I fully acknowledge that the prior thread went off track, but the question is still pertinent.
And the last time it came up, it was similarly closed without an actual answer, because again, people defending their right to this practice and hate-speech adjacent topics drove the thread off the road.
Since it keeps happening, I humbly suggest to the mods that people who are actively hijacking the thread need to get noted and/or warned so we can actually talk about, and ideally take action on the subject. That’s what happened the first time the subject was brought up, but closing the thread empirically has not made the situation improve. Especially as the subject of the thread was one of the key folks driving the hijack the second time.
So, I’ll repeat @Thing.Fish for the third time this post:
I would think that WhatExit’s actions in the other thread - namely breaking the link, deleting all quotes of it, and suspending the offending poster - answered the question pretty clearly.
To be clear, I appreciate @What_Exit’s taking time to sift through a lot more crap than I’d be willing to do. And certainly, we may have an answer to the specific scenario on Tuesday. But that’s a bit different from closing the loophole.
Because it’s come up repeatedly, and, as stated, one of the parties involved in one of the incidents was one of the people who, deliberately or not, hijacked the most recent thread. I think it’s worthwhile for the mods to consider highlighting how hate-based links are going to be handled going forward.
Or the same parties are likely to keep abusing them.
Alternately, like what happened in the first thread, the parties most likely to offend could get a topic ban, which would allow the line to stay … fuzzy … but also hold the actual offenders fully responsible.
I think a topic ban is a great solution after a couple of warnings of course. The otherwise valuable posters remain valuable. The one trick ponies leave.
Linking directly to a site with hate speech should be treated like linking directly to any other obscene content; not a big deal, break the link, remind them not to do that, only if they make it a habit should it be considered actionable.
A broken link to such a site to discuss it isn’t a bad thing. For a hypothetical, let’s say a major news site publishes an op-ed denouncing non-hetero relationships and includes hateful stereotypes and slurs, in what seems like an attempt to normalize such opinion and language in advance of an effort to restrict same-sex marriage rights in the US. That’s worthy of discussion and including a (broken) link to the article in question is very helpful if not essential for the discussion.
But it’s another thing entirely to link to such a discussion and to endorse its content in any way. I’d suggest that doing so should be treated the same as if someone wrote those same slurs and hate directly into a post, and moderated accordingly.
Looks like I participated in that discussion and my opinion hasn’t changed.
I agree that topic bans are a very sensible solution though I do wish the mods were quicker to hand them out (I’m a firm believer in the value of aggressively pruning tolerance paradoxes).
Just checking in - the poster that spawned this and the prior thread was suspended through Tuesday. It’s afternoon/early evening on Wednesday, has there been any progress on deciding on the appropriate discipline and on how approval of off-board hate speech is going to be handled?
Of course, I know you mods have lives other than this place, :gasp:, and you may be trying to reach a consensus or even be reaching out to Ed.
So just figured I’d ask for state of the modloop update if possible.
Looks like I missed the drama (phew). I don’t intend to relitigate, but rather continue the discussion for the sake of posterity:
Saying transgender people are mentally ill does not appear to be hate speech under the rules. Rather, that is prohibited in a separate section, with the explicit disclaimer that the question is controversial and poisons otherwise productive discussion of trans issues.
Regardless of personal opinion, most people should realize by now that an article stating all transgender people are mentally ill is potentially offensive.
Therefore the existing rules cover the situation already:
Pornography and potentially offensive material. Do not post links to pornography – we will be the judge of what constitutes pornography. Links to nudity or other potentially shocking or offensive material are permissible only in the context of a mature discussion – gratuitous posting of such links is grounds for revocation of your posting privileges. When posting a link to potentially shocking or offensive material, observe the “two click” rule – don’t link directly to the item, but rather to an intermediate page that in turns links to the item. Alternatively, you may use the “spoiler” function – highlight the link, click on the Tool (gear) icon in the posting menu, and click on Blur Spoiler. Then provide an adequate, accurate description of what the blurred link points to. If you’re not sure whether a link is appropriate, contact a moderator or administrator before posting it. Any user who feels a posted message is objectionable should flag it or contact the moderators of the affected forum by private message.
That is, you must be having a mature discussion, you must observe the two click rule or use a spoiler, you must describe what the link is for, and gratuitous links to offensive content can get you in trouble.
Then comes the question of endorsing said potentially offensive material. I think it really depends on why the reference is being made. I might link to and endorse a work by Aristotle or St. Aquinas to make a point on teleology, but lo and behold! the very same chapter argues that women are inferior to men by nature. And suppose I can’t disavow that one part because I agree with it (I don’t). It’s my responsibility to have a legitimate end in mind, and to read my own cite and break the link if it’s potentially offensive. Beyond that, I think it falls on the reader, and ultimately the moderators, to look at my post in context and decide if the purpose of the link is legitimate (authority on teleology) or illegitimate (skirting the prohibition on men’s rights advocacy).