# Hate speech and the SDMB
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-speech-and-the-sdmb/206236
**Category:** The BBQ Pit
**Created:** [October 8, 2003, 5:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-speech-and-the-sdmb/206236 "2003-10-08T05:41:59Z")
**Posts on this page:** 12
**Page:** 7
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [October 11, 2003, 10:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-speech-and-the-sdmb/206236/121 "2003-10-11T10:19:27Z")
Ntuker
My reading was similar to yours until Andros posted, except that I had presumed religious zealotry rather than violence.
Upon reading Andros’ post, it immediately occurred to me that the statement Dogface made was a modal assertion, i.e., an assertion about a state. The reason I framed Andros’ argument as a modal implication was so that I could examine its validity and soundness objectively.
That’s why the word “keep” matters. As an intransitive verb, it means “to remain in a state or condition”. (Source: _The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition_)
The reason I had to think about it for several hours is that it is not immediately clear exactly what reference frame Dogface’s modal assertion fits. When I began to think of Mally’s deontic logic system and Menger’s criticism of it, that’s when it dawned on me that the relevant frame is a deontic one, that is to say, one of moral permission and obligation (what one “ought” to do).
At that point, there was no longer any need to look at the issue emotionally, because it could now been mapped to an objective symbology that could be objectively manipulated in accordance with sound principles of logic.
You see, it was not possible that Dogface was talking about “people who commit these types of violent acts”. His modal state is one of pretense: keep _pretending_.
In listing the attributes that we know concerning the gang, each can be fairly easily examined for its deontic state: [1] the gang is violent (they beat the man), [2] the gang is comprised of religious zealots (their concern was morality), and [3] the gang is comprised of Pakistani Mulsims (so identified by the article).
For any state to continue, it must first have existed — cf., for something to be necessary, it must first be possible. Now, examine the list:
[1] Reasonable people generally do not hold that violence ought to be tolerated, so he could not have been talking about violent people.
[2] Reasonable people generally do not hold that religious zealotry (which so often manifests as violence) ought to be tolerated, so he could not have been talking about religious zealots.
[3] Reasonable people generally do indeed hold that religious faith itself, and diverse cultures as a whole, ought to be tolerated, so he _must_ have been talking about Pakistani Muslims.
His assertion, therefore, was that we ought not to keep pretending to tolerate Pakistani Muslims. A simple modus tollens.
It was upon this realization that I posted my retraction and my apology. A reasonable man, when confronted by an argument that is both valid and sound, is compelled to accept the argument’s conclusion, whether he agreed with it before or not. He _must_ agree with it now. I cannot continue to hold the position I held, and still be a reasonable man.
---
### Author:  [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)
#### Post date: [October 11, 2003, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-speech-and-the-sdmb/206236/122 "2003-10-11T10:28:54Z")
**Lib** , I was getting pretty wound up by your earlier responses. Now I know why, again I have to conclude that you are a gentleman.
I really wish **Dogface** would come and enlighten us as to what he actually meant.
---
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [October 11, 2003, 10:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-speech-and-the-sdmb/206236/123 "2003-10-11T10:48:36Z")
Jimm
> [@](#):
>
> Lib, I was getting pretty wound up by your earlier responses. Now I know why, again I have to conclude that you are a gentleman.
You cannot know how much I need that. Thank you. 🙂
---
### Author:  [@racinchikki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/racinchikki)
#### Post date: [October 16, 2003, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-speech-and-the-sdmb/206236/124 "2003-10-16T06:59:21Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Libertarian \*
> **The message is irrespective of the messenger.**
Actually, as was drilled into my head in Communications Theory in both high school and college, **the medium is the message**.
Sorry… I’ve been waiting two or three years for a chance to actually use that phrase. It was on every single stinkin’ test for two years…
---
### Author:  [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)
#### Post date: [October 16, 2003, 10:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-speech-and-the-sdmb/206236/125 "2003-10-16T10:26:29Z")
Hmm… a couple of points.
[1] I am not the medium; the medium is the message board.
