# Evading the hate speech prohibition **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [September 4, 2024, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evading-the-hate-speech-prohibition/1006775 "2024-09-04T19:02:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2024, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evading-the-hate-speech-prohibition/1006775/21 "2024-09-04T21:09:52Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > “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. I would argue that a public figure running for office openly using racial slurs is the sort of news that desperately _needs_ to be propagated. Beyond that, I note that the quote you’re complaining about has already bowdlerized the racial slur, which apparently is not sufficient to prevent you from considering it actionable hate speech. Would you feel similarly if the quote had said, “Trump thinks Harris is an n-word”? For that matter, you quoted the objectionable word in this OP. Should _you_ also be moderated, for reposting it here word-for-word? You are engaging in exactly the sort of use-mention distinction that the original post was engaging in. Why is your usage here more acceptable than theirs? ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2024, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evading-the-hate-speech-prohibition/1006775/22 "2024-09-04T21:22:09Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > For that matter, you quoted the objectionable word in this OP. Should _you_ also be moderated, for reposting it here word-for-word? You are engaging in exactly the sort of use-mention distinction that the original post was engaging in. Why is your usage here more acceptable than theirs? It’s not more acceptable, and yes, I should be moderated under a better interpretation of the rules. I only started this thread because I was told it does not violate current rules. I think that is a mistake, because it gives a ready excuse for posting hate speech. The fact that rules have blurry edges is not a good argument against having rules. Interpreting this site’s rules to mean that hate speech is permitted, whenever the poster isn’t in favor of it is a poor choice. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2024, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evading-the-hate-speech-prohibition/1006775/23 "2024-09-04T21:25:42Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > It’s not more acceptable, and yes, I should be moderated under a better interpretation of the rules. I only started this thread because I was told it does not violate current rules. I think that is a mistake, because it gives a ready excuse for posting hate speech. Does that happen with sufficient frequency that it suggests we should change the rules? I can’t think of any examples where someone used this “loophole” as an excuse for posting hate speech for a nefarious reason. ---
**Author:** ![EinsteinsHund](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/einsteinshund/32/8400_2.png) [@EinsteinsHund](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EinsteinsHund)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2024, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evading-the-hate-speech-prohibition/1006775/24 "2024-09-04T21:26:40Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > It’s not more acceptable, and yes, I should be moderated under a better interpretation of the rules. I only started this thread because I was told it does not violate current rules. I think that is a mistake, because it gives a ready excuse for posting hate speech. > > The fact that rules have blurry edges is not a good argument against having rules. Interpreting this site’s rules to mean that hate speech is permitted, whenever the poster isn’t in favor of it is a poor choice. You’re in a trap there you can’t get out. What would we do with your OP without the quote? And that’s the same thing for any time, at this board or in the news, when quoting hate speech is nothing like hate speech itself. ---
**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:** [September 4, 2024, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evading-the-hate-speech-prohibition/1006775/25 "2024-09-04T21:26:53Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > For that matter, you quoted the objectionable word in this OP. Should _you_ also be moderated, for reposting it here word-for-word? You are engaging in exactly the sort of use-mention distinction that the original post was engaging in. Why is your usage here more acceptable than theirs? ⁢ There is pretty significant difference. The OP is quoting what someone actually said. He put it in quotes and everything. The poster in the thread made it up. No one has said the n-word before that point. And they are actually using it. They aren’t discussing the word. They used it in sentence, even. That they were being ironic doesn’t mean they didn’t use it. The use/mention distinction is the difference between using the word, and discussing the word. It does not apply here. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2024, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evading-the-hate-speech-prohibition/1006775/26 "2024-09-04T21:30:51Z")
> [@Sherrerd](#): > > 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. Back in 2019 I received my one and only warning for using hate speech in a post. To my mind, it was clearly a sarcastic comment meant to cut through the BS another poster was throwing out, but the reaction was that I had crossed the line, and, more importantly, violated a bright-line rule. And as a long time poster, I probably should have better appreciated the difference between free speech and SDMB culture. If the Dope is going to have a bright-line rule about anything, I guess hate speech is about as clear-cut as we can get. ---
