I do not understand how calling out a gang of Christian religious zealots who beat up a man because he encouraged women to speak in church is hate speech. In the same way, I do not understand how calling out a gang of Muslim religious zealots who beat up a man because he encouraged women to pose nude is hate speech.
No, sir, I just flat don’t get it.
The only difference I see is Christian vs Muslim and speaking vs posing. Other than that, both gangs are equally fucking barbaric and deserve to be called out.
Well, i don’t believe in hate speech laws, because i believe in complete freedom of speech. I do, however, concede the right of the SDMB administrators to ban what they consider to be hate speech. That said, i really think, Lib, that you’re stretching the point a little here.
This one obviously relates directly to Dogface’s OP in the other thread, but i still think you’ve got it wrong here.
Dissing only a particular gang of Muslims or Christians who committed such violent acts would probably not be considered hate speech. That is, if you made it clear that your contempt was restricted to the particular Muslims or Christians who did this sort of thing, rather than saying or implying that all Muslims or all Christians are as bad as this.
The problem with Dogface’s post was that it was ambiguous as to whether this is what he was doing. In the absence of other evidence, and in the absence of clarification from Dogface, all people can do is look at what’s there and evaluate it in the context of what they already know about the speaker.
In this case, a few people have given examples to show that Dogface is not above making unsubstatiated generalizations about Islam and its followers. And even more people, myself included, have shown that Dogface’s “debating” tactics are limited to hit-and-run ranting. For my part, it’s the latter that pisses me off more than the possibility that he may or may not have committed hate speech.
For this comparison to be valid, you should have written “Martin Luther Fucking King,” not “Martin Luther Coon.” And while people may not agree with the former, it would not be considered hate speech because it is directed at a particular individual, rather than at a whole race, as in the case of the “coon” example. I really thought you were smart enough to distinguish between abusing an individual (for whatever reason) and abusing that individual by making a disparaging comment about his or her race.
Personally, i think that both of these comments are stupid, but that neither of them constitutes hate speech.
Personally, i think these are about equally bad, and never use either one. I don’t know what the Mods’ response would be to the use of the first, because i’ve never seen it used. Have you?
Again, no problem with either of these, because again you fail to note the difference between making fun of an individual for the acts and words of that individual, and making fun of an individual by generalizing about race, religion, or whatever.
If someone ridicules either one by referring specifically to his behaviour, no big deal. If someone ridicules them by calling them “typical idiot raghead” or “typical idiot fundie,” that’s different. Are you getting it yet?
I really have to ask for a cite for this. Really, you’re just pulling crap out your ass now.
Oh, measure up for that hair shirt already, will ya. What a fucking whining martyr you’re sounding like now.
Did you see all the examples i’ve given of Dogface’s gratuitous swipes at liberals? I don’t he’s once been cautioned for it, let alone been accused of hate speech. I don’t think he should be stopped from saying any of that stuff; i simply reserve the right to call him a moron whenever he does. You’ve taken gratuitous swipes at liberals in this very thread. Where are all the thought police calling for you to be warned or banned? [chirping crickets…]
[on preview, i see that Dogface now has been cautioned by Lynn, but certtainly not for his mindless swipes at liberals]
I’m pulling crap out my ass? That’s rich! Here you are reviewing various turns of phrase and declaring whether or not they are hate speech as though you are the objective arbiter of such things. If that’s what’s coming out your head, frankly, I shudder to think what might be coming out your ass.
*“Around 7:30 p.m. Monday approximately 15 young men ages 15 to 18, described as being of Christian heritage, attacked the poor man who happened to have the same name as the journalist.”
Why do we even keep pretending that these creatures deserve even the tiniest shred of consideration as human beings? Not only are they savages, but they are particularly STUPID savages.*
A little different?
It’s the “keep pretending” bit that has people riled, I think. These particular 15 men, we don’t know them. We can’t “keep” doing anything to them, because we haven’t don’t anything to them in the first place. But we have made a point of treating Muslims and Pakistanis as nonsavage human beings.
