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?
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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–
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 thewarnings 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?
