I agree with this strongly. I heartily disagree with clairobscur’s point, but don’t think this remotely qualifies as hate speech.
The usage of “faggot” in this context is a dismissal of the people who make the sort of argument they were citing, not calling people faggots. I.E. the people it’s meant to belittle are the bigoted, not the targets of the slur.
While I believe clairobscur isn’t gay, I’ll say it’s not at all uncommon for marginalized people to use slurs for themselves not even in a reclaimed sense, but to flippantly summarize something bigoted someone is saying in plain language. IIRC we had a similar topic with Ronald Raygun and the word “tranny” a few months back (though in this case the actual warning was due someone had seen RR using it and followed up in the same thread using it themselves not realizing it was a slur due to not being a native speaker, not RR’s use herself). In essence, it’s denying bigots the benefits of playing on their own turf of dogwhistles and plausible deniability by calling out in no uncertain terms that what they’re advocating is “the trannies should have to wear pink triangles to identify themselves so as not to trick ‘normal people’” (or whatever, that’s just an example I made up).
This isn’t the same situation but it’s very similar – it’s summarizing something bigoted people say to make clear they’re being bigoted. It’s pointing out that stifling speech is a tactic bigots can use to stamp down on the marginalized by pointing out language they might use. I.E. “the faggots might be turning your son gay!!!”
I’m not sure clairobscur really should have used the word in the context considering they don’t (afaik) really have the in-group clout to use the word, and these things are very in-group out-group in our culture. However, it’s at best a polite mod note and moderating it as hate speech is absurd. This board has an extremely peculiar view of hate speech when “using a slur to illustrate bigoted rhetoric” is hate speech but somehow
goes without so much as a mod note even after being actively discussed in an ATMB thread, or all the myriad threads just oh so politely wanting to talk about why those black people just aren’t as smart as us white people??? isn’t.
To the surprise of nobody who remembers my own (thankfully short-lived) ban of a few years ago under similar circumstances ; I endorse this message and wish to subscribe to Jragon’s newsletter.
And yeah, also still waiting for a peep on the **Annoyed **thing.
FTR, I don’t think this needed to be a warning, so much as a note to mind the use/mention distinction. But I do think some moderation, for that very reason, was not amiss.
Not that I reported it, mind you. I literally stopped reading that particular post at the point I highlighted in my own reply to it, so was unaware of the language used until the warning was issued.
clairobscur - I pretty much disagree with the whole of the rationale that you’ve advanced in this thread, and the additional commentary you’ve offered actually reinforced my original thoughts on the justification of the warning.
However, in discussion with the rest of the mod team, they and others have raised different and more compelling defenses. As a result, I’m reversing the warning.
I ask because, in general, I would argue that it’s not a good idea to allow other defenses to be considered valid. If the accused doesn’t come up with said argument, then chances are that isn’t true.
Let me give a hypothetical example. Let’s say that a guy knocked over this woman. He sits there and gives a bunch of excuses to push her down. At no point, however, does he argue it was an accident. However, some body who wasn’t involved comes in and say “I bet it was just an accident, and he didn’t see her.”
I think it’s pretty obvious that it wasn’t an accident, and that said argument is invalid. If it were an accident, the accused would have argued that in the first place. It’s easy to come up with the truth, but hard to come up with every possible excuse.
That looks similar to what I see here. You even say that his reasoning actually made you think he was more guilty–that his purpose was in fact to try and insult people. So what changed your mind?
Oh, and BTW, I agree 100% what Annoyed wrote is much, much worse. It is factually hate speech. However, the previous thread about transphobia led me to believe it didn’t break the hate speech rule, while any use of a slur did.
Now I am confused about when the hate speech rule will be used at all. Is it about hate, or is it about specific words? Neither seem to be getting moderated.
Ultimately I was persuaded that it was borderline. The context of the use didn’t encompass the intent that we prohibit. We tend to be pretty hesitant to expand what constitutes hate speech to avoid curtailing bona fide yet uncomfortable discussion.
The other example raised in this thread is from the Pit so I’m not commenting on that.
This doesn’t mean we’re going to relitigate past actions.
Been lurking in this discussion but will pile on the compliments for the reasoned consideration of the call. Personally I could see it both ways … and prefer a tie go to less restrictive than more restrictive speech.
OTOH … there are words that one should be very careful with when used. If a word is usually used as hate speech a user who intends another purpose should tread carefully, and not rush in. The moderated post is IMHO a good example how not to do it if one wants to avoid being misunderstood and avoid causing offense without meaning to.
clairobscur there was something noted before but not actually asked to you as a question that still wonder about:
The other two words in your ______-speech list were not ones were specifically hateful words, and there are hateful ones on par with “faggot” that you could have used. “Pinko” not quite on the same level but closer than “Commie” in its hateful intent. And obviously “Muslim” is not the word used when one means hateful intent.
Do you have any explanation for why the only clearly hateful word in your list was that one, if you felt that using hateful words was required to make whatever point you thought you were making?
And for clarity of what point you were intending to make - is it your position that the word was a word that should have been tolerated to say back when it was? It always was a word with hateful intent. It was once upon a time just socially acceptable for the majority to express such hateful intent without fear of disapproval. Likewise for the n-word in its day, especially in some regions … and “kike” and so on. Or were you meaning to express a different concept? (Of course I could just be as thick as a brick.)
I disagree that the freedom to call people various slurs is a hinderance to actual freedom, and in fact it is generally a mark of someone being in favor of oppression against the people they are directing a slur against. Democracy doesn’t need people advocating for slavery or genocide to function, nor does it need to allow people to be assholes on every message board.
Equating people who want to be allowed to live, like gay rights protestors, with people who want to torture, enslave, and kill other people, like the KKK, is repugnant and sick. One does not need Nazis or KKK members to have a free society, and in fact they are people that actively work against a free soceity and democratic elections.
We should be careful about stern censorship on the internet, for the United States Supreme Court ruled that hate speech on the internet is not a federal crime. Interpreted, this means, “We should welcome the free discussion of ideas, and unless a message board contributor is unduly rude or a troll, standard moderator rules should apply.” Further, the owners of message boards should never fear lawsuits as long as standard rules of conduct apply.
Not much “stern censorship” here as far as I can tell. I have no idea what you mean by “standard moderator rules”, and as far as lawsuits are concerned, dangerous or not they cost money.
The free discussion of ideas you’re referring to resolves to moronic blatherings by feckless people, and we don’t want that shit here. And, just for future reference, hate speech automatically equals trolling.