Sorry, I’m shy on caffein, so I dunno if that made sense. But it seems to me that the Dogface line is unlikely to refer to these particular 15 kids, and was intended to refer to a larger group. What group that is, I dunno. And he clearly doesn’t care to explicate.
I was simply making an effort to summarize what seemed to me to be the way that hate speech is defined by those on who run this message board, as well as putting in some of my own opinions. And, if Lynn’s post is any indication, i got at least some of it correct.
For example, on the issue :
My interpretation:
Lynn’s interpretation:
Some remarkable similarities there, huh?
I don’t consider myself the final arbiter of what is and is not hate speech. In fact, i made it quite clear that, in a legal sense at least, i don’t even approve of the category.
But you just spent that whole long post crapping on about the perceived injustices and inconsistencies of this board, while providing no evidence to back your claims, and failing to make even the most rudimentary distinction between specifics and generalizations.
Furthermore, you finished with a woe-is-me, whiny, pathetic piece of drivel about how conservative- and libertarian-bashing is considered OK on this Board, while liberal- and authoritarian-bashing is called hate speech, completely ignoring the fact that Dogface has spent heaps of energy bashing liberals, and that you have made plenty of gratuitous anti-liberal remarks, and neither of you has been charged with hate-speech on the issue. So, was this a slight misinterpretation of Board policy on your part, or was it just self-serving bullshit?
But, of course, actually taking the time to deal with these issues might interrupt your self-flagellation. Keep whipping away there, martyr boy.
I have been reading this thread simply for the debate without caring who was right or wrong. I just had to step out from my lurking to voice how impressed I was with this post.
Actually, I was concerned this whole orignal OP was a trap by Dogface to put the Racist Whammy onto anyone who read between his lines.
I had to squint really hard at Dogface’s OP (thinking he was simply being provocative), and despite my kneejerk along the lines of JuanitaTech’s post, came to the conclusion that savages might have been referring to the purveyors of the Hot Muslim Sex book, the reporters or possibly the boy gang.†
That’s fine, but to a relative newbie such as myself, don’t you think the ambiguity is so much greater – and the resultant backlash is all the more polarizing? Daisy Cutter: Your pearls of wisdom are positively spunkifying*; this whole Board; you’re making quick work for liberals everywhere! Keep on trucking, but maybe you should consider changing your handle to “VP Danforth” or perhaps “potatoe.”
† (For this OP, I did my homework and researched Dogface’s current and recent rhetoric. For the locked thread, however, I had the sinking feeling I was experiencing the early inklings of prejudice.)
I’m glad I kept reading before replying. This is, to me, the obvious sticking point. “We” don’t “keep pretending” anything about those boys. “We” only “keep pretending” if we’ve started pretending in the first place. That’s what makes the statement ambiguous at best.
I’m going to chime in here and agree with Libertarian. I’ve read through the passage by Dogface. Was his statement ignorant? High probability. Was is bigoted? Very likely. But was his statement hate speech?
Here I can agree with the first two assessments. Now I know the mods can define hate speech however they want. It very well may be the case that bigoted statements are verboten here at SDMB (in which case bigoted speech = hate speech). But if some bigoted speech is allowable, then I think it behooves the mods to provide the rest of us with some rationale as to why certain statements are considered hate speech while others are not (I’m not saying they haven’t - but I would personally like a clearer explanation regarding the types of statements that can be attributed to ignorance, those that can be attributed to bigotry, and those that can be attributed to hate).
(Of course if the biogoted speech = hate speech is the rationale, then no additional explanation is required and my point is moot).
I am of a similar opinion as that of mhendo - I don’t think speech should necessarily be squelched by categorizing some of it as hate speech. However, where I differ from him is I would not, in principle, have a problem with it. But in doing so, one must have a VERY CLEAR definition of what hate speech is in order for me to accept it as such.
My underatanding of hate speech is speech that can be used as a tool of violence (in that there is a causal link between the speech and violence/oppression that may stem from it). Granted, my understanding of hate speech may be different than the mods’ (or others), but that’s how I view it.
