For example:
Also here from the Clarification of rule against hate speech thread
No slurs or racist cheap shots. Do not post slurs or other cheap shots against minorities, including but not limited to groups characterized by race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, or gender orientation.
ETA: I see this was also quoted by ParallelLines above.
As I thought. I’ve heard this argument before. Conservatives are by definition hateful, therefore rules against hate speech can’t possibly be violated when talking about conservatives. Or they are by definition the ‘powerful’ and the proscription about hate speech is only about ‘punching down’ or something. It’s always YOUR special group that needs protection from bad speech.
As I said, the weaponization of language. But fuck that. If this rule goes into place and you or anyone else say one thing ‘dehumanizing’ against conservatives outside the pit, I’ll report it if I see it. I’m not buying your one-sided censorship.
Or, the mods can make it explicit that conservatives are fair game for ‘dehumanizing’ speech, but other groups are not. That will at least make the bias explicit so people can make choices about whether it’s the kind of place where they want to hang out.
Modding: @Sam_Stone, calm down please.
What LHOD is saying is not what the staff is doing. I thought both Ed’s post in the other thread and my posts in this thread would have made that clear.
Please consider reviewing my posts in this thread for a better idea of what is likely to happen, especially in GD and P&E.
I know the staff isn’t planning this. I was directing my remarks at what would happen if the rule was passed, to make sure LHoD understands that it would have to be evenly applied.
I do sound a little hot, but I take speech seriously and this is the second thread in a few days calling for more restrictions on what people can say, and I find that disheartening.
It does not explain in any way how the rules we already have would be applied to the specific issues raised by that thread; or even if they would be considered to apply to those issues at all.
If I report a post for calling people seeking asylum, and/or people seeking jobs, and/or people trying to join their family members, invaders: will the mods moderate that, as in providing a mod note or a warning or a thread ban or a ban as appears appropriate to the post and the poster? or will they shrug and not moderate it, leaving it up to others in the thread to (very carefully) criticize it?
That’s what the question was. And it hasn’t been answered.
Sometimes it’s intended to be a slur, and sometimes it’s somebody who doesn’t understand the issues being careless with language.
It’s hard for me to think, however, that someone isn’t intending a slur if they persist in using it after it’s been objected to, with reasons and by multiple people, in a given thread.
Kind of annoying to have to do that instead of just a quick modnote serving the purpose, however; and far more likely to derail the thread.
There is no single answer. We will deal with these on a case by case approach. We try hard to avoid bright line rules/declarations. It is unlikely to draw a warning though as a first offense. That is true of most things. but there are exceptions ever there. But modnotes are usually the first approach.
We also encourage people to explain without attacking the poster why the word/phrase is offensive and should probably not be used. I know I covered this in an earlier post.
I am now going to disappear for a while. See you all later. Said the Lorax.
Spamming the mods with thread reports will sure as heck teach LHoD a lesson!
Still waiting for your non-Pit examples of right-wingers being dehumanized on this message board.
That appears to me to answer my question by saying that moderators will indeed provide
– in which case, thanks; both for saying that and for answering the question that Cecil didn’t answer.
If I’ve got it wrong, when you come back, please let me know. I need to go do other things also; but I’ll see a reply eventually.
This thread is moving quickly. I do want to make a couple of thoughts clear.
“Banned words” is a strawman.
The only times I see the concept of a ‘banned words list’ brought up is when
a) a poster - indignant over a warning - begins asking whether the mods intend to implement a ‘banned words list,’ or ‘add _____ to the banned words list.’
b) a poster - indignant over the language sometimes allowed on this board - proposes a rules change and somebody else smugly says something to the effect of, “oh sure, what OTHER words shall we add to your banned words list?”
Nobody who advocates for decency is advocating for some sort of lexicon anathema. It is a strawman. This is because
Language is not the same as vocabulary.
Language is syntactical and contextual. Its use and impact go far beyond dictionary definitions. A word that’s innocuous today might become toxic tomorrow. It’s hard to keep up with that kind of shit, but attempting to keep up is a decent thing to do.
The change I’m advocating for is a stated, explicit acknowledgement that language which [demonizes][dehumanizes][others] a group is unacceptable. It’s unacceptable not just because it’s dangerous, but because using it is a shit thing to do.
“But that’s wibbly wobbly!” you might say. Yeah, no shit. I’ve always been deeply in favor of the ‘no bright lines’ rule and I’m a little frustrated that this conversation is considered a request for a bright line.
I get that some people are uncomfortable with the notion that they might need to consider whether their language is harmful, even if the people they’re talking about aren’t in the conversation.
That’s okay. Consider it practice for being a decent human being.
I can think of hundreds of examples of “invasive species”. And that is exactly the connotation that one is invoking when they use that word for people.
Anyway, sounds like mods have picked their side.
QFT.
Incidentally, I was more insulted by the way other posters did pretend to ignore that I was being added to their “invader” list. And yet I do agree that it will depend on the context, clearly in the context of immigrants that word is demonizing in the extreme, it may be dehumanizing too, but I agree on leaving it as just demonizing for the time being.
I liked what someone at Reddit did say while complaining about the latest use of “woke” among conservatives when demonizing the left:
“Back in my day “woke” was called “manners”…”
Answering that question (about the specific word “invaders”) with an unqualified affirmation that it will always be modded is effectively creating a new rule about a proscribed term, which is precisely what Ed said we would not be doing. I agree with this decision, and apparently you don’t, so there we are.
I will say that personally I do not live in dreadful fear that someone may at some point say something distasteful and the mods will fail to pounce on it. The mods are pretty good about chasing down hateful speech and bigotry when it rises to a level that justifies appropriate action. I also don’t live in dreadful fear that someone’s use of intemperate language will turn this community into a rampaging horde of xenophobic bigots. I’d like to think that we as a community possess a level of judgment and maturity that precludes the need for a nanny.
How far into the weeds does this go before it is considered to be a hijack? And when those pointing out the dehumanizing language are modded for hijacking, the dehumanizing language will get to stand unchallenged.
This is an interesting ruling, basically giving bigots free rein to get threads shut down or posters thread banned simply by using dehumanizing language and trolling the responses.
I assume that wasn’t the intent, but these days, I’m not so sure.
Eh, mod action in the thread that spawned all of this proves otherwise.
No, it won’t turn posters into a “rampaging horde of xenophobic bigots”. But that may be all that is left soon. The affirmative action towards bigots is certainly a large part of the reason that I have found more productive uses of my time.
I live in non-hyperbolic fear that a society’s continued acceptance of “othering” language will eventually result in the murder of me, my family, and/or my people.
I only believe this because it’s happened over and over and over again for a couple thousand years, and there’s not a single damned thing about this time and place that makes our particular society more virtuous or less prone to violent bigotry.
So yeah, we should all practice being slightly more decent. But also, I dislike reading bigoted shit and I’m absolutely happy to make this place less welcoming to people whose identity is so wrapped up in bigoted language that they can’t conceive of excising it from their expression.
This just isn’t how it works. The othering language is a drip-drip-drip that subtly (or non-subtly) changes the argument by introducing prejudice. When you’re not part of the “othered” community, it’s easy to proclaim that this isn’t a big deal, and to think at least you would never be influenced by this kind of language. But we see repeatedly that language like this has a real impact.
Imagine a discussion about US politics vs Canadian politics, and a poster constantly refers to Canadians as “simpletons”. Hey, it’s accurate because life is simpler up there. It’s not hate speech and it wouldn’t be fair to force him to consider the words he uses. So every discussion about Canada is “well, the simpletons up there…” Do you really think this wouldn’t start to influence some people into being a little bit dismissive of Canada?