Or an admission they hadn’t really read the article.
I think the board owners and/or users collectively can define hate speech however they like. If they define relatively mainstream views or current US laws as hate speech, that’s going to severely hamper debate on them, but again, that’s their choice.
And I accept I broke a board rule, but I did so unintentionally. That is not the same as intentionally trying to get around a rule, as a few posters accused me of, IMHO unfairly. It seemed to me that the way the issue was raised and discussed - as a repeated pattern, despite the fact the previous occasion it came up it was about a different poster and was unknown to me - induced the mod to be unduly harsh.
It was mostly on Twitter. Convos aren’t visible without a login and it’s a pain to find anything.
If I was just replying to one person I would have put more effort into my post, but for each post I was getting multiple replies from different people. It’s a no-win situation, so it’s better to just not engage.
I have never been on Twitter. The following is a genuine question- Who owns a conversation on Twitter? I assume each user retains the right to publish or repost their own words in other formats and on other sites and apps. So, reposting your half of a conversation is not a problem. Unless you have the legal right to repost the words of any other people involved in the conversation, you would be in violation of the board’s rules.
Second, if you just want to cite a particular conversation as an example of something that happened many times- specifics are not necessary. If you want to claim such conversations do happen often and that they are representative of an entire group of people, specifics are not going to help.
Yeah, I didn’t realize it was on Twitter. I retract my suggestion to link to the conversations in question, for much the same reason that I don’t want anyone posting photos of things they fished out of the portajohns at Bonnaroo.
“All those other people are doing it” is not really a compelling defense. And saying that restricting hate speech - which in this instance refers to literally questioning the right of some people to exist - will limit your ability to debate, that in itself is an answer.
If it was so obviously hate speech, why did you reply to my post, including leaving the link in the quote (later removed by What_Exit) instead of simply reporting it?
Maybe because, like me, you didn’t think about the fact it broke the rules until someone else pointed that out?
This was mostly pre-Elon Twitter, but it was still the Wild West compared to the SDMB.
Mods here have repeatedly claimed that no one is banned for posting conservative views. As long as only fringe views are verboten, that is true - but if they are going to define common right-wing views as hate, and mod people for expressing them, then it no longer is. 
Nonsense. You mistake “fringe” as in “statistical outlier” with “fringe” as in “morally outrageous”.
If half our country adopts hate-filled morally outrageous views, they will still be hate. And still be fringe. And still be morally outrageous.
If it gets to the point where right wing views are straight-up hate speech (and you are correct that it’s getting closer all the time) then yes, at that point people will and should be banned for expressing them.
That’s not a problem with the board, that’s a problem with the right. And as the right gets more and more radicalized, it is going to be more difficult for people with right wing views to come here.
Again, that is not a problem with the board.
‘DocCathode also screwed up!’ is not a great defense. I screw up fairly often, generally in very minor ways. I also generally admit that I have screwed up. Where have you admitted to violating the rules- intentionally or otherwise?
If you can define 'Trans people do not exist. They are just mentally ill people who have had their delusions enabled by therapists and doctors. There is no such thing as a “sex change operation” it is just mutilation" as anything other than hate speech, I am genuinely curious to hear how. (That argument would belong in another thread. Please post a link here if you start it)
The obvious counter-
For a very long time in the US, the common view was that black people were some variety of non human animal. This was hate.
How common was support for the many steps from Kristalnacht until the first use of the death camps in Germany?
When, in the entirety of human history, has hate ceased being hate because it was a commonly held view
Exactly. When slavery was enshrined in the United States Constitution, it was still fucking wrong.
I also screw up, @DocCathode. And by the nature of trying to debate with 3, 4, 5 people at once, I have a lot more chances to screw up, and less attention to devote to any one reply. I’m sorry I skipped replying to you earlier in that thread - I only have so much bandwidth, and your posts came across to me as abrasive, so you got the short straw - but I think maybe I misjudged you.
This is not About This Message Board material. Please drop the side discussions and debates.
Oops, I see I have screwed up again and forgot about that post.
This is shaping up to be a bad week.
I get that we don’t want to have political debates here, but politics is inextricably linked both to this rule and to the philosophy that underlies it. Can we discuss the question of whether:
- The board is biased against certain positions that are predominantly held by a political faction (e.g., that anthropogenic climate change is a hoax), and
- Such bias is appropriate and conducive to good conversations; and
- The mainstream status of those political factions isn’t a factor in whether the bias is appropriate?
I think it’d be wise to err on the side of latitude in this discussion, only pulling people back in line if the hijack is egregious, much more so than in most ATMB discussions, given the topic at hand.
This is my opinion as a poster:
I think that any discussion that dehumanizes others, that does not permit them to define themselves as they feel themselves to be defined, is out of bounds and should not be permitted on the Board. No one here has the right to tell another person they are not what they intrinsically feel themselves to be.
I don’t consider this bias. I consider it basic human decency, and I hope the Board always affords it to our posters.
I agree with the first paragraph–but I think that “bias” is a tricky word. It’s certainly not politically neutral in much of the world right now; just saying that people should be able to define themselves as they wish runs counter to a major political party in the US.
I think we should hold this position, AND that we should acknowledge that it makes the board less welcoming for mainstream Republicans, who will be unable to voice the (awful IMO) views of their party leadership.
I have no problem with any of this, though I still don’t consider it bias. I consider it a concerted, focused effort to dehumanize others.
I agree with this. As I said above, the popularity of a belief or viewpoint has nothing to do with facts or evidence, and is no indication of whether it is moral or good.
Edit: having written this, I may be just repeating myself, and maybe we’re just quibbling around the word “bias.” I’ll still leave this here in case it’s helpful, but if it’s simply semantics around a single word, I definitely think we’re in agreement on what matters.
I see that–but I also see that a major political party is engaged in a concerted, focused effort to dehumanize others, and disallowing that here is not a politically neutral act. It’s taking a side. Traditionally the board hasn’t taken sides in political disputes, but these times ain’t normal, and I think it’s helpful, and honest, to acknowledge that. When someone like Demontree argues that “controversial” opinions are moderated, or that she wouldn’t be moderated for “lefty” opinions (such as saying that dehumanizing others is out of bounds), she’s correct: the opinions being moderated ARE political, and ARE odious, and ARE mainstream, and SHOULD be out of bounds.
Since a mod has replied, can I assume this discussion is allowed?