# Clarification of rule against hate speech **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [May 18, 2022, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarification-of-rule-against-hate-speech/964634 "2022-05-18T19:43:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2022, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarification-of-rule-against-hate-speech/964634/21 "2022-05-18T21:59:24Z")
> [@Ed\_Zotti](#): > > - Hate speech – that is, racial epithets and other pejorative remarks about minorities that in our opinion are clearly racist – is prohibited in all forums. If you see instances of hate speech on the SDMB, please flag the post and we will take such action as we think appropriate. > - Not all pejorative comments about minorities rise to the level of hate speech or, in our judgment, are clearly racist. We recognize there are differences of opinion on what constitutes racist speech. It is not 100% clear if racism _qua_ racism is considered hate speech. You have clarified that racial epithets are hate speech, pejorative remarks about certain groups are hate speech, and that debatable criticism of minorities is not hate speech. But if someone goes and argues one of the following, without making any disparaging remarks or epithets, - that interracial marriage is immoral (i.e. racial hygiene) - that the different races should be geopolitically distinct or deserve preferential/disadvantageous treatment (i.e. Apartheid, back-to-Africa, white genocide, minority majority voting districts, affirmative action) - that a racial “culture” produces economic disparities (i.e. Blacks downplaying education, Asians emphesizing education) - that any policy which disproportionately affects one race is ultimately justified (i.e. regressive taxes, weaker social safety net) After the “clash of views in open debate”, be it a “handful” of posts or a separate thread, consensus of the board is that the post(s) demonstrate _bona fide_ racism. Yet you can find no racial epithets, no pejorative remarks, and no criticisms of minorities. What happens then? ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Sunny\_Daze](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sunny_daze/32/438_2.png) [@Sunny\_Daze](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sunny_Daze)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2022, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarification-of-rule-against-hate-speech/964634/22 "2022-05-18T22:04:35Z")
I will take it further than **Max** and say that the way this reads to me is that racism is allowable so long as it is civilized. This is, well, disappointing is too mild a word. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2022, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarification-of-rule-against-hate-speech/964634/23 "2022-05-18T22:13:26Z")
That was already the _status quo ante_, now with the added clarification that racial slurs directed at white people in the Pit are taboo, and that you can call out racism in-thread… so long as it doesn’t turn into a hijack. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2022, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarification-of-rule-against-hate-speech/964634/24 "2022-05-18T22:17:43Z")
I **have** seen racism against whites modded in the Pit. For which I was glad, because racism is racism, whether the race in question is disadvantaged or not. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2022, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarification-of-rule-against-hate-speech/964634/25 "2022-05-18T22:20:06Z")
I’m referring to this thread, although **Miller** was later convinced to use a mod note: > [@In BBQ, why mod a hint at a racist joke but not an actual racial slur?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/in-bbq-why-mod-a-hint-at-a-racist-joke-but-not-an-actual-racial-slur/942970/72): > > So, “cracker” should be moderated because of it association with the history of discrimination against poor Southern whites at the hands of… African Americans? This is a big part of my reluctance over moderating the term - it’s not punching down. I feel there’s a qualitative difference between terms coined by an oppressed group to describe their oppressors, and terms coined by the oppressive group to describe the groups they’re oppressing. I’m also not thrilled at the prospect of being expec… ~Max ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2022, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarification-of-rule-against-hate-speech/964634/26 "2022-05-18T22:24:19Z")
My issue with this is that there is racism that isn’t debatable that goes beyond scientific racism and slurs. There is so much that everyone (sometimes including openly racist people) accept is racist. While there is value in debunking said stuff, I can’t see how there is any value in debating them. Debate is about issues where both sides potentially have merit. But there are tons of racist things where only racists believe they possibly have merit. The issue I brought up was about how this message board is perceived, and the fact we tend to be unwelcoming to people of color. This slight change to the status quo does not seem to address this concern at all. The thing is, when nearly all other boards ban racism outright, and we make a special case to allow it, then we come off badly. Especially when the decision seems to be made by people without all that much skin in the game. It seems that the rules against misogyny are far stronger because we have (and have had) female modedrators. I don’t see any reason why the rules against racism should be weaker. **Why shouldn’t it be about what is welcoming, like it is for women’s issues?** ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2022, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarification-of-rule-against-hate-speech/964634/27 "2022-05-18T22:29:08Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > It seems that the rules against misogyny This _is_ the rule against misogyny, as far as I am aware. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Grrr](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/grrr/32/146_2.png) [@Grrr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grrr)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2022, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarification-of-rule-against-hate-speech/964634/28 "2022-05-18T22:32:52Z")
I disagree somewhat. I think intelligent people should be able to debate things the pushes our comfort zones and questions our sensibilities. Avoiding those debates bc they are too sensitive, or people of good character have all somehow magically agreed to what is racist and what is not is something people who have a lesser interest in intelligent debate would do. ---
