Clarification: Wishing death or harm on someone

[newcrasher]

all bolding mine

From the “Rules”:

Do not post threats or state or imply that **any individual or group ** is deserving of harm.

From the BBQ Pit Rules sticky as posted by Giraffe:

Do not threaten harm or wish death on **another poster **

This **does not ** include statements about non-posters or **groups which happen to include posters ** (e.g. lawyers, redheads, Democrats, Republicans, SUV-owners, etc.) You can wish death on them all you want.

So “any individual or group” is protected from a poster implying they should be done harm.

But only “another poster” is protected from one wishing death on them.

So which of the following would be violations?

1- I wish a piano would fall on HYPOTHETICAL DOPER, rendering him paralyzed, because that is what he deserves IMO.

2- I wish a piano would fall on HYPOTHETICAL DOPER, killing him, because that is what he deserves IMO.

3- I wish a piano would fall on **HYPOTHETICAL DOPER’s ** non-SDMB-member mother, rendering her paralyzed, because that is what she deserves IMO.
4- I wish a piano would fall on **HYPOTHETICAL DOPER’s ** non-SDMB-member mother, killing her, because that is what she deserves IMO.
5- I wish the mother’s of all SDMB Moderators would be killed in the next terror attack.

[Mangetout]

Isn’t this going to be one of those ‘know it when I see it’ judgment calls that the human moderators make? - the alternative is to have an explicit, but absurdly complex definition of the rule that, because of it’s complexity and absurdity, becomes easy to circumvent by tweaking some small parameter, such as maybe:

I wish a piano would fall on Rube Goldberg system of balanced, interconnected devices, causing a chain reaction that may bring about the death of HYPOTHETICAL DOPER’s mother’s cat, causing HYPOTHETICAL DOPER’s mother to fall into depression and lose the will to live…

[Mangetout]

Point being, unless you plan to sail close to the wind and hope to get away with it, there’s no real need for the rule to be more specific, is there?

[newcrasher]

@Mangetout

Point being, unless you plan to sail close to the wind and hope to get away with it, there’s no real need for the rule to be more specific, is there?

Personally I would not ever sail in that particular breeze, but others do.

I think we are wither allowed to wish harm, or death upon a group of people, or we are not. The rules are contradictory, so I am asking for clarification.

[Mangetout]

Ok, but as I said, I think the more specific rules are, the easier it is for people to find ways to nearly, but not quite break them.

[TubaDiva]

Yeah, we need to clarify, in discussion now about how best to do this.

[TubaDiva]

In the event cited, comment was solicited on a subject and comment was made.

To quote from one of the moderators in the forum: “The OP in that thread asked for opinions, and he gave his. He didn’t hijack the thread by inserting his views irrelevantly. Yes, he is inflammatory, but if he keeps his views into relevant threads, I don’t think it’s trolling.”

It’s all in the context.

[Peter_Morris]

@newcrasher

I think we are wither allowed to wish harm, or death upon a group of people, or we are not. The rules are contradictory, so I am asking for clarification.

As I understand it, two points to consider:
First, behaviour is tolerated in the pit that wouldn’t be allowed in any other forum. The rules there are different.
Second, even in the pit you are not allowed to wish death upon a particular poster.

If you say that all republicans should be shot, then that’s okay, even if some posters here are Republican. But if you say to a specific poster “I know that YOU are a Republican, and all Republicans should be shot,” then that would count as wishing death on that individual.

[Contrapuntal]

@Peter Morris

As I understand it, two points to consider:
First, behaviour is tolerated in the pit that wouldn’t be allowed in any other forum. The rules there are different.
Second, even in the pit you are not allowed to wish death upon a particular poster.

If you say that all republicans should be shot, then that’s okay, even if some posters here are Republican. But if you say to a specific poster “I know that YOU are a Republican, and all Republicans should be shot,” then that would count as wishing death on that individual.

There is nothing in the rules that exempts the Pit from this one, as **newcrasher **noted in the OP.

Do not post threats or state or imply that any individual or group is deserving of harm.

Emphasis mine.

