Personally can’t wait for someone to post about a time they were called a slur, and moderating them for accurately reporting what they were called.
I didn’t say that. I said it is either quoting people OR discussing the word.
They did not do either one. They used it, ironically. They used it in a sentence that they made up.
A mention does not use the word in a sentence.
Whether this should be allowed is subjective. But whether it happened is entirely objective.
You cannot redefine the word “mention” to include “ironic use.”
Heck, I’ll even quote Wikipedia:
In written language, mentioned words or phrases often appear between single or double quotation marks (as in “The name ‘Chicago’ contains three vowels”) or in italics (as in “When I say honey , I mean the sweet stuff that bees make”).
I’m not redefining it. It was already included.
Absolutely meaningless to the current conversation.
The other mods,
Miller,
There’s a word in that quote, a little word, only five letters long. Any clue what that word is and why it makes the standard set forth in the quote meaningless?
None of which that post is doing. It’s vaguely attributing hatred and motivation to a whole group of people, who may or may not feel that way.
I would guess that the poster genuinely believed that he or she was indeed reporting hatred.
What seems crucial to me is that the poster was not attempting to convince anyone that Harris is uppity or is a b-word. Or trying to sell the idea that calling Harris these things is cool and admirable. Or normalizing these labels for Harris. Or anything like any of that.
Whether or not the poster was correct in the implicit claim that some voters for Trump see those labels as being correct ones for Harris, is a question that might have been developed further in the thread (with citations on either side being offered, perhaps.)
I don’t see that as being violative of this board’s mission. (Not that it’s up to me.)
It’s not meaningless at all. It shows the distinction. It’s a criterion directly quoted from the Wikipedia article.
I cannot find a single source that backs you up. No source says “MENTION also includes ironic use of a term.” And you keep giving one sentence replies that do not otherwise address my arguments.
This is important. The mods need to be correct on the USE/MENTION distinction to moderate bigotry. It’s part of the basics, and you must have the basics right.
Note to anyone else who also knows and agrees with me on what these terms mean. Please jump in. I have a feeling hearing it from someone else might be more persuasive.
Strong disagree, but regardless about which of us is correct, its really not germane to the OP of this thread, so why don’t we drop this hijack?
ISTM that having it so any use, other than a direct quote of someone else’s actual recorded writing or speech, of that particular string of letters (or of a too-obvious stand-in as in this specific instance’s sort-of l33t version), must be considered hate speech per se, strict liability, no possible justification, automatic mandatory warning, is not really needed.
We have moderators to make judgements on context and on pattern of behavior (but - if somebody does seem to too often find an excuse to insert the terms gratuitously, if they detect a game of “I’m not touching you”, Mods should be able to call out that ). And we’ll have this forum to whine and moan about how they got it wrong.
I did, but it’s coded to prevent a link back. I don’t have a problem with the poster, only the rules.
I don’t consider hate speech to have bright lines.
There’s no doubt that the quote in the original post is hate speech. The extenuating circumstance is that quote is not advocating hate.
There are no almost no automatic warnings in our moderation system. No need to apply them to this rule.
It doesn’t seem that complicated to me. The rule is against hate speech.
What would make using the word hate speech? Would typing the word? Obviously not, or we could never quote the word or report on its usage or discuss it at all. Even the OP of this thread would violate the rule.
Is it whether a person means it? We can’t read minds, so it’s impossible to rule base on that. And it’s especially difficult to determine if something is said as sarcasm, or a joke, and so on in a pure text medium.
So what makes it hate speech? It’s when it’s used as an attack. Is it being used to denigrate someone, or a class of people? That’s what turns a word into a slur. It could be obvious, like “this person is a stupid {bleep}”, or less blatant, like “that country is full of {bleeps}”.
In the case of the post that spurred this thread, the word was clearly not being used to attack Harris. It was an example of what a racist might think of her. And so, the poster was not guilty of hate speech and didn’t violate the board rules.
I don’t think it needs to be dissected any further than that.
You must be new here, welcome to the boards.
I said it doesn’t need to be.
This is the SDMB, of course it’s going to be. 
Belief has got nothing to do with it. It’s who is saying it - not the poster but some other (hypothetical) person.
Yes, it actually does.
Would it be hate speech (by the poster) if it was a literal quote of something a racist said?
I do agree the person quoted in the OP should have used quotes around the words put into the hateful bigots’ mouths.
But that’s a stylistic issue. Is anyone here in doubt as to who was supposedly saying the (let’s not forget - already self-censored) word in the quote?
And just as an aside, why is everyone all up in arms about the word nigger, but the word bitch hasn’t gotten the same umbrage?
Because the n-word is far, far worse. Bitch is just a female dog, and considered a middling insult. The c-word is a lot closer to the n-word, but even it lacks the history.
For me, it’s pretty simple. If this guy were to have said what he said in a classroom with a bunch of black people, he would be branded racist.
Your discussion about the term would not be so treated. Because it is different. Discussion about a term is not treated the same way as saying it.
People don’t say the n-word to mock racists. They say it to get away with saying the n-word. We should not allow it.
The relevance is that you claimed that the way the OP mentioned the word was the same as the way that the poster ironically used the word.
It’s not. I can use different words. The OP was discussing the way someone said the n-word. The post they are complaining said the n-word to mock racists. Those aren’t the same thing.
That was my underlying point. There is a distinction between the two. We can in fact allow one and disallow the other. And I think we should.
It’s too big a loophole for actual racists to use. You’re going to run into situations where someone claims they were being ironic. (And there will be an even more heated ATMB thread.)
No, it’s not.
Sure, it’s the word hurled at Black people by racists. Millions of Black people, hundreds of years. A few countries.
You want to compare that with misogyny’s toll?
Nigger is just a skin colour.
“just” is doing so much lifting there its back is broken.
Nice of you to speak for Black people. Very … masterful.
Yes, they do.
Is that what I was doing when I used the word nigger, multiple times in this thread alone?
The post they were complaining about didn’t even use the word nigger.