesn't mean that nothing has been done(or that we aren't talking about the situation).

It's been almost five days, so I doubt you're still talking about it. So, are "Shut the fuck up" and "Get the fuck away from me" acceptable in the Pit? How about refering to a woman as "Man-Hands"?

[Liberal]

Don't know about those, but I know that "hand stabber" is forbidden, at least for me, in reference to hardcore evangelical atheists.

[Zoe]

Liberal, are you saying that you are not allowed by TPTB at SDMB to use the term "hand stabber" as a description for hardcore evangelical atheists?

Dex: Especially with gender, there is good-natured ribbing, there's nasty insult, and there's hate speech. The same words or phrases in different context can be any of those.

For you it's gender that can be good-natured ribbing in one context and hate speech in another. For someone else, it might be race or ethnic background sensitivity that "changes" according to context (whose in the room, for example).

I don't know any gender comments that are actually hate speech that are good-natured at all -- not if hate speech has to be more than just a word.

[TubaDiva]

Don't know about those, but I know that "hand stabber" is forbidden, at least for me, in reference to hardcore evangelical atheists.The epithet is based on an urban legend -- supposedly Madelyn Murray O'Hair stabbed someone in the hand in an argument. Or somebody stabbed her or some other such.

At the time of this discussion it was not proven that it was a true story. It was just an urban legend. We asked you not to spread ignorance by the use of such an epithet.

As to whether "hand stabber" is hate speech, maybe not . . . but it is surely not a compliment to anyone, either. Don't think I've ever heard anyone say "What a great hand stabber that guy is!"

[C K Dexter Haven]

mhendo: You're right; I was just thinking of one-on-one situations. Clearly, hate-speech can arise elsewhere than the Pit. Thanks for the correction.

Carol: I answered you back in Post #39: it depends on the context. With certain limited exceptions, we have chosen NOT to try to legislate which words or expressions are OK and which are not. We prefer to allow lots of freedom in the way people express themselves.

Zoe: Yes, certainly there can be racial comments that are meant/taken in jest, but they seems more common with gender: there are softer words, like "darling" or "honey" that are still basically sexist, but not something we'd care about. There's not so many softer terms for race; perhaps "Oriental" to mean Asian? Anyhow, I was generalizing, because there are so very many sexist terms that are not so worrisome. (Yes, yes, any sexism is worrisome, but we start to cross the line into absurd political correctness.)

[Zoe]

"Honey" considered hate speech?

Hmmm...Come to think of it, my first husband called me "Bee Poop." I see what you mean.

[C K Dexter Haven]

"Honey" considered hate speech?? Color me confused. My point was that there is a difference between comments that are sexist at base (e.g., calling every woman "honey") and hate speech.

[Liberal]

Liberal, are you saying that you are not allowed by TPTB at SDMB to use the term "hand stabber" as a description for hardcore evangelical atheists?Yes, that's correct — the power being TubaDiva. Her "reasoning" was that it was not proven to her satisfaction that Madalyn Murray O'Hair — well known for her Fred Phelps style evangelism, quirky moods, and unmitigated rudeness to all people of faith — had indeed stabbed a man in the hand with a pencil when he blessed her after a sneeze.

I heard the story from her son — her son. Directly out of his mouth. On the radio in Charlotte in the mid to late 1980s. Since the station is now defunct, and no Internet record exists, she (Tuba) has decided to call it an "urban legend", which incidentally is not how urban legend is defined.

The fact of the matter is that she just had a stick up her ass that day and decided that I — specifically I — could not use the term. It was just another one of those bizarre ad hod rulings, followed by equally bizarre email correspondence.

All in the world that it is, is a descriptive term for hard-ass atheists who believe they need to use intimidation, threats, and violence in dealing with people of faith. It is a perfectly good descriptor, and her decision to ban it is on par with Ed's decison to ban "fuck you". It's just stupid.

[mhendo]

Yes, that's correct — the power being TubaDiva. Her "reasoning" was that it was not proven to her satisfaction that Madalyn Murray O'Hair — well known for her Fred Phelps style evangelism, quirky moods, and unmitigated rudeness to all people of faith — had indeed stabbed a man in the hand with a pencil when he blessed her after a sneeze.That is rather bizarre.

Say, for argument's sake, that we knew for certain that O'Hair had never stabbed someone in the hand with a pencil. Why does it matter, for the purposes of using an insult, whether or not that story is true? Even if it were nothing more than an urban legend, its veracity should not be the determining factor in whether or not the term "hand stabber" is an allowable epithet.

Happy Thanksgiving, to handstabbers and fundies alike. :)

[Liberal]

Say, for argument's sake, that we knew for certain that O'Hair had never stabbed someone in the hand with a pencil. Why does it matter, for the purposes of using an insult, whether or not that story is true? Even if it were nothing more than an urban legend, its veracity should not be the determining factor in whether or not the term "hand stabber" is an allowable epithet.Yeppers. Precisely.

[LouisB]

The current on-going diatribe regarding the Confederacy seems to me to be filled with hate speech as well as numerous violations of the "don't be a jerk" rule. Slavery existed and it shouldn't have; it doesn't exist in this country any more. It seems to me that a line is crossed when people are labeled "monsters" and "racists" simply because they refuse to feel shame regarding certain actions of their ancestors.

[Fenris]

[quote]All in the world that it is, is a descriptive term for hard-ass atheists who believe they need to use intimidation, threats, and violence in dealing with people of faith. It is a perfectly good descriptor, and her decision to ban it is on par with Ed's decison to ban "fuck you". It's just stupid.

It was a stupid decision, but also a stupid descriptive term, since no-one in the world knows the story/term except for you (and the people here who you've told).

It's not a good insult* if you have to footnote it each time you use it.

I agree it'd be nice to have a mod-allowed insult for rabid atheists like "fundie" is for Christians, but this ain't it.


*in the sense that "fundie" is an allowed insult

[Liberal]

You're probably right, Fen. (Although "fundie" had to be explained to me when I first saw it. I thought it meant "hedonist", or "someone who likes fun".)