[Peter_Morris]

Huh? The OP quotes the pit rules as saying

This does not include statements about non-posters or groups which happen to include posters (e.g. lawyers, redheads, Democrats, Republicans, SUV-owners, etc.) ** You can wish death on them all you want. **

Emphasis mine.

I rarely go to the pit, and I’ve not checked thae OP quoted the rules accurately, but according to his quote you are entitled to wish death upon a particular group in the pit. But not a specific poster.

[Contrapuntal]

@Peter Morris

Huh? The OP quotes the pit rules as saying

Emphasis mine.

I rarely go to the pit, and I’ve not checked thae OP quoted the rules accurately, but according to his quote you are entitled to wish death upon a particular group in the pit. But not a specific poster.

Hence the request for clarification. Read the rules yourself. This is taken directly from them. There is no mention of an exemption for the Pit.

Do not post threats or state or imply that any individual or group is deserving of harm.

As stated it is unequivocal. The fact that it is contradicted by another rule says nothing at all about which rule takes precedence.

[C_K_Dexter_Haven]

Two relevant quotes from the Registration Agreement, taken in full:

You are free to express your views in a forceful manner provided you remain civil. Hate speech, insults, and purposely inflammatory remarks (i.e., trolling) will not be tolerated. Do not post threats or state or imply that any individual or group is deserving of harm. We recognize that this rule cannot be strictly applied in discussions of war, capital punishment and the like but urge users to express themselves in moderate terms nonetheless. If we tell you to refrain from behavior that we regard as uncivil, do so or face revocation of your posting privileges.

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use the SDMB to post any material that you know or should know is false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, threatening, invasive of a person’s privacy, or violative of U.S. law. You agree not to post material that in our opinion fosters or promotes activity that is illegal in the U.S. We reserve the right to revoke the posting privileges of persons misrepresenting themselves on the SDMB.

Threats or calls for illegal actions (murder being largely illegal, at least in the U.S.) therefore are not permitted. Specific exceptions to the “no death threats” rule are mentioned in the egistration Agreement, namely war, which seems to fit this particular situation.

We do NOT want to have to draft a legal code to cover all instances. We’re working with the spirit of the law, not the letter, here.

[Contrapuntal]

@C K Dexter Haven

Specific exceptions to the “no death threats” rule are mentioned in the egistration Agreement, namely war, which seems to fit this particular situation.

Let’s get the rest of the relevant cite, shall we? emphasis mine.

Do not post threats or state or imply that any individual or group is deserving of harm. We recognize that this rule cannot be strictly applied in discussions of war, capital punishment and the like but urge users to express themselves in **moderate terms **nonetheless. If we tell you to refrain from behavior that we regard as uncivil, do so or face revocation of your posting privileges.

I defy anyone to show that the ‘relevant situation’ was moderate, or civil. Hoping that all American soldiers die is the definition of uncivil. Calling them murderers is hardly moderate. You guys are pretzeling yourselves to defend this behavior, and it stinks.

[samclem]

@Contrapuntal

You guys are pretzeling yourselves to defend this behavior, and it stinks.

To suggest that we are “defending” this behavior, as opposed to “allowing” this behavior, is a nitpick. But important.

[Contrapuntal]

@samclem

To suggest that we are “defending” this behavior, as opposed to “allowing” this behavior, is a nitpick. But important.

Fair enough. What I meant is “defending his behavior as acceptable.” Sorry that it was not clear. The fault was mine.

He was neither civil, nor moderate. Clearly a violation of the letter and the spirit of the rule. I fail to see why such behavior is allowed. Especially considering that the offenses are many.

[Peter_Morris]

@Contrapuntal

Hence the request for clarification. Read the rules yourself. This is taken directly from them. There is no mention of an exemption for the Pit.
As stated it is unequivocal. The fact that it is contradicted by another rule says nothing at all about which rule takes precedence.

Fine, let’s read the rules shall we. From the rules for the pit specifically :

** “the standards of discourse are significantly looser than the other forums” **
There we have a specific exemption for the pit. The rules are different.

[Carol_Stream]

@samclem

To suggest that we are “defending” this behavior, as opposed to “allowing” this behavior, is a nitpick. But important.

