Dehumanizing language should not be allowed

[thorny_locust]

@k9bfriender

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.

I think they’re invoking primarily the “Russia’s invading Ukraine” sense. But I think either sense is intended to denigrate; and that either sense is bad usage when applied to humans who are not members of actual invading armies.

@GIGObuster

Incidentally, I was more insulted by the way other posters did pretend to ignore that I was being added to their “invader” list.

I suspect my father and his parents originally got into the USA illegally.

The time was the early 1920’s, and the US wasn’t accepting Jewish immigrants direct from Poland. But if they’d been in Canada for six months first, then it was OK; and Canada would let them in. So that’s what they did.

But I tripped across something in the family papers a few years ago that implied they’d only been in Canada for four months, not six.

– probably the only reason my mother’s parents got in was because they came a few years earlier, when there effectively weren’t any rules. If the family stories are correct, they were fleeing Russia because they’d just broken my maternal grandfather out of jail, where he’d been imprisoned for being in open rebellion against his then-considered-lawful government (the Tsar).

@wolfpup

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 wasn’t asking for an unqualified affirmation that it would always be modded, in the sense of punished in a prescribed fashion. I was asking whether it would be modded, in the sense of being seriously considered by the mods in the context in which it was being used and in the context of other behavior on this board of the poster, and might then well be noted or given a warning or even a ban. @What_Exit appears to me to have answered that question. Ed’s post does not appear to me to have answered, or even really addressed, that question.

@Johnny_Bravo

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.

This.

It’s happened over and over and over again, for probably a lot more than a couple thousand years, and to considerably more than one set of people (though I’m a member of a group to whom “a couple thousand years” does apply.) It happens over and over and over again, including in places in which the groups were, shortly before it happened, living comfortably together and often making up families that had members of both the group that then got murdered and the group that wound up murdering them.

Humans in general are susceptible to this particular evil. No society is immune. Societies need to keep getting vaccinated and keep their masks handy; the virus mutates like crazy in its details; but it’s the same damned thing underneath. It’s people trying to make themselves safe by putting up walls against the Other.

And there is no safety to be found that way. None, none, none. The dominant group of the time and place will also find their families torn apart and themselves dead or trying to pull themselves out of the rubble. The only hope of even temporary safety is to not let the fight get going in the first place.

And in order to not let it get going in the first place – it’s necessary to stop it at the points at which all too many people will say that it isn’t necessary to do so, because they see only a trivial bit of problem that they can’t imagine becoming serious.

[Max_S]

@Czarcasm

We’ve pointed out specifically what we mean be dehumanizing(or perhaps, demonizing) when it comes from the right. Perhaps you can point out specific examples when it is directed at the right?

Here are two examples. For the record, I’m 100% against a rule that would prohibit this kind of language in Politics & Elections. In the context of politics, civil discussion tolerates a bit of “dehumanizing language”. I’m all in favor of the existing rules which prohibit directing this kind of language to other participants of the conversation.

@Czarcasm

When your strategy hinges on you being the meanest dog in the neighborhood then, in the end, that’s what you are.

A dog.

@Baker

I watched part of the first debate. I tuned in at the beginning but it started getting so painful I switched channels for a while. Came back, same thing.

I wonder how much of the debate tonight I’ll be able to take. I’d like to see the Donald make a fool of himself, but it kind of hurts. This is a guy who wants to be POTUS, and so far her’s acted like an ape(sorry, apes). And people, some of them, will still vote for him!

~Max

[GIGObuster]

Uh, does that mean that Trump is considered a minority group?

[Czarcasm]

Yeah, I’m not sure if that counts as a dehumanizing attack on the right itself.

[crowmanyclouds]

@Johnny_Bravo

Attacking groups you don’t like by abstracting them to things like “invaders” or “insects” is a well worn tactic on the road to violence.

We don’t need a list of proscribed terms but we should absolutely have a rule against that type of language.

What would that rule have so say about this, ‘The Nazis were monsters.’?

I hate dehumanizing language, I don’t know if it’s possible to write a rule that deals with it without unintended, and ridiculous, results.

[Johnny_Bravo]

@crowmanyclouds

What would that rule have so say about this, ‘The Nazis were monsters.’?

It wouldn’t say anything about it, because it would be a rule about language. I said above that language is more than its vocabulary.

I really like our current mod staff and I’d trust them to continue to make good subjective calls. But I’m not going to get into a game of “well what about THIS specific example?” because they’re devoid of context.

[BigT]

@wolfpup

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. ⁢

That’s the thing. We are not discussing “say[ing] something distasteful” or “intemperate language.” We are discussing bigoted speech. We are specifically talking about slurs, forms of speech that are only used to denigrate and attack others for being part of a minority.

Bigotry is always wrong. Those other things are not. Some situations call for speech that is not in the best taste, or which expresses strong negative emotion. You cannot equate either one with bigoted speech without arguing that bigoted speech is sometimes okay.

It’s something I find so utterly frustrating about this sort of discussion—the downplaying of bigotry. People will argue that bigotry should not be allowed. But then the counter argument is “Distasteful speech should be allowed.” If the only way you can tolerate something is to portray it as less bad than it actually is, doesn’t that imply it isn’t tolerable?

It’s like someone being kicked out of a bar for punching someone in the face, and their defense being “But we shouldn’t have to be polite!”

---

As for the decision: My first impression was that it reads badly, but the mod responses in this thread have reassured me. We may not be able to argue that these terms are “hate speech,” but that doesn’t mean that this type of dehumanization won’t be modded at all.

[Sam_Stone]

@Czarcasm

Still waiting for your non-Pit examples of right-wingers being dehumanized on this message board.

Just for fun, try a search for ‘Rethuglican’ outside of the pit. I think I counted 43 references and 14 threads where the term is used. To be fair, some of them are threads complaining about the usage, especially in thr more recent past.

While searching I came across this jewel. In the pit, but still vile:

@Asahi

Rethuglicans are fucking animals. Rodents.

That’s literally dehumanizing.

[What_Exit]

You’re quoting a poster we banned for being … well him.

Also, The pit.

[Johnny_Bravo]

Yeah somebody should probably ban that guy.

[Czarcasm]

@Sam_Stone

To be fair, some of them are threads complaining about the usage, especially in thr more recent past.

To be even fairer, point out a specific instance when it wasn’t complaining about the usage, so we can see what happened next.

[What_Exit]

To be fair, there has been a lot of painting with broad brushes of Republicans on this board. Do we have to play this game of coming up with examples.

I don’t think this has much point does it?

[Czarcasm]

To be fair, when someone makes a claim and the only examples provided(so far) are bad ones, it would be remiss not to point this out.

[k9bfriender]

Fair amount of broad brushing of “libs”, too.

But I don’t think that there is anything unfair about criticizing a political party for its policies or its actions, and “broadbrushing” that to anyone who supports that party. This is far different from criticizing a minority for their mere existence. Especially using demonizing/dehumanizing/denigrating terminology to do so.

[What_Exit]

There isn’t generally. We don’t moderate such in most cases. Though as said so many times. We takes things on a case by case basis.

[k9bfriender]

Right, but you made a comparison between dehumanizing language and broad brushing of republicans, as though they were similar.

I guess I don’t understand what point you were trying to make.

[Johnny_Bravo]

@What_Exit

I don’t think this has much point does it?

The point is to distract from the forest by focusing on the trees.

But you know what? I’ll play. I did a search for “rethuglican” and sorted by most recent post. I’m not linking because I don’t want to ping a bunch of people.

Collapsed for brevity.

May 2023: “I would encourage young voters to obtain gun licenses in the area that they’re authorized to vote. Obviously, they don’t have to purchase a gun, but that gun license should persuade the ReTHUGlicans to let them vote.”

Oct 2022: " We’re getting similar ads here in Northwest Indiana. I’m not even sure if these ads are for a Rethuglican candidate or just trying to scare people about Biden and Democrats (specifically Frank Mrvan, an incumbent Democrat)."

March 2022: “While I’m at it, if I were emperor, I would also ban bullshit nicknames for political parties (Dumbocrats, Rethuglicans, etc.). Save that shit for the Pit.”

Sept 2020: You can’t ban “democrat party” and allow Trumpanzee, Rethuglicans, etc.

Jan 2020: “If you can agree with Trump that there are “good people on both sides” of a rally organized by and for white nationalists, surely you can agree that there are good people who use dumb words like Rethuglican.”

February 2019: “Anything that contains some cheap intentional-misspelling insult. Rethuglicans, Feminazis, Killary Clinton, Donald Drumpf (even if that was the name origin,) Herr Twitler, etc.” [in a thread titled "things that make you immediately stop reading something]

February 2019: ““Rethuglican”” [in a thread titled “political debate codes”]

October 2018: “I don’t specifically remember it, but I definitely could have used an insulting term for Republicans at some point due to being angry at them–though definitely not “rethuglicans”: It’s rather unwieldy, and I’m not big on the word “thug” due to it often having racial connotations.”

October 2017: “It’s childish like Repugs or Rethuglicans. Just stupid and childish.”

---

I stopped there.

So uh, what point is being made here? Other than that the consensus seems to be that using the term is dumb?

[What_Exit]

I did? When? Where?

---

I think all I did was try and fail to cut off a silly back and forth.

[Czarcasm]

You mean where one side pointed out what they thought was a specific problem, and the other side responded with a generic “They do it too!”? Maybe a troublesome and constant event…but silly?

[Max_S]

@Johnny_Bravo

I did a search for “rethuglican” and sorted by most recent post.

Sam_Stone, while well intentioned, has sent you on a wild goose chase. “Rethuglican” is a totally irrelevant epithet. It is not dehumanizing in the least bit. It certainly isn’t hate speech. (Aside: I would argue the same for “invader”.)

Comparing people to animals or inanimate objects - in a bad way - is dehumanizing. Describing the Republican base as “garbage” (noun) is dehumanizing. Describing anti-vax truckers as “cockroaches” is dehumanizing. More conventional examples include “Men are pigs.” “Capitalist pigs.” “Russian dogs.” Etc.

None of these are beyond the pale, IMO. Comparing a Republican candidate or campaign to apes or dogs can pass as standard political speech. But something like comparing Black people to apes is way over the line. Language does not become unacceptably offensive when it merely dehumanizes people, or groups of people. There has to be another element… say, a protected characteristic that makes the denigration undeserved.

~Max