Aspidistra finds loophole in hate speech rules?

You’re simply wrong on every count. Yes, intentionally misgendering an offboard person hurts every transperson who reads it. Full stop.

If we allow slurs against transgender people, we’re not going to have transgender people feel welcome on the boards. Most people here don’t want that situation.

Okay. Can I use the N word to describe folks who don’t post here then? If the answer is no, how is this different?

I started this thread to discuss a case of a clear-cut violation of existing SDMB guidelines. The rule is that you can’t deliberately misgender people here, including non-posters.

Would mordecai and those who wish to participate in his hijack about whether this rule should be repealed start their own thread? TIA.

Here is an example, let’s say there is an article that promotes illegal activity. It also has advice on how to commit crimes and get away with it. Can we link to it? The rules just say we can’t post that info, they say nothing about linking to an article with that info. I would hope that would be disallowed, but it isn’t explicitly.

How about linking to a site that is advocating political action. Or advocates assassinating a public figure. I’d hope that such things are disallowed, but the rules aren’t explicit.

Then tell me. Why is the n-word wrong? Is it some magical combination of sounds that is inherently evil?

Of course not. It is wrong because it is a term that has been used historically to discriminate and attack black people, and is even still used to this day in some places. Black people have told us how much it hurts and asked us not to use it.

Now let’s look at the f-word for gay people. It is wrong because it has been historically used to discriminate and attack gay people, and is still used to this day sometimes. Gay people have told us how much it hurts, and asked us not to use it.

Now compare that to misgendering. It is a practice that ahs been historically used to discriminate and attack trans folk, and is still used to this day in many places. Trans people have told us how much it hurts and directly asked us not to use it.

It’s the same thing. It doesn’t become okay because the minority changes. It’s not up to you to decide which minorities matter and which ones don’t.

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.

So then, why is it wrong to call Bill Cosby the n-word? Why is it wrong to call Milo Yiannopoulos the (gay) f-word? Why is it wrong to call Xi Jinping a chink? Surely all of those are just attacking a particular bad person, right?

The reason why is that it attacks all people of those minorities. Someone who would use that word for one will use it for all. People know those term are racist, so to use them means they don’t care about being racist. They aren’t just bigoted against one person, but all people of that minority.

Now look at misgendering. And remember I said “intentionally misgendering.” So you can’t argue it’s an accident. So why is that person saying that? Because they don’t see trans people as legitimate. They are bigoted towards them. They aren’t just bigoted towards one trans person.

Nothing I’m saying here is controversial. It’s the basic concepts of bigotry, plus the basics of trans advocacy. As an ally, I’m echoing what actual trans people believe and are fighting for.

You can be the person in the majority who tells the minority that they’re wrong about what is oppression—that the majority decides what is oppressive. I sure wouldn’t want to be in that position.

There’s a reason we fought so hard for the rules against misgendering. Several trans people (over a dozen at least) have left because we wouldn’t deal with it. People who had been here since the beginning. People who have told us time and time again about how big a deal intentional misgendering is.

There are plenty of message boards where one can misgender people to their heart’s delight. I don’t see why it’s so crucial this one needs to be one as well.

I took a few minutes to go back and read the OP in question, and while I could argue back and forth for whether linking it does or does not constitute hate speech in it’s own right, I feel no desire to defend the quoted statements, even for some minimalistic joy of playing devil’s advocate. Nope.

I would say though, at a minimum, such things should have had a major disclaimer attached that it DID include material explicitly against the board’s rules for misgendering - very much like you’d want to put a clear NSFW warning on a link. And I’d also probably strongly suggest putting it in hide details dropdown for similar reasons.

I do think that @Thing.Fish 's heart is in the right place, but their description of the thread in question suffered from oversimplifying it. Because if it had been literally as described (one sentence plus a link to an attack) I would absolutely have seen it as trying to sneak past the rules. Again, T.F is absolutely fair in flagging it for review as a possible exploit.

As it stands, I think this is one of the reasons we have mods, and that the call that the thread wasn’t appropriate for, or really arguing a point suitable for the Game Room, was correct.

It did violate this rule:

Links must be descriptive and should be workplace safe. Observe the two click rule such that no one gets to a website unintentionally; it requires TWO clicks, rather than just one click, to get to a site that is not safe for workplace.


Pssst. Check the sentence after the one you quoted @Atamasama. :slight_smile:

I agreed with you in advance / Great minds think alike and so do ours.

Oh, I know. But while you suggested how things should be, I attempted to illustrate that they already are that way according to our rules. I would expect that hate speech is NSFW at most workplaces.

It hurts the humanity of every person who reads it, trans or not.

In terms of the SDMB, the NSFW rule mostly applies to sexual or pornographic imagery. Sometimes really graphic photographic gore. It’s pretty much never applied to links to text.

ETA: That’s separate from the question of whether links to hate speech count as circumventing the hate speech rule in general, or if this specific instance qualifies. The NSFW rule isn’t really relevant here, it’s meant to address a different concern.

Good to know.

@Atamasama and @Miller

Sorry for confusing the issue, my intent was that the material, being both objectionable and in violation (IMHO) of the rules regarding a deliberate misgendering, should be treated in the context of the board in a similar way to the way we warn of NSFW material, rather than trying to say it was directly NSFW.

But I didn’t express myself clearly, and thus have lead you both astray. Mea culpa.

Naw, I will own my mistaken assumptions. :face_with_open_eyes_and_hand_over_mouth:

Me, too.

Actually, if you link to articles on how to break the law (I mean step-by-step guides, not just advocacy), I’m pretty sure you’ll get modded the same as if you posted the info yourself.

I would hope so, but now I’m not sure. :neutral_face:

I’m pretty sure people were modded for linking to DRM-breaking pages way back in the day.