Will you at least tell us why you are allowing his behavior, then?

[Mellivora_capensis]

The wishing death rule is a rule that has puzzled me no end. In my opinion, wishing death on an anonymous message board has even less credibility than a muffled “I hate you and I hope you die” issued by one’s teenage daughter from behind her recently slammed bedroom door. In my view, there is more chance of my credit card being compromised than some board member who hates me tracking me down and killing me.

Logically, “I hope you die” is partly based on a factual premise. Your wishes, even if you really mean them, will ultimately materialize, given enough time. We will all die some day, but your mere wishing I die will do nothing to hasten or slow down that inevitability. Unless of course you simultaneously hire a contract killer, but that is an action, not a wish. It is quite arguably an empty threat, issued in the heat of the moment, and completely devoid of any credibility.

So why this fascination with wishes of death? Do we believe that they hold some mystical power, that if one were to collect enough of them, some esoteric operative in a dark cloak on high would be dispatched to carry out the death wish? I think we all know the answer to that.

From a moral standpoint the rule as it stands seems contradictory, and is open to endless interpretation and debate. Maybe we need to revisit this rule, and either do away with it completely, or make it an outright prohibition. No wishing death on anyone. Not your country’s enemies, not SUV drivers as a group, not lawyers in general, no-one.

[Contrapuntal]

@Peter Morris

Fine, let’s read the rules shall we. From the rules for the pit specifically :

** “the standards of discourse are significantly looser than the other forums” **
There we have a specific exemption for the pit. The rules are different.

You must be kidding. Where does that specify anything? Using your logic, every rule would be ignored.

The violation occurred in IMHO.

I hope this clears it up.

[newcrasher]

I don’t think the actual heart of the matter is the metaphysics of the death wish, or its typically juvenile issuance.

I think it is a question of civility.

We come here for discourse, to be challenged and to learn. We come here because it is fun, and the Dope has become part of our being. I think the vast majority of people here enjoy the give and take of jousting with intelligent people of varying views. As a Christian, I thoroughly enjoy reading the highly intelligent atheists on the Dope. I think people who frequent the Pit find the annoyances and animosity there a bit…delicious.

I think that another asset of the Dope is that conversations are had here generally are not allowed in the “real world”. The OP that generated this thread was asking people’s opinions of volunteers in todays US military. In the RW, if this conversation came up you would have to walk lightly unless you really knew your fellow debaters well. You never know who has a son who just enlisted and is in a danger zone risking life and limb. Out of general respect and civility you would not want to imply that their son is risking their life for a ignoble cause. And lurking right behind that thought is, if the son is killed, you don’t want to have impugned his sacrafice, even though you may consider it an ultimate waste. There is nothing to be won by insulting his mother with your opinion. So, as we often do IRL, we censor ourself.

Why do we censor ourselves? Two reasons; we do not want to offend or cause pain to others, or we do not want to cause harm to ourselves.

Anyone with common sense is not going to walk into the NCO Club post and shout out, “I loath the soldiers in this war and I hope they die before they can kill anyone else!” for fear of a beat down or worse. If you did this it would prove your insensitivity and poor discernement.

Likewise you would not go ton the mother of a soldier who has died and say, “At least he isn’t killing any more Iraqis”. At least I hope not.

But here the same restraints do not apply. You can say whatever you like without fear of physical reprisal or consequence. And as I said, that is part of the charm of the joint. But there are people here who have family and friends in harms way right now. They deal with an undercurrent of fear and dread every day until they know their loved ones are safe. For them to hear something as inflammatory as I hope the soldiers are killed before they have a chance to kill would render them either tearful or apoplectic.

I know that the Mods are trying to maintain a free-speech environment, and I think we all appreciate that. After all, the Bill of Rights does not protect the right to experience civil discourse. But every society has had to determine what is civil and what is not.

So I guess the lack of possible repercussions makes the interwebs an inherantly less civil place. If I don’t have the fear of being ostracized, or getting my nose knocked out of joint I can feel empowered to say things that normally good sense or decency would make me hold back.

We need Mods to use their judgement to maintain the civility that is lost because of the anonymity of the forums. I don’t feel that they have in this case.