**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:** [September 4, 2024, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evading-the-hate-speech-prohibition/1006775/27 "2024-09-04T21:33:31Z")
I would also argue that, in the context actually given, it was being used to provoke. There was no reason he couldn’t have said everything else that followed that line without needing to say that first part. If I had seen it, I’d have reported it for trolling. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2024, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evading-the-hate-speech-prohibition/1006775/28 "2024-09-04T21:34:00Z")
Well you have no warnings, I hope I wasn’t the one the did the Modnote. If I did, I was wrong. ---
**Author:** ![EinsteinsHund](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/einsteinshund/32/8400_2.png) [@EinsteinsHund](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EinsteinsHund)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2024, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evading-the-hate-speech-prohibition/1006775/29 "2024-09-04T21:34:20Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > There is pretty significant difference. > > The OP is quoting what someone actually said. He put it in quotes and everything. > > The poster in the thread made it up. No one has said the n-word before that point. And they are actually using it. They aren’t discussing the word. They used it in sentence, even. That they were being ironic doesn’t mean they didn’t use it. > > The use/mention distinction is the difference between using the word, and discussing the word. > > It does not apply here. Doesn’t make a difference in my book, if it’s a literal quote or a hypothetical that’s exemplary or typical for bigots. For instance, one of the most popular insults from right wingers and fascists for people like me is “links-grün versifft”, “lefty-green scum”. I often use this term ironically as self-description in conversations although the initial intent of it was hate. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2024, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evading-the-hate-speech-prohibition/1006775/30 "2024-09-04T21:35:43Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > I only started this thread because I was told it does not violate current rules. I think that is a mistake, because it gives a ready excuse for posting hate speech. > > The fact that rules have blurry edges is not a good argument against having rules. Interpreting this site’s rules to mean that hate speech is permitted, whenever the poster isn’t in favor of it is a poor choice. There is a rule. With blurry edges. That you’re requesting be turned into a bright line when that bright line, actually using slurs (like Clothahump and “wetbacks”) is against that rule, using slurs to make a point about bigots [u]is[u] that blurry edge. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2024, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evading-the-hate-speech-prohibition/1006775/31 "2024-09-04T21:36:09Z")
> [@EinsteinsHund](#): > > You’re in a trap there you can’t get out. No, I’m not. I reported the post. I didn’t need to repeat it to do that. It’s only because hate speech is not always moderatable that we’re having this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2024, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evading-the-hate-speech-prohibition/1006775/32 "2024-09-04T21:39:14Z")
> [@Kent\_Clark](#): > > Back in 2019 I received my one and only warning for using hate speech in a post. To my mind, it was clearly a sarcastic comment meant to cut through the BS another poster was throwing out, but the reaction was that I had crossed the line, and, more importantly, violated a bright-line rule. And as a long time poster, I probably should have better appreciated the difference between free speech and SDMB culture. > > If the Dope is going to have a bright-line rule about anything, I guess hate speech is about as clear-cut as we can get. Clearly a ‘no hate speech’ rule needs to specify either ‘_sarcastic or ironic use of hate speech, meant to call out the hatred underlying the speech, is prohibited_’ OR ‘_sarcastic or ironic use of hate speech, meant to call out the hatred underlying the speech, is permitted as long as readers (including moderators) agree that the post in question IS a call-out and not a disingenuous attempt to evade the hate-speech prohibition_.’ In pithier form, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2024, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evading-the-hate-speech-prohibition/1006775/33 "2024-09-04T21:42:04Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > That you’re requesting be turned into a bright line That is not what I’m requesting and I’m sorry for not being more clear about it. @Sherrerd captured it well: whether or not hate speech that is not being advocated for violates the rules. I think unadvocated hate speech should be moderated. That is still a blurry line, but in a different place than currently enforced. Edit: excellent ninja move, @Sherrerd. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2024, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evading-the-hate-speech-prohibition/1006775/34 "2024-09-04T21:43:29Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > It’s not more acceptable, and yes, I should be moderated under a better interpretation of the rules. I only started this thread because I was told it does not violate current rules. I think that is a mistake, because it gives a ready excuse for posting hate speech. If _you_ don’t think its acceptable, you probably shouldn’t be doing it, even _we_ say its allowed. > [@Pleonast](#): > > The fact that rules have blurry edges is not a good argument against having rules. Who is arguing for not having rules? > [@Pleonast](#): > > Interpreting this site’s rules to mean that hate speech is permitted, whenever the poster isn’t in favor of it is a poor choice. Interpreting the rule against hate speech to mean that it’s against the rules to call out hate speech from other people is a poorer one. ---
**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:** [September 4, 2024, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evading-the-hate-speech-prohibition/1006775/35 "2024-09-04T21:45:08Z")
> [@EinsteinsHund](#): > > Doesn’t make a difference in my book, if it’s a literal quote or a hypothetical that’s exemplary or typical for bigots. For instance, one of the most popular insults from right wingers and fascists for people like me is “links-grün versifft”, “lefty-green scum”. I often use this term ironically as self-description in conversations although the initial intent of it was hate. ⁢ Regardless, the use/mention distinction does not apply. It was still being used, not mentioned. Besides, none of those words are the n-word. None of those words have its history. Scum is a word I can just say. I can say it about any real life person outside this board. “Osama Bin Laden was scum.” Not a racist word. We’re talking about a word that racists have been known to try to find ways to get away with saying. They will sing it along with lyrics. Or use the word “niggardly” which they never used before, and only about a black person. We can argue that it can be used ironically, but I think that is a very bad idea, because then actual racists will find ways to use it “ironically.” ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2024, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evading-the-hate-speech-prohibition/1006775/36 "2024-09-04T21:46:21Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Regardless, the use/mention distinction does not apply. It absolutely does. The use/mention distinction is not limited to quoting things people have actually said. ---
**Author:** ![EinsteinsHund](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/einsteinshund/32/8400_2.png) [@EinsteinsHund](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EinsteinsHund)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2024, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evading-the-hate-speech-prohibition/1006775/37 "2024-09-04T21:46:49Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > I think unadvocated hate speech should be moderated. I thin we’re all in agreement about this, but that was not the case you quoted in the OP. Or did I miss something and the person who posted it is really a Trumper? I couldn’t tell because you didn’t provide a link. ---
**Author:** ![crowmanyclouds](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crowmanyclouds/32/19884_2.png) [@crowmanyclouds](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/crowmanyclouds)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2024, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evading-the-hate-speech-prohibition/1006775/38 "2024-09-04T21:46:52Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > > [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > > > That you’re requesting be turned into a bright line > > That is not what I’m requesting and I’m sorry for not being more clear about it. @Sherrerd captured it well: whether or not hate speech that is not being advocated for violates the rules. I think unadvocated hate speech should be moderated. That is still a blurry line, but in a different place than currently enforced. If both advocated and unadvocated hate speech is to be moderated how is that not a bright line exactly??? ---
**Author:** ![Sherrerd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sherrerd/32/8_2.png) [@Sherrerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sherrerd)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2024, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evading-the-hate-speech-prohibition/1006775/39 "2024-09-04T21:51:42Z")
> [@crowmanyclouds](#): > > If both advocated and unadvocated hate speech is to be moderated how is that not a bright line exactly??? . Yeah, I’ve been a bit confused about that line of argument, too. It certainly sounds as though the position is bright-line: that no matter what the intent of the poster in question, if a certain word is typed out, then moderation must occur. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2024, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evading-the-hate-speech-prohibition/1006775/40 "2024-09-04T21:54:10Z")
We have moderators to make judgment calls. To me he clearly was not trying to get around the rule. He stating, right or wrong he think that is what many/most Trump supporters believe. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evading-the-hate-speech-prohibition/1006775.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/evading-the-hate-speech-prohibition/1006775.md?page=3)