Evading the hate speech prohibition

About This Message Board
1

In the post at https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-donald-trump-win-at-this-point/1005351/1755, we have the following:

A vote for Trump is a vote against that uppity n/99/r bitch Harris. Is a vote for project 2025.

(Link broken because I’m interested in the post, not the poster.)

This seems to be evading the terms of service:

Hate speech – that is, slurs and other pejorative remarks about groups that in our opinion are clearly hateful – is prohibited in all forums.

This post is expressing hate speech, both racist and sexist. The poster does not hold those views, and ascribes them to Trump voters. Fair enough.

But the hate speech is still there. I don’t think there should be an exception to the rule like “hate speech is permissible as long as you don’t really mean it”. The expression of the hate speech is harmful in itself.

2

Naah. It’s a clear case of use/mention distinction.

I mean, silly not to just use the word ‘nigger’, and also not to use quotes around the whole thing to indicate attribution, but that ain’t hate speech.

3

I have to disagree. The ‘no hate speech’ rule is about advocating hatred. That’s what’s prohibited. The board isn’t looking to prohibit reporting hatred or noticing hatred or discussing hatred.

4

In US media it has sort of become a “per se” taboo to even quote the word in context especially if yourself are not Black.

But, yes, this is not a case of use of hate speech in itself but of description thereof.

5

FTR: This is basically what I said in the Flag reply.

6

I was moderated (a note IIRC and the post edited) for using hate speech in a clearly, to me at least, historic way to make a point about civil rights laws. I’m reasonably certain your interpretation has not been expressed as the boards interpretation of the ‘no hate speech’ rule.

7

It sounds as though we need the moderators to be more explicit about what the ‘hate speech prohibition’ is for, and exactly what it targets.

8

Why is it not hate speech? Because the poster doesn’t actually believe it? “It’s not me, it’s them saying it” doesn’t make it any less hateful.

I don’t think the rules are clear on that. Is there any textual support for it? The rule snippet I posted doesn’t make that distinction. (Edit: yeah, I agree with what your most recent post says.)

I think it’s poor policy to interpret the prohibition against hate speech cautiously. We don’t need to play the “I’m not touching you” technicalities game with it. We don’t need to post hate speech in the guise of ascribing it bigots.

9

I’d be grateful, too, for a bit more clarity/precision on this one. Here’s why:

Today, I linked to a YouTube clip of a scene from “Stripes.” Here was the dialog:

But I have since felt uneasy about including a clip that used the word “homos” in that context, assuaging my own concerns by assuring myself that I did not offer up hate speech, and that content ruled the roost.

But I do wonder. It feels like a comparable issue.

10

I’m unclear how the OP would expect people to discuss real-life bigots, under his interpretation of the hate speech rule. Like, if Trump did an interview tomorrow where he actually said the quote in the OP, word-for-word: how would we discuss that on the board?

11

Yeah.
It was a couple of years ago but as I remember it a poster took the position that public accommodation laws should be repealed and I asked if they really were comfortable with returning to an era where one might see signs stating ‘No niggers or kikes’.

Yes, inflammatory, but stripping away any pretense of what would be allowed if said posters position were adopted.

12

“What do you think about Trump’s latest bigotry?”

Think of it from an enforcement point of view. Not enforcing hate speech broadly is giving permission to posters to quote hate speech. And then the moderators get to decide on a case by case basis if it’s advocating hate or merely repeating it. Is that really where we want this site to be?

13

I see no problem with that whatsoever. Do you have a hypothetical in mind that would be difficult to moderate?

14

Yeah. A lot of topics–not just on current politics, but on history–would be prohibited. How could we discuss the way the Nazis gained power via scapegoating Jewish and Gypsy people, for instance?

Yes, this, too. I still tend to think that ‘this person is advocating hatred against Group X’ can be distinguished from 'this person is reporting hatred expressed by Group Z against Group X’ without too much drama. (Though maybe I’m not seeing nuances that could make it difficult.)

15

I meant ‘context,’ but missed the edit window.

16

“I didn’t hear about it. What did he say?”

17

There’s nothing wrong with saying a word as long as it’s clear that it’s meant to convey someone else saying it. Just like how books about WWII feature the word “Japs” - because that’s what people said at the time.

18

“Go read the news.”

This site isn’t the news. That a public figure used hate speech is not sufficient reason for this site to propagate it.

And the same for historical hate. We can discuss hate with out using hate speech ourselves.

19

So,
‘Trump called someone a kike.’ right out, too offensive to post here
but,
‘Trump said Hitler was right and if elected he’d build Auschwitz II and finish the job.’ perfectly within the rule???

20

And what if “the news” adapted the same rigor in banning “hate speech” as you define it? Then nobody would still report the factual truth.