# fluiddruid what the hell round two **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 12, 2006, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluiddruid-what-the-hell-round-two/339693 "2006-01-12T18:33:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluiddruid-what-the-hell-round-two/339693/101 "2006-01-24T01:26:04Z")
Naw, being a rabid individualist it’s unlikely that I’d worry about running afoul of the hate speech rule, let alone actually do so. I’m just kind of fuzzy on what actually constitutes hate speech and I’d like to discuss it with some mods. If y’all would prefer I could always take it to email, as well. I am,however, a bit confused by your statement about proteted groups and examples to see which are more/less fairly treated by the rule. I’d thought that hatred directed at any entire race/ethnicity would consitute hate speech, and thus every ‘group’ would be equally protected. Am I wrong? I guess I could have my question answered here if you don’t mind a minor hijack… I’m just confused as to where exactly the division comes in between ‘forms’ of hate speech. If the Mods view a poster’s intent as slandering an entire racial/ethic group, what possible mitigating factors are there? Is there something I’m missing? ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluiddruid-what-the-hell-round-two/339693/102 "2006-01-24T01:31:09Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > I’ve read everything you’ve written, but you’ve yet to provide a compelling reason why the hate speech rule as currently applied is in any way inhibiting your ability to post freely and needs to be abolished. Until someone comes up with a compelling reason to change the rules based on non-theoretical concerns, things will likely stay as they are. See, you can be sweet when you want to. 🙂 I suppose we have about worn this out, but I would like to make the point that my objection to the hate speech rule has little to do with whether my ability to post freely is inhibited. What I object to is the _de facto_ approval, by virtue of their non-status as hate speech, of terms I deem offensive. And I simply fail to see what would be lost by abolishing the hate speech rule. Anyway, thanks for the time and effort you have spent in responding in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![fluiddruid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@fluiddruid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fluiddruid)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluiddruid-what-the-hell-round-two/339693/103 "2006-01-24T02:34:40Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Actually, according to **fluiddruid** , it was not reopened because it had generated multiple warnings. It did, if you’re referring to the same discussion that I am – in the continuation of the thread that hijacked your original pitting of me. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluiddruid-what-the-hell-round-two/339693/104 "2006-01-24T02:37:01Z")
> [@fluiddruid](#): > > It did, if you’re referring to the same discussion that I am – in the continuation of the thread that hijacked your original pitting of me. Let me get this straight. Warnings in thread B are counted against thread A? Fascinating. Your rationalization-fu is strong. ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluiddruid-what-the-hell-round-two/339693/105 "2006-01-24T02:41:33Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > I suppose we have about worn this out, but I would like to make the point that my objection to the hate speech rule has little to do with whether my ability to post freely is inhibited. What I object to is the _de facto_ approval, by virtue of their non-status as hate speech, of terms I deem offensive. And I simply fail to see what would be lost by abolishing the hate speech rule. Although I don’t agree, I do see where you’re coming from. 🙂 Should we hug or something now? ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluiddruid-what-the-hell-round-two/339693/106 "2006-01-24T02:43:26Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > Should we hug or something now? Let’s don’t but say we did. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluiddruid-what-the-hell-round-two/339693/107 "2006-01-24T02:44:08Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Let me get this straight. Warnings in thread B are counted against thread A? Fascinating. Your rationalization-fu is strong. Given that thread B turned into a continuation of thread A, I don’t see a problem with this. ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluiddruid-what-the-hell-round-two/339693/108 "2006-01-24T02:54:17Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > I am,however, a bit confused by your statement about proteted groups and examples to see which are more/less fairly treated by the rule. I’d thought that hatred directed at any entire race/ethnicity would consitute hate speech, and thus every ‘group’ would be equally protected. Am I wrong? I meant that as soon as we start getting into specific hypothetical examples, I expect questions of “why was statement A hate speech but not statement B?” to quickly emerge, followed by “why are these slurs against group C allowed when similar slurs against group D are forbidden?” I have no interest in having such a discussion. I don’t even know that many ethnic slurs. > [@](#): > > I guess I could have my question answered here if you don’t mind a minor hijack… I’m just confused as to where exactly the division comes in between ‘forms’ of hate speech. If the Mods view a poster’s intent as slandering an entire racial/ethic group, what possible mitigating factors are there? Is there something I’m missing? Honestly, I don’t know if I can give you a definition here of where the line lies. I would define slandering an entire racial/ethnic group as racism, not necessarily hate speech. Hate speech really depends on what you’re saying and how you’re saying it. This is one of those areas where it’s up to the judgement of the moderators. :eek: ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluiddruid-what-the-hell-round-two/339693/109 "2006-01-24T02:55:56Z")