[2] Marshall McLuhan is a [honkie bullshitter](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030725.html)
---
### Author:  [@Alan\_Owes\_Bess](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Owes_Bess)
#### Post date: [October 16, 2003, 11:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-speech-and-the-sdmb/206236/126 "2003-10-16T11:11:36Z")
> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by Libertarian_
> I’ve given several hours of thought to the matter and, based on Andros’ compelling argument, I have to agree with those who say that Dogface’s remarks were racially bigotted.
Using **Libetarian’s** Fookoe inspired chop logic, I conclude that a person who makes such a claim must be incapable of making a racially bigoted statement.
I take my beanie off to you.
> [@](#):
>
> _Originally posted by Libertarian_
> Marshall McLuhan is a honkie bullshitter
I put on my beanie to you ten times.
---
### Author:  [@Coldfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coldfire)
#### Post date: [October 16, 2003, 12:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-speech-and-the-sdmb/206236/127 "2003-10-16T12:00:25Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by milroyj \*
> **After 9/11, there were hateful posts about how America “deserved it”.**
Show me the money. Give me a link to a post where someone states, in those terms, that the US or its people “deserved 9/11”. Disclaimer: it doesn’t count if the poster was subsequently warned or banned.
---
### Author:  [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)
#### Post date: [October 16, 2003, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-speech-and-the-sdmb/206236/128 "2003-10-16T15:09:29Z")
Coldie, does “the US had 9-11 coming to them” count?
---
### Author:  [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)
#### Post date: [October 16, 2003, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-speech-and-the-sdmb/206236/129 "2003-10-16T15:32:17Z")
Actually, I’ve found the thread ([here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=185824&perpage=50&pagenumber=3)) and the poster does actually say it in those terms.
> [@](#):
>
> “Hence my statement, that in my opinion and the opinion of a lot of people on this side of the pond, that the US only got what it deserved.”
> [@](#):
>
> “Let’s just stick to the point that I think America (and quite a few of the right-wing, gun toting, red-neck Americans) deserved 9-11.”
This same poster was also able ([in this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=199582&perpage=50&highlight=knacker&pagenumber=2), sorry still can’t work out how to link directly to posts) to get away with making racist comments about Irish travellers, despite my asking a mod to step in, both in the thread AND through the “report this post” function.
(Note that he wasn’t even warned for either of those things. Yes, he was banned eventually, but for something entirely different.)
---
### Author:  [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)
#### Post date: [October 16, 2003, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-speech-and-the-sdmb/206236/130 "2003-10-16T16:41:50Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Coldfire \*
> \*\*Show me the money. Give me a link to a post where someone states, in those terms, that the US or its people “deserved 9/11”. Disclaimer: it doesn’t count if the poster was subsequently warned or banned. \*\*
What you’re apparently failing to appreciate, **Coldy** , is the tortured logic of **milroyj**.
In this twisted formulation, anyone who made the slightest suggestion that America’s past actions or current foreign policy in the Middle East might have made even a small contribution to the hatred that inspired 9/11 was, in fact, saying that America “deserved it.”
Unfortunately, where **milroyj** is concerned, this seems to be some sort of Saussurean gap that we cannot bridge. The linguistic relationship between the signifier and the sign is just different for him than it is for rational people.
---
### Author:  [@Coldfire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Coldfire)
#### Post date: [October 16, 2003, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-speech-and-the-sdmb/206236/131 "2003-10-16T18:06:20Z")
**ruadh** , sometimes we ban someone because of compounded assholishness, as was the case with this poster. But IMHO, a warning would have been in place there indeed.
Not my forum, and **MEBuckner** still did a fine job moderating that hot-button thread - but your comment is valid.
Still, I think we can all agree that we do not let posters get away with such horrible comments on a regular basis, as **milroyj** seems to suggest. Unless there’s more examples like this.
---
### Author:  [@ruadh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ruadh)
#### Post date: [October 16, 2003, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-speech-and-the-sdmb/206236/132 "2003-10-16T18:15:33Z")
I agree Coldie, just pointing out that it has happened.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-speech-and-the-sdmb/206236.md?page=6)