Aspidistra finds loophole in hate speech rules?

My question is simple. Is it OK for posters to post an OP which essentially states “I agree with the linked article, let’s discuss it” – if the article in question would clearly have been moderated as hate speech if the poster had simply posted it directly?

Aspidistra did this in this thread, [Opinion: Lia Thomas shouldn’t swim in the Womens team].) The linked article was a cesspool of transphobic hate speech. To take the clearest example, it consistently and deliberately made a point of misgendering Ms. Thomas by referring to her as male, which is explicitly forbidden by SDMB’s guidelines for discussion of transgender issues (emphasis added):

Do not deliberately misgender another poster – that is, refer to them by a pronoun or other sex-specific term indicating a gender other than the one they identify as. This applies only in cases where a poster’s gender identity is reasonably clear. Likewise, do not deliberately misgender off-board figures. This is a more rigorous standard than we apply in other contexts; we do not normally mod posters for merely insulting off-board figures. Deal with it.

Aspidistra did not provide trigger warnings or in any other way indicate that the linked article violated SDMB guidelines and was certain to be profoundly offensive to many posters.

Chronos eventually closed the thread and commented that the OP’s article was devoid of content and poisoned the well, but didn’t make a ruling on this specific issue. Aspidistra was not Warned or moderated in any way.

I think we should have a clear ruling. If this sort of thing is permitted, the practical effect is that people can be as vile as they want to be in every forum as long as they maintain a fig leaf of linking to the hate speech instead of saying it directly. At the very least, posters should be required to warn others when posting a link to something that wouldn’t be allowed to be posted directly on the SDMB, just as we now require for NSFW links. I don’t think it would be unreasonable to go further and forbid the practice entirely; if you can’t find an article supporting your position that doesn’t use hate speech, you should probably be rethinking your position.

I think it’s a real problem if a person’s first-hand account of what has happened to them and their family is accounted “hate speech” and deleted from major platforms, and then anywhere that is willing to link their story is disallowed from being linked to and talked about. Don’t you?

You should tell me what in that mother’s talk you consider “hate”. Feel free to provide quotes.

Then if you consider me radicalised on this subject you should ask what radicalised me. In fact, it was the observing the consequences of belief in gender on various family members and friends of my kids, and then realising that it’s now impossible in public discourse to discuss anything negative about the consequences of belief in gender without immediately being censored, de-platformed and suppressed.

I empathise with the mother in the link being censored because I am censored. As is perfectly exhibited in this thread.

As this thread is practically a pitting of another poster. I’m closing it down until reviewed by @engineer_comp_geek.

Thread re-opened.

There is a valid issue to discuss here, specifically if linking to hate speech is equivalent to posting hate speech (or should be moderated as such) and whether or not warnings are clear identifiers are necessary. If someone disagrees that the linked item was in fact hate speech, that can also be discussed.

Keep in mind that this is ATMB, so be respectful to others and do not attack other users. Keep all posts appropriate to ATMB. For posts that aren’t appropriate to ATMB, you know where the Pit is.

Well, what is “hate speech” is to some extent a matter of opinion. What can’t be reasonably debated is that the article in question violated SDMB guidelines (or would have if it had been posted directly).

I think it’s significant to the discussion here that the OP didn’t describe the mother in the article as bigoted, but the article itself.

Well, assuming the article’s author is quoting the mother accurately, she also routinely misgendered Ms. Thomas and describes herself as having been “educated” by J.K. Rowling, so I’m comfortable calling her a bigot, too.

Linking to hate speech should be actionable. The OP is correct in that it’s an apparent loophole to say, “I didn’t say any of that, I just agree with the content.”

As always, I’m content to avoid bright lines and let the mods make contextual judgement calls on a case by case basis.

This is actually an example of a terrible bright line rule that should be repealed. I’m pretty sure I know why this bright line rule was allowed while almost every other bright line rule suggested is always met by “no, we don’t want to do bright line rules.” When you are allowed to call offboard figures cock suckers, baby killers, cunts, pedophiles, and motherfuckers, mis-gendering someone seems pretty small stuff.

It’s not.

I don’t see how someone can express support for transphobia openly and not run afoul of the rule against misgendering someone. Especially if the way they are supporting transphobia, is by expressing agreement with the idea that a specific person should be treated as a gender other than their self-identified gender. That does seem like pretty blatant misgendering.

Just a reminder: the stated guidelines:

But it would at least be possible to refer to the person you’re targeting as a “trans woman” rather than as a “man”. If you were trying to indicate that you considered them to be a human being deserving of the slightest shred of respect or dignity, I mean.

When deliberate, it very much is not. It’s about the equivalent of calling a black person the n-word or a gay person the f-word. It indicates the person hates trans people and supports trying to take away their rights. Heck, it means they see them as delusional.

Those other insults you mention are mean, but they do not attack someone for being part of a minority group. Well, except “cunt,” but a recent ruling says that it can’t be used in a misogynistic way.

In short, misgendering one trans person attacks all trans people. Same as the other words I’ve mentioned.

The article was clearly hate speech and should have warranted moderator action.

I’m sure there’s a discussion here about where exactly the line should be drawn in approximately similar situations. But there’s no reasonable place to draw the the line where that article doesn’t wind up way, way, way on the wrong side of it.

Add me to those asking “How is posting a link to hate speech and saying you agree with it, not hate speech?”

I just had a thought- does this apply to other rules? What else is acceptable if I just post a link and say “I agree with this” that is not acceptable if I post it?

I disagree. None of these offboard people being mis-gendered are ever going to know about a thread on the SDMB. Just like the ones being called pedos or cunts. Other posters, go ahead and mod them. People eleventy seven times removed from the board, not so much.

We recently had an elderly poster draw a warning for mis-gendering the spouse of someone on a reality show. So this was someone that wasn’t even on the show. Even people who were watching the show weren’t sure who was being talked about because there was more than one transgendered spouse. That was a ridiculous warning.

No, it is not and I wish people would stop trying to compare the n-word to every new thing that comes along.

No it absolutely doesn’t. Laws that discriminate against transgender people are against all transgender people. One person mis-gendering one person is not mis-gendering all transgendered people.

I was surprised that it even had to be thought over, given the current rules.

With no ruling other than what @Chronos gave, people could start a hundred threads on similar subjects until it got narrowed down to what was allowed. Thumbs up to the warnings he handed out, those were well earned.