**Author:** ![Chingon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chingon/32/17645_2.png) [@Chingon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chingon)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2022, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarification-of-rule-against-hate-speech/964634/29 "2022-05-18T22:50:21Z")
I don’t think I’m less intelligent because I don’t feel like debating whether or not people of different races deserve to be oppressed. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2022, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarification-of-rule-against-hate-speech/964634/30 "2022-05-18T22:52:30Z")
I didn’t read **Grrr** ’s post as implying that you would be less intelligent for being uninterested in sensitive debates. Just that an intelligent person should be able to, but might be less interested in doing so. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![GreysonCarlisle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a87d85/32.png) [@GreysonCarlisle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreysonCarlisle)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2022, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarification-of-rule-against-hate-speech/964634/31 "2022-05-18T22:59:58Z")
I don’t think that you can intelligently debate a racist statement or a racist position. Debating whether a statement or a position is racist, however, is another matter. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2022, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarification-of-rule-against-hate-speech/964634/32 "2022-05-18T23:02:19Z")
That’s easy. If I think I can debate a position intelligently it isn’t racist. QED. Same goes for “with civility”, instead of intelligently. Not a workable standard, my friend. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Ed\_Zotti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/fbc32d/32.png) [@Ed\_Zotti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ed_Zotti)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2022, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarification-of-rule-against-hate-speech/964634/33 "2022-05-18T23:03:28Z")
We don’t wish to get into endless hypotheticals. We’ll mod these things as they arise. Our policy is reasonably clear: 1. We have always modded hate speech - remarks that in our opinion are indisputably racist. 2. We don’t wish to preemptively rule out any discussion of topics touching on race, ethnicity, or the like. We’ve had many instances over the years of posters raising what they considered to be legitimate questions that others deemed to be racist. The SDMB community has shown itself to be well equipped to identify defective logic, inadequate evidence, unfounded assumptions, and so on - in questions of race as in many other matters. That’s the purpose of open debate. These discussions are often illuminating; we have no wish to foreclose them. 3. We’ve also had posters who, while not overtly racist, demonstrated over time that they had an animus against that or that minority.and were immune to counterargument. If we feel someone has no interest in arriving at the truth and is simply gaming the rules to conceal racist intent, we ban them. If you see what you consider to be racist speech on this board and you believe our response is inadequate, by all means point it out. It’s much easier to deal with these questions when you have an actual example in front of you. ---
**Author:** ![Chingon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chingon/32/17645_2.png) [@Chingon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chingon)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2022, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarification-of-rule-against-hate-speech/964634/34 "2022-05-18T23:10:14Z")
> [@Ed\_Zotti](#): > > We’ve also had posters who, while not overtly racist, demonstrated over time that they had an animus against that or that minority.and were immune to counterargument. If we feel someone has no interest in arriving at the truth and is simply gaming the rules to conceal racist intent, we ban them. Just so you know, these posters are usually given several years worth of rope. Which has resulted in one of the most monochromatic forums of this size. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2022, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarification-of-rule-against-hate-speech/964634/35 "2022-05-18T23:14:28Z")
If I give you an example, will you provide some clarity? I offer my part in this exchange from the thread, “Columbus Day v Indigenous People’s Day v Leif Erikson Day”, > [@Columbus Day v Indigenous People's Day v Leif Erikson Day](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/columbus-day-v-indigenous-peoples-day-v-leif-erikson-day/952323/86): > > I think identifying with Columbus and the Europeans who followed in his mold - the good and the bad - is a core part of the is a core part of the national identity. > [@Columbus Day v Indigenous People's Day v Leif Erikson Day](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/columbus-day-v-indigenous-peoples-day-v-leif-erikson-day/952323/88): > > So you’re saying the core part of the national identity is… white identity? And you’re afraid of losing it? > [@Columbus Day v Indigenous People's Day v Leif Erikson Day](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/columbus-day-v-indigenous-peoples-day-v-leif-erikson-day/952323/90): > > Insofar as identifying with the aforementioned people is ‘white identity’, yes. > [@Columbus Day v Indigenous People's Day v Leif Erikson Day](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/columbus-day-v-indigenous-peoples-day-v-leif-erikson-day/952323/94): > > So in an America where 40% of its people aren’t white, you are afraid that white identity will lose its place of supremacy? > [@Columbus Day v Indigenous People's Day v Leif Erikson Day](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/columbus-day-v-indigenous-peoples-day-v-leif-erikson-day/952323/97): > > I’m specifically talking about people looking at the history of the U.S. and saying, “we aren’t those colonists that did horrible things to the Native Americans, _that wasn’t us_ ”. I wouldn’t describe that as _white identity holding a place of supremacy_ , but if that is what you would call it, then yes, I’ll own it. > [@Columbus Day v Indigenous People's Day v Leif Erikson Day](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/columbus-day-v-indigenous-peoples-day-v-leif-erikson-day/952323/106): > > I