Mod any discussion that proposes “Blacks are genetically inferior in intelligence” or similar as hate speech.
Yeah, it’s just “personally insulting”. Like I said, you don’t understand.
What do you mean by “mod”, exactly? Prohibit it across the board and ban anyone who tries to start such a discussion? Delete or close such threads? Please be specific.
So we should prohibit discussion of any topic any large group of people might find insulting? Believers, atheists, Democrats, Republicans, liberals, conservatives, US citizens, the Chinese…?
[QUOTE=MrDibble]
Yes, I get that.
[/QUOTE]
You said you get it, but you clearly don’t believe it.
Methinks Dibble wants a carve-out for bigoted race-based discussion in GD. Given the US’s history of extra-judicial race based murder (aka lynchings) and Jim Crow that’s a defensible proposition.
I don’t think it would end well though. Not that the status quo is perfect.
I’ll take this moment to repeat that there’s a certain style of white supremacist proselytizing/refuse stirring that nobody has defended yet. That doesn’t necessarily imply mod action. It’s just background context. (See my Poster B example, upthread.)
It seems to me like his main problem is with discussions of intelligence and race. Prohibiting anything that might be considered “bigoted race-based discussion” would be even more problematical, since it would preclude discussions of recent police cases among other things.
I don’t know what he wants, but for me, I’d just like to see the “science” based racism crap thrown into the Pit the way most other obvious hate-speech is (see the recent Scandic thread for an example).
The purity of the board to discuss lofty ethereal ideas like “Blacks or orangutans: which group is dumber?” can still be had, but people can give those…“ideas” the treatement they deserve.
It quite literally is censorship. I imagine the legal right to block ideas does not preclude the ethical imperative to free and open discourse that is the cornerstone of democratic liberalism.
If you wish to turn your back on what got us here, suit yourself. We are at the mercy of our Moderating overlords, who valiantly agree that suppressing ideas is not how to defeat them.
I sorely hope they don’t cower to the shrill cries of the politically correct and their soft innards.
Whatever you call it, many forms of hate speech are already banned. You may or may not disagree (though it’s hard to see how the board would benefit if anyone was free to spew racial slurs and advocacy of genocide), but that’s the position of the board already. We’re not arguing about whether hate speech should be banned, we’re arguing about what falls into the category of hate speech.
Moderator Note
Let’s keep things civil in ATMB. There’s no need to characterize the opinions of those you don’t agree with like this.
I always say that I don’t hate color, I hate behaviors. Is that hate speech? I guess depends on the context? But yet I’m always called out by someone as a racist so whatever.
Issue a mod note the first time, and warnings thereafter. Close the thread if that’s all the OP has.
Ones targeted at racial groups and other minorities. That you can’t see that as a different class from political groups is not encouraging.
No, I do believe that’s what you believe That’s the “that” I get. I just don’t agree that that’s the right approach, and you don’t seem to understand why I don’t agree. It’s got nothing to do with not having the arguments to refute it. We’ve demolished the use of Rushton etc as sources many, many times. But you (mods) seem to view them as valid cites anyway, whereas really, using Rushton to talk about African genetics is the same as using the Protocols to discuss Jewish greed…a fraudulent basis to serve as a veil for hate speech.
I do not agree with Dibble, but I find the position of the moderation extremely hypocritical about the sensitivity in using just a noun but if one uses the dictionary definition it is without comment. It is a myopic approach. But the door of reasoning is closed…
As I stated in another thread, it truly amazes me that anyone—particularly those further to the left of the political spectrum—would want to make topics verboten. One would thing that people—again, especially more liberal people—would champion more speech, not less. Yet, the two places that you would think would be sacrosanct bastions of exploring ideas, especially ideas that some people find uncomfortable would be a university campus and a debate board. But based on some of the opinions offered here and the bizarro-level insanity of speech codes and free speech zones (:rolleyes:) that have been instituted on campuses, we see that is not the case.
Sad.
Dibble is not a liberal (either in the american or the international sense as the word is used in the english and most other of the languages) I believe.
using him to make comment on the american topics and the american university campsuses about american things is quite strange… none of the american centre left posters here seem to be calling for banning the topic, so pehraps you should be saving your roll eyes. (as given your ironical support for the censoring of some nouns)
I’m an anarchist with a mix of socialist and syndicalist tendencies. I’m Left, but definitely not liberal the way Americans or Europeans understand it. I’m socially very liberal, but politically, not at all.
Not that I expect discernment from someone who uses left and liberal as synonyms.
ETA: I am not an advocate of the quaint, illusionary US free speech notion. There’s no such thing and never has been.
I do find the moderating very uneven-handed.
If you believe a position is without merit, then of course any evidence offered for that position will be seen as at best flawed, and at worse non-evidence. And that is the problem by dismissing evidence for some racist positions, but allowing others, it gives the impression of tacitly support for certain racist positions.
Equally with racial epithets there is an uneven enforcement. For example the “Jew-bro” thread. Now to me that seemed fairly innocuous as it is not a recognized racial epithet and it was not intended as one, but on the other hand I can recognize that in the context of a zero-tolerance policy it might be disallowed. However why then allow the use of a word like “Paki”, which whilst some might not recognize as an epithet, but to many others it is a very nasty one.
I’m not arguing for censorship, but there is a major lack of consistency.
Perhaps he’d like more consistent moderation.
If claims Jews have a “propensity” to engage in terrorism draws an immediate warning for hate speech and an order to never make a post like that again, why not do the same for the many similar or worse posts in regards to Muslims and blacks?
This, to me, is really the crux of it. An American board will have a tendency to reflect US values. If you’re really railing against that I’d say you should become resigned to disappointment. Nothing we say will ever satisfy you.
Hear, hear, more speech. Until the powers that be start routinely sending such racialist shit-bait to the pit (where participants are freer in their voice) the mods, quite frankly, deserve all the extra criticism that comes with insisting that the SDMB self-muzzle.
Mods, if forcing the SDMB to tolerant intolerance is giving you a headache, you can cut it down by simply modding better.
I’m not railing against that, I’m well aware of the board’s location, I was just correcting a misapprehension on magellan’s part and my reply was solely directed at his misunderstanding that all leftists are free-speech-supporting liberals-
Although, having said that, this board is definitely not a free speech zone so that whole “American values” schtick is a non-starter. I trust there’s no need for me to actually come up with examples of the many, many kinds of speech I would not be free to make here.
All speech is limited, I disagree with where the board sets the limits for different kinds of hate speech, that’s all.
Try reading slower. My comments were not sparked by his comments alone. In fact, most of the interaction I’ve had in these two threads in ATMB have been with iiandiiii.
So, :rolleyes:
