# Aspidistra finds loophole in hate speech rules? **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [March 10, 2022, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aspidistra-finds-loophole-in-hate-speech-rules/960843 "2022-03-10T19:59:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2022, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aspidistra-finds-loophole-in-hate-speech-rules/960843/41 "2022-03-11T06:03:11Z")
ISTM that this would open up a whole can of worms. Dopers routinely post links to disgusting hate-speech-type material in the context of ranting about how awful it is, for example. That doesn’t get modded, even if it doesn’t include any specific warning about hate speech content. I don’t know how we would conclusively tell the difference between an OP linking to a controversial article in order to deliberately sneak its hateful terminology into the discourse, which I agree should not be tolerated, and an OP linking to a controversial article because they agree with its general argument although they reject its hateful terminology. AFAICT, these issues are usually dealt with by posters pointing out that the OP’s link poisons the well, and if they sincerely want to debate a controversial point they should find a defense of it that doesn’t bring in hateful terminology. Asking people to overlook vile insults is not a reasonable expectation in debate. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Bravo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_bravo/32/493_2.png) [@Johnny\_Bravo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Bravo)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2022, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aspidistra-finds-loophole-in-hate-speech-rules/960843/42 "2022-03-11T06:25:53Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > Dopers routinely post links to disgusting hate-speech-type material in the context of ranting about how awful it is, for example. Context is important. Lambasting something vile is a world apart from linking it to get around rules. I do think warnings and/or two-clicks for hate speech in those circumstances is a reasonable best practice. > [@Kimstu](#): > > I don’t know how we would conclusively tell the difference between an OP linking to a controversial article in order to deliberately sneak its hateful terminology into the discourse, which I agree should not be tolerated, and an OP linking to a controversial article because they agree with its general argument although they reject its hateful terminology. I don’t think that needs to be a line. If you can’t find an argument supporting your position that doesn’t include hateful terminology, you probably need to go ahead and abandon your position. ---
**Author:** ![nightshadea](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/7ba0ec/32.png) [@nightshadea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nightshadea)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2022, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aspidistra-finds-loophole-in-hate-speech-rules/960843/43 "2022-03-11T06:30:18Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > AFAICT, these issues are usually dealt with by posters pointing out that the OP’s link poisons the well, and if they sincerely want to debate a controversial point they should find a defense of it that doesn’t bring in hateful terminology. Asking people to overlook vile insults is not a reasonable expectation in debate the thing is what happens when the poster doesn’t think the terms are hateful? as apparently the poster who posted the op to begin with didn’t seem to think so … ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Bravo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_bravo/32/493_2.png) [@Johnny\_Bravo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Bravo)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2022, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aspidistra-finds-loophole-in-hate-speech-rules/960843/44 "2022-03-11T06:34:05Z")
> [@nightshadea](#): > > the thing is what happens when the poster doesn’t think the terms are hateful? It’s an opportunity for them to learn why they are wrong, at least by the standards of the community they choose to participate in. ---
**Author:** ![mordecaiB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mordecaib/32/7725_2.png) [@mordecaiB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mordecaiB)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2022, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aspidistra-finds-loophole-in-hate-speech-rules/960843/45 "2022-03-11T07:50:41Z")
> [@Thing.Fish](#): > > Would mordecai and those who wish to participate in his hijack about whether this rule should be repealed start their own thread? TIA. You’re right, I apologize for going off topic. Sorry about that and I’ll drop out. Good luck. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2022, 10:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aspidistra-finds-loophole-in-hate-speech-rules/960843/46 "2022-03-11T10:01:19Z")
> [@Johnny\_Bravo](#): > > If you can’t find an argument supporting your position that doesn’t include hateful terminology, you probably need to go ahead and abandon your position. Quoting for truth. ---
**Author:** ![Thing.Fish](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thing.fish/32/9168_2.png) [@Thing.Fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Thing.Fish)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2022, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aspidistra-finds-loophole-in-hate-speech-rules/960843/47 "2022-03-11T16:21:16Z")
It’s true, I think this case is quite clear-cut but but other cases could be tricky. I think “Can you believe how stupid this crap is?” is probably a sufficient warning in almost all contexts. And although this link was blatant, there might be other cases where the offensive speech is subtler. We can’t have a standard where people are expected to carefully read every word of every link they post, although I do think the standard should be significantly higher in the case of links in an OP. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Bravo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_bravo/32/493_2.png) [@Johnny\_Bravo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Bravo)\ **Post date:** [March 11, 2022, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aspidistra-finds-loophole-in-hate-speech-rules/960843/48 "2022-03-11T16:34:46Z")
> [@Thing.Fish](#): > > We can’t have a standard where people are expected to carefully read every word of every link they post Heaven forfend. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [March 13, 2022, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aspidistra-finds-loophole-in-hate-speech-rules/960843/49 "2022-03-13T19:50:52Z")
> [@mordecaiB](#): > > 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. Linky? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2022, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aspidistra-finds-loophole-in-hate-speech-rules/960843/50 "2022-03-14T05:10:45Z")