didn’t twist those words out of you. Those are your words. I asked questions that might encourage you to connect the dots of what you’re saying, but you kept doubling down. I’ll be perfectly clear, in what you wrote above, you made the white supremacist case for keeping Columbus day. Also > [@Columbus Day v Indigenous People's Day v Leif Erikson Day](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/columbus-day-v-indigenous-peoples-day-v-leif-erikson-day/952323/137): > > My conception of nationalism is, in fact, monocultural… and my concept of national history is predominantly “white” on account of the fact that most Americans were (and are) “white”, and that the origin of this country comes from the English tradition. I do not yet see these as _problems to be fixed_ ; they seem appropriate to me. and > [@Columbus Day v Indigenous People's Day v Leif Erikson Day](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/columbus-day-v-indigenous-peoples-day-v-leif-erikson-day/952323/144): > > You really need to step back and try to see how you sound here. It’s not good. > [@Columbus Day v Indigenous People's Day v Leif Erikson Day](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/columbus-day-v-indigenous-peoples-day-v-leif-erikson-day/952323/146): > > I fear no amount of mere _introspection_ will change my mind on the subject, (at least not without first seeing a different perspective), given that I spent a week doing so for this topic already. I don’t believe in any theory of inherent racial superiority, nor do I support personal or cultural genocide, nor am I somehow concerned about a future where America is predominantly non-white; these are in my opinion the detestable elements of white supremacism. I was Pitted and am relatively confident the consensus of the board is that my posts in that topic are racist, although I would strenuously disagree. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2022, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarification-of-rule-against-hate-speech/964634/36 "2022-05-18T23:17:59Z")
> [@Grrr](#): > > I disagree somewhat. I think intelligent people should be able to debate things the pushes our comfort zones and questions our sensibilities. Avoiding those debates bc they are too sensitive, or people of good character have all somehow magically agreed to what is racist and what is not is something people who have a lesser interest in intelligent debate would do.⁢ At no point did I mention anything about topics that “pushes our comfort zones and questions our sensibilities.” We are discussing **racism**. And there is nothing at all “magical” about the fact that some things are objectively racist. There are plenty of uncomfortable topics about race and racism—and about bigotry in general. But that’s not at all the same thing as things that are objectively racist. My issue with the rule is that it doesn’t seem to allow for that. It seems to set in stone. That said, @Ed_Zotti’s clarification does give me hope that this is workable. I can at least point to that comment if I face the argument that something isn’t explicitly mentioned in the new ruling. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2022, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarification-of-rule-against-hate-speech/964634/37 "2022-05-18T23:26:19Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > > [@BigT](#): > > > > It seems that the rules against misogyny⁢ > > This _is_ the rule against misogyny, as far as I am aware. > > ~Max⁢ This post? No it isn’t. There is a lot more that is prohibited, such as sexual objectification (including hot or not threads or pick the hottie threads) or crude sexual jokes, or rape apologia. All of that falls under the no misogyny rule–one that was never directly codified in the actual rules, but is clearly enforced. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2022, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarification-of-rule-against-hate-speech/964634/38 "2022-05-18T23:28:32Z")
Yeah, they had to be extra nasty. > [@Max\_S](#): > > that any policy which disproportionately affects one race is ultimately justified (i.e. regressive taxes, weaker social safety net) That would mean we couldn’t debate affirmative action, and I feel that is a legit area of debate.But we need to tread carefully, me thinks. ---
**Author:** ![BippityBoppityBoo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bippityboppityboo/32/5745_2.png) [@BippityBoppityBoo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BippityBoppityBoo)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2022, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarification-of-rule-against-hate-speech/964634/39 "2022-05-18T23:51:21Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > seems that the rules against misogyny are far stronger > [@BigT](#): > > Why shouldn’t it be about what is welcoming, like it is for women’s issues? The rules against misogyny are not far stronger~as practiced they are weak sauce. They are laudable only in comparison to their abject absence previously. Don’t envy us women, it’s not nearly as welcoming here as it seems to appear. I think the anti-rascism/anti-hate speech is better protection than women currently have. At this time ‘misogyny _ **is** _ hate speech’ is still a bridge too far. Baby steps forward is still forward. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2022, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarification-of-rule-against-hate-speech/964634/40 "2022-05-19T00:33:54Z")
I don’t envy you. Perhaps “stronger” is the wrong word. What I mean is that the misogyny rules are pretty wide reaching in that they ban things like threads about who is hotter, making jokes about women’s bodies in serious threads, creepiness, and so on. Rape apologia was ultimately banned under this rule, while white supremacist apologia still is allowed. Sure, “misogyny is hate speech” is a bridge too far, but the same seem to be true of “racism is hate speech”. The OP specifically says “black people defend their own” is an acceptable argument, despite saying dogwhistles aren’t allowed. I’m not saying that misogyny has been removed from the board or anything. But it does seem to me that thought has been given to things that can be misogynist in aggregate, that make women feel like lesser contributors. And that sort of thought seems to be missing in this ruling. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarification-of-rule-against-hate-speech/964634.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clarification-of-rule-against-hate-speech/964634.md?page=3)