I should point out that I am in no way defeding the statements that Dogface made. It’s pretty clear that he’s shown a pattern of making ignorant and bigoted statements. I’m just trying to get a handle on why the statment that’s causing all this can be considered “hate speech” coming from the perspective on what I understand hate speech to be.
I was gonna post something like what mhendo posted in response to Lib’s proclamation, but since he did such a fine job, there’s no need. so, I’m really only posting to say to milroyj - glad to see your sense of humor is still intact. That’s usually the last to go.
I suppose i should have been clearer on a couple of issues, because it might not be obvious where i draw a distinction between my general position, and my position as it relates to this message board.
Firstly, as a general proposition, i don’t like prohibitions on “hate speech,” just like i don’t really support the notion of “hate crimes.” I’ve always been of the opinion that we should punish the act. There are already legal mechanisms that deal with the level of intent (e.g., first degree murder, vs. second-degree, vs. manslaughter, etc.), and i don’t think the law needs to go into further mind-reading exercises.
I appreciate that there might sometimes be a causal link between the speech and the violence, but we should assume that people are generally responsible for their own actions. If you tell me that you think “all fags should be killed,” or some other such nonsense, and i then go out and kill a gay man, then i should be held responsible for that action. And it’s the action itself that should be punished, not the “thought” behind it.
There was considerable debate over this issue some time ago in the thread about Gwen Araujo, the trans-gendered teen who was murdered in California. I think that the crime itself was heinous enough to be punished with a lifetime in jail; there was no need to speculate on the homophobia (or otherwise) of the killers, for the purpose of sentencing.
I realize that, as a white, heterosexual guy, it might seem relatively easy for me to make these judgements, given that i’m unlikely to be the victim of a hate crime (as defined in legal statutes). But i just think that punishing people for what they may have been thinking, or what they say, is a troubling development, especially when we can punish the acts.
To use other examples, i really don’t find the killers of Matthew Shepard or James Bird any more or less vile and inhuman because they committed their crimes out of homophobia or racism. Their acts were unspeakable enough. All i would add is that, while i reject the notion of specific hate crimes (i think all murder is a hate crime), i also reject the notion of the “gay panic” defence that the Shepard killers tried to use. Such killings should be treated as unprovoked, pre-meditated attacks, which places them in the category of first-degree murder in most jurisdictions, i believe.
Now, to this message Board. Despite the fact that i’ve been criticizing Libertarian, i do think that he has a point, hidden under all his whining martyrdom. I believe that any authority–whether the state, or the owners of this message board–that has an edict against hate speech, should do its best to define what does and does not constitute hate speech, so as to leave as little ambiguity as possible.
The main problem with Lib’s post was not that he was trying to make this point, but that he was doing it with such plainly ridiculous examples, particularly the one comparing criticism of liberals and authoritarians with criticism of conservatives and libertarians. Also, one thing the Board administrators, like Lynn, have made quite clear, is that they differentiate between criticism of an individual for particular acts, and criticism of an individual by generalizing about that person’s race or religion or whatever. Libertarian stubbornly refused to see the distinction.
As for Dogface’s thread, i’ll say again that i don’t really care about it’s content. I was more interested in his behaviour as typifying his disingenuous, drive-by debating tactics, which i considered to be borderline trolling (can i say that now that Lynn has made the claim openly?).
Well, if Dogface’s OP was indeed just such a “trap,” it would probably fall into the category of trolling, similar to december’s pre-banning post in which he misled Dopers over which President he was quoting.
You’re right that the ambiguity is greater, and it’s unfortunate. And that’s why i have been focusing not on the content of Dogface’s OP, but on his unwillingness (despite his continued presence in other threads on the message boards over the last day or so) to address the issues that he raised, and the questions and comments directed at him by other Dopers.