I don’t know how “elderly” Crane is, but I _think_ they’re talking about this? > [@Survivor: 41st Season](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/survivor-41st-season/951202/20): > > [Moderating] We have a rule against misgendering, and “male impersonator” appears to be an example of that. That’ll be a Warning. In which case there was nothing ridiculous about that warning, as Crane went on to demonstrate in the related ATMB thread. > [@Chronos clarification please](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chronos-clarification-please/951378/22): > > Thanks for the clarification. It’s an absurdity we have to accept. OK, I can live with that. ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2022, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aspidistra-finds-loophole-in-hate-speech-rules/960843/51 "2022-03-14T13:17:21Z")
The problem here is that the bright line does not protect us from using the ‘N’ word, rather it is the equivalent of requiring us to use the ‘W’ word when referring to people who are black. Re the OP: Is it possible to discuss _“Der Rosenkavalier”_ or “_The Marriage of Figaro_” without violating the bright line? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2022, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aspidistra-finds-loophole-in-hate-speech-rules/960843/52 "2022-03-14T13:24:30Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > Re the OP: Is it possible to discuss _“Der Rosenkavalier”_ or “ _The Marriage of Figaro_ ” without violating the bright line? Either you’re astonishingly unclear on what’s being discussed, or you’re trying to make an argument through satire to mock transgender people. Either way, you got off real light with a warning. ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2022, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aspidistra-finds-loophole-in-hate-speech-rules/960843/53 "2022-03-14T13:32:25Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > unclear on what’s being discussed Can cross dressing and gender impersonation be discussed within the bounds of existing forum rules? Can the language be used? ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2022, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aspidistra-finds-loophole-in-hate-speech-rules/960843/54 "2022-03-14T13:32:31Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > Re the OP: Is it possible to discuss _“Der Rosenkavalier”_ or “ _The Marriage of Figaro_ ” without violating the bright line? I have no idea what this is about. Can you fill in some context? > [@Crane](#): > > Can cross dressing and gender impersonation be discussed within the bounds of existing forum rules? Can the language be used? ETA: Is this what it’s about? I would say, sure, no problem, but I’m not a mod. I’m pretty sure it would be fine to discuss The Birdcage in the Cafe, for example. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2022, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aspidistra-finds-loophole-in-hate-speech-rules/960843/55 "2022-03-14T13:39:59Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > Can cross dressing and gender impersonation be discussed within the bounds of existing forum rules? Can the language be used? Okay. Assuming sincerity on your part: - There are men who identify as men but who wear clothing traditionally associated with women–dresses, skirts, corsets, etc. When a person identifies as a man but chooses to wear clothing associated with women, in general that’s cross-dressing. (There are women-dressing-as-men as well, but in our society that’s rarer, given clothing mores). - There are also people who identify as men who deliberately pretend to be women, and vice versa. If I, who identify as male, adopt the stage persona of Lucy Goosy Queen of Fowl Play, and I wear a giant feathered boa and a sequined gown and a lot of makeup, you might describe me as a female impersonator. If I just shave my beard and fake a driver’s license that says Elizabeth and wear a pantsuit in order to pull off a daring casino heist, you might describe me the same way. - There are transgender people, who were assigned one gender at birth but do not identify as that gender. I REPEAT: THEY DO NOT IDENTIFY AS THAT GENDER. The gender they identify as **comports with** the gender they intend people to see them as. When they dress in clothing that other folks with the same gender dress in, they’re not cross-dressing. When they present as the gender they are, they’re not impersonating. - The only way a transgender person may be described as a “female impersonator” would be if, for example, a man assigned female at birth puts on a skirt and lipstick. But I’d strongly recommend against using that description, because some grossly transphobic people have kind of commandeered the use of “impersonator” to describe transgender people, and at this point you’re just better off finding a different term. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2022, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aspidistra-finds-loophole-in-hate-speech-rules/960843/56 "2022-03-14T13:41:43Z")
Crane is well aware that transgender people aren’t female impersonators, they’re just repeating the same misgendering schtick that got them warned last time. Your last point is hardly news to them. ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2022, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aspidistra-finds-loophole-in-hate-speech-rules/960843/57 "2022-03-14T13:48:41Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > The only way a transgender person may be described as a “female impersonator” would be if, for example, a man assigned female at birth puts on a skirt and lipstick. In my original mis-gendering transgression I referred to a character in a TV reality play who referred to **his husband** as being **pregnant**. I referred to that as a female impersonating a male. No slur was intended. It was simply sentential English. In order to debate reality we need access to language. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2022, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aspidistra-finds-loophole-in-hate-speech-rules/960843/58 "2022-03-14T13:57:33Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > In order to debate reality we need access to language. You have access to language, but you’re using it very poorly. You were almost incorrect when you said that anyone was impersonating a male. If the spouse of the character identifies as male and presents as male, he’s male. His pregnancy has nothing to do with that. Are you genuinely confused on this straightforward point? When you say “no slur was intended,” I don’t believe you. ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2022, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aspidistra-finds-loophole-in-hate-speech-rules/960843/59 "2022-03-14T14:00:18Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > he’s male. His pregnancy has nothing to do with that I rest my case ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [March 14, 2022, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aspidistra-finds-loophole-in-hate-speech-rules/960843/60 "2022-03-14T14:01:02Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > I rest my case Giving it a rest is an excellent plan. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aspidistra-finds-loophole-in-hate-speech-rules/960843.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aspidistra-finds-loophole-in-hate-speech-rules/960843.md?page=4)