I take it you aren’t getting what farce means?
I’m aware of what it means. I’m disagreeing that **Miller **was playing things for laughs. Or that it was, at all, that absurd a response in that situation. What *was *a farce was the actual language rule.
This is not accurate. It is explicitly the fact that we have no bright bar line that we all agree on that causes me to not invoke “hate speech” as something to Moderate. Note that in the other thread on which this was based, multiple posters took the positions both for and against the original offense being hate speech. And the complaint was not that I took no action, but that I did not take an action that some posters desired.
Not strange. It was a dumb rule. I’m not Bricker; I’m not going to argue that following the rules is the greatest good.
But not having hate speech is a good fucking rule for a messageboard. It gets rid of some conversations, sure–but it enables other conversations. If I have to choose between having conversations with racists, at the expense of driving away good people, and having conversations with good people, at the expense of warning/banning racists, the choice seems pretty clear to me.
The board currently acts like there’s no choice to make. But there is.
And when Tom refuses to enforce a good rule, for patently absurd reasons (O noes I might face criticism for not enforcing teh rule the way someone wants so that just proves I’m right not to enforce it at all, booyah), he should be out.
Regardless, your position that partisanship should be treated the same as racism is flat out ugly. It paints you as someone who thinks equality of the races is something we should be able to have polite discussions about, like tax reform or something.
So the issue isn’t one of doing the job or not doing the job. The issue is doing the particular job (enforcing rules) you want done and not doing the particular job (enforcing rules) you don’t want done. That doesn’t seem to be a rational way to run a message board.
So-called hate speech can be so broad as to be meaningless. Women can’t run as fast as men? Misogynistic hate speech. Calling someone an idiot? Well the brain, a biological organ whose original makeup is governed by the laws of physics and outside the control of its ownself, is the cause of idiocy. Therefore, ableist hate speech. It seems ridiculous but if you have spent any time at all reading the news or visiting college campuses ridiculousness is the new norm.
Why you folks don’t see that any discussion about any group of people who have any differences at all from another group of people can be labeled hate speech. Of course, once that’s recognized, a bazillion edge and corner case exemptions will be debated which will discuss historical and prehistorical injustices all the way back to when homo sapiens was eradicating homo neanderthalensis.
That seems like the continuum fallacy to me. I have no problem moderating hate speech. Easy cases are easy. Edge cases may get some disagreement.
That seems almost like a tautology. What it does is allow those who protest the loudest to dictate the bounds of discussion even if the form of the discussion is equivalent but the subject and object differ. That’s my big issue with an arbitrary distinction of what’s acceptable and what isn’t. It’s not hard to have a general rule. It IS hard to have a general rule that is acceptable when people have an agenda that would be hindered by the general rule.
It reminds me a bit of the gay marriage issue. People had legitimate arguments about how progress should be made. Should it be a legislative issue which might take another decade? Or should something in the Constitution be found that allows the judicial branch to override the legislative?
Arguing along those points would be labeled hate speech or homophobia even if there was nothing “hateful” or homophobic in the argument. The fact that the legislative solution was most likely going to be slower than the judicial meant those who advocated for the legislative solution were going to be labeled as bigoted or hateful or homophobic. That is a rhetoric tactic that occurs over and over again.
Disparate outcome is cited as proof at the very least of implicit institutional bigotry. How can one support a program that results in a disparate outcome if doing so is taken by many vociferous folk as proof of being a bigot? The argument is already doomed at that point.
People call Trump the biggest threat to democracy. No. It’s not Trump. It’s the growing number of people and corporations that shut down debate by declaring preemptively that the honest discussion on many topics are forbidden.
Do you have a problem with fellow mods purposefully *not *doing so, though?
GD has multiple mods for coverage. Typically whoever sees a post first acts on it. Each of us exercises judgment in moderation and I have confidence in and am comfortable with Tom’s, and all of my fellow mod’s.
I’m sorry, there was a lot of unnecessary waffle at the beginning there for what was really a yes-no question, but I understood your answer to ultimately be “I do not have a problem with tom purposefully not moderating hate speech”, do I have that right?
Could you give an example of a conversation that would be enabled if the hate speech rules were changed?
in my experience, when people are banned who express ideology different to a group of people, those people don’t become more prolific. Except maybe to have a couple more conversation about how abhorrent that ideology is. But if it’s so obvious to everyone in the group, then you don’t really have to say it.
For other conversations, if it was going to be started, it would have already been started. People coming in to hijack a thread about their ideology would be modded under the hijack rules.
And while you are at it when did you stop beating your wife?
Tom already said your characterization of him purposely not moderating hate speech is not accurate. Given that your question is not answerable.
For the record every mod here moderates hate speech. Most of the time in the mod loop it’s “You see this guy?” “Already took care of it.” “Good thanks.”
If theyfelt it was an unanswerable question, they could have said so.
He may have felt the “characterization” was innacurate, whatever that means, but that he nevertheless doesn’t do it, is not.
Funny, it looks like it was nevertheless answered.
You might want to tell **tom **that.
The fact that there’s clearly confusion about what constitutes hateful speech* indicates there’s a problem. tomndebb seems to see the term as “hate speech” and uses a definition from the IPCC, a definition that’s been criticized by the UN Human Rights Commission and which applies to international law, not US social media. Then he said he doesn’t moderate hate speech. This is why I believe so strongly that the mods should get trained in both recognizing hateful speech in all its subtle forms and white fragility, a term that raises a lot of hackles but is nonetheless valid and important to understand. Robin DiAngelo, whom Huey Freedman has cited, is an excellent place to start.
The times, they are a-changing. White supremacist groups use dog whistles to try to dodge policing, and too often, it works because mods on some sites don’t recognize it for what it is and because posters argue about the wording (like whether or not “some” is a weasel word) and miss the implications of the content. White supremacists are not, from what I understand, interested in the argument so much as they are in appealing to other white supremacists. Unless the SD is OK with unintentionally promoting white supremacy–in which case, I’m very reluctantly out–the mods really need to recognize how current white supremacy works. We can’t fight ignorance if we’re ignorant, ourselves.
- The term in the rules is “hateful” not “hate,” an important distinction.
In a post complaining about so-called hate speech you unironically use the phrase “white fragility.” Do you not see how that sort of double standard with regards to broad racial stereotypes is off putting?
The rules also use "hate speech as-is.
Talk about irony…