> [@Lute Skywatcher](#): > > Given that thread B turned into a continuation of thread A, I don’t see a problem with this. They were warned for\* rehashing\* a closed thread, not for any _violations_ in the closed thread. So claiming that the thread was closed because it generated warnings is circular bullshit. And, as far as re-opening a closed thread is concerned– > [@Giraffe](#): > > You’re welcome to start a new thread to discuss the issue if you want. So, the thread was not re-opened by a mod because someone might actually respond to it; which, according to another mod, is perfectly OK? Got it. ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluiddruid-what-the-hell-round-two/339693/110 "2006-01-24T02:58:52Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > They were warned for\* rehashing\* a closed thread, not for any _violations_ in the closed thread. So claiming that the thread was closed because it generated warnings is circular bullshit. And, as far as re-opening a closed thread is concerned–So, the thread was not re-opened by a mod because someone might actually respond to it; which, according to another mod, is perfectly OK? Got it. _Now_ you’re welcome to start a new thread, after everything has been sorted out. You’re not automatically allowed to restart a thread after the first one gets closed. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluiddruid-what-the-hell-round-two/339693/111 "2006-01-24T03:08:34Z")
> [@Giraffe](#): > > _Now_ you’re welcome to start a new thread, after everything has been sorted out. You’re not automatically allowed to restart a thread after the first one gets closed. Re-open _that_ trainwreck? Not on your life! 🙂 Seriously, **fluiddruid’s** reason for _keeping_ it closed was that it had generated multiple warnings. The warnings were for re-hashing it while the deliberation was ongoing. I am assuming that her rationale for keeping it closed was arrived at _after_ said deliberation. If it is now OK to re-hash it, then re-hashing it would generate no warnings, which were the only warnings generated in the first place. It is circular logic to assert that a thread must stay closed because if it is opened people will ignore warnings not to post in it. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluiddruid-what-the-hell-round-two/339693/112 "2006-01-25T17:44:27Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > They were warned for\* rehashing\* a closed thread, not for any _violations_ in the closed thread. So claiming that the thread was closed because it generated warnings is circular bullshit. **fluiddruid** said “multiple warnings”. Either she thinks two is the same as “multiple” or there were other warnings made off-board. If it’s the latter, there’s no way for us to know what they were for nor which thread spawned them. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluiddruid-what-the-hell-round-two/339693/113 "2006-01-25T22:06:23Z")
> [@Lute Skywatcher](#): > > **fluiddruid** said “multiple warnings”. Either she thinks two is the same as “multiple” or there were other warnings made off-board. If it’s the latter, there’s no way for us to know what they were for nor which thread spawned them. What percentage of warnings would you say are given “off-board”? As much as 5%? 10%? I have never heard of an "off-board"warning, and see no reason to appeal to one now, especially when she _specifically_ refers to the thread I opened in order to question the closing– > [@fluiddruid](#): > > It did, if you’re referring to the same discussion that I am – in the continuation of the thread that hijacked your original pitting of me. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluiddruid-what-the-hell-round-two/339693/114 "2006-01-25T22:37:28Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > What percentage of warnings would you say are given “off-board”? As much as 5%? 10%? No idea but not all warnings are public. > [@](#): > > I have never heard of an "off-board"warning, and see no reason to appeal to one now, especially when she _specifically_ refers to the thread I opened in order to question the closing– If there were warnings that weren’t public, she can’t tell you where to find them _on_ the board, which is what you were _specifically_ after. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluiddruid-what-the-hell-round-two/339693/115 "2006-01-25T22:45:26Z")
> [@Lute Skywatcher](#): > > No idea but not all warnings are public.If there were warnings that weren’t public, she can’t tell you where to find them _on_ the board, which is what you were _specifically_ after. Lute, read post 103. Why in the world do you need to postulate off-board warnings to make sense of it? She specifically says that the warnings were in the thread pitting her, and says this in response to my saying no such warnings exist. If there were warnings that are not public, she can certainly _say_ that, can’t she? I said that I saw no warnings. She said the warnings were in my Pit thread. What possible reason do you have for assuming the warnings were off-board. Why would she point me to a thread that _has warnings in it_, specifically in response to a question about _where the_ _warnings were_, and not be referring to those warnings in the thread, but to some off-board warnings? Does this seriously make the least bit of sense to you? ---
**Author:** ![fluiddruid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@fluiddruid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fluiddruid)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluiddruid-what-the-hell-round-two/339693/116 "2006-01-25T23:20:48Z")
> [@Lute Skywatcher](#): > > **fluiddruid** said “multiple warnings”. Either she thinks two is the same as “multiple” or there were other warnings made off-board. If it’s the latter, there’s no way for us to know what they were for nor which thread spawned them. Criminy, are you going to make me do this? > [@dictionary.com](#): > > mul·ti·ple ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mlt-pl) > adj. Having, relating to, or consisting of more than one individual, element, part, or other component; manifold. By multiple, yes, I meant two. As in more than a single warning. As in more than one. I hope this clarifies. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluiddruid-what-the-hell-round-two/339693/117 "2006-01-25T23:24:48Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Why in the world do you need to postulate off-board warnings to make sense of it? Because of the “multiple”. I don’t know about you but to me that implies “more than two”. On preview, I see that she did indeed mean two. Nevermind. ---
**Author:** ![fluiddruid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c2a13f/32.png) [@fluiddruid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fluiddruid)\ **Post date:** [January 25, 2006, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluiddruid-what-the-hell-round-two/339693/118 "2006-01-25T23:52:58Z")
Well, at least I didn’t say “several”. I almost got eaten alive once by my English teacher for referring to two things as several things. Glad we’re all on the same page now. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fluiddruid-what-the-hell-round-two/339693.md?page=5)