I realize, as ResIpsaLoquitor said earlier in this thread, that some of us have lives outside the SDMB, and that we shouldn’t automatically assume that silence equals trolling or cowardice. If Dogface had not been posting to more than 20 other threads in the interim, i wouldn’t have made the same point. But i think that membership in an online community like this one has some unwritten rules of etiquette, which include having the courtesy to respond if people ask you to explain the OP of thread that you started. I mean, if a person cares enough about something to start a whole new thread about it, as Dogface apparently did with this issue, isn’t it reasonable to expect that person to respond to questions or criticisms of his own OP?
Also, if this was Dogface’s first time posting crap and then ducking for cover, people would be more likely to let it go, but it’s become something of a habit. This might not say much about whether he’s a racist or a bigot, but it says a lot about his desire to be a good-faith member of this community.
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.
The logic that Andros introduced is quite inescapable: if a state of deontic necessity (DN) has been assigned to A, but A has not even obtained a state of deontic possibility (DP), then the assignment to A of DN is a fallacy since DN(A) -> PN(A) and therefore by modus tollens ~PN(A) -> ~DN(A).
Although I was wrong about the presumption of Dogface’s intent, I still would appreciate greater clarification on this nebulous rule of hate speech. I am a man who likes to speak my mind and, while I do not hate anybody, I cannot know whether someone else might interpret what I say to be hateful. As I explained, I am quite anal about obeying the rules, and it is distressing to be in a position such that I cannot know that something I say might break a rule until after the rule has been broken.
I apologize to everyone whom I irritated with the steadfastness of my position and the timbre of my retorts. I apologize especially to Lynn who, as it turns out, interpreted this instance correctly.
Well, obviously. DUH!
(Actually, even though I’m pretending to be all like :dubious:, I’m really all like . Hopefully, Lib will be all like and not all :mad:, or else I’m gonna be all like :eek:. Ya know?)
In other words, if it isn’t even possible, it certainly can’t be necessary.
Like Andros said, Dogface can’t have been talking about only this particular group of teens since he used the phrase “keep pretending”. He had to be talking about a group that was already the object of pretense. Since there is no pretense with respect to condemnation of religious zealotry, there remains only condemnation of Pakistani Muslims in general about whom much pretense exists.
Originally posted by Mr. B * Daisy Cutter: Your pearls of wisdom are positively spunkifying; this whole Board; you’re making quick work for liberals everywhere! Keep on trucking, but maybe you should consider changing your handle to “VP Danforth” or perhaps “potatoe.”
As usual, I am used to people resorting to simple namecalling, when they have no other intelligent replies to the well thought out theories which I offer, which are based on fact.
Let’s get back to the issue at hand here. This case is in all probability religiously motivated, one doesn’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure that one out.
DAY & NIGHTS GUIDE TO HAVING SEX WITH MUSLIMS (translation from Norwegian)
A picture of some guy licking some muslims chicks boobs:
(that picture is from one of the largest newspapers in Norway)
Those 15 kids decide that they are going to “get” the journalist who is responsible for that article on “Muslim sex”.
So, those kids found it outrageous to see a picture of a Muslim chicks boobs, and it just clicked for them, so they decided to beat up the journalist responsible for it.
God forbid that anybody see any picture of a Muslim womens boobs ! A travesty !
So, other people can continue to make up all sorts of stories/excuses whatever, but I know the real deal.
And much to your delight Mr. B, I will continue to offer my “pearls of wisdom” here.
Um, Daisy Cutter, no one (that I’ve noticed) is arguing that the kids who beat up the reporter were not in the wrong. The only issue is whether Dogface’s remarks were saying that these kids’ actions are evidence that Muslims are subhuman savages. If he had clearly stated that the kids themselves were subhuman savages, there wouldn’t have been a problem.
Case A: Some black guys killed an old lady. Those guys are disgusting scum.
Case B: Some black guys killed an old lady. Black people are disgusting scum.
Here you are reviewing various turns of phrase and declaring whether or not they are hate speech as though you are the objective arbiter of such things. If that’s what’s coming out your head, frankly, I shudder to think what might be coming out your ass.
. Hopefully, Lib will be all like 
