# Point of Order-Hate Speech in the Pit **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 5, 2005, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/point-of-order-hate-speech-in-the-pit/311150 "2005-07-05T16:50:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 20
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2005, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/point-of-order-hate-speech-in-the-pit/311150/381 "2005-07-18T21:16:27Z")
> [@Lute Skywatcher](#): > > Oh, _that_ again. What, you _still_ don’t get it? I never said that it wasn’t sufficient to address hate speech but rather a more specific rule was needed to avoid those who would spout hate speech and claim ignorance when informed it violated the “don’t be a jerk” rule. > > [Foghorn Leghorn] > Any of this getting through to you? > [/Foghorn Leghorn] Oh bullshit. When has ignorance **ever** been a defense against a claim of jerkiness? Have it your way. Show me an example of an appeal to ignorance resulting in the rescinding of a warning. ---
**Author:** ![movingfinger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@movingfinger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/movingfinger)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2005, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/point-of-order-hate-speech-in-the-pit/311150/382 "2005-07-18T21:16:57Z")
> [@Lute Skywatcher](#): > > What argument? There hadn’t been an argument in this thread for nearly 24 hours! There was only 3 hours between my post and the one before it. Where do you get 24 hours? Cuda ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2005, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/point-of-order-hate-speech-in-the-pit/311150/383 "2005-07-18T21:20:37Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > That hate speech is racist my **premise**. I’m not trying to pick nits, but can you double-check this premise? I’m guessing that you’d concede terms like “faggot” are hate speech, but that they are not racist. I’m really not sure what you’re trying to say here. Did you mean to say “that racist speech is hate speech is my premise”? Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2005, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/point-of-order-hate-speech-in-the-pit/311150/384 "2005-07-18T21:21:15Z")
> [@movingfinger](#): > > There was only 3 hours between my post and the one before it. Where do you get 24 hours? > > Cuda I meant that there hadn’t been a _real_ argument since **Liberal** posted on 14 July at 8:42PM EDT. 🙂 Of course, now we have **Contrapuntal** back. ---
**Author:** ![barracuda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e19b73/32.png) [@barracuda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barracuda)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2005, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/point-of-order-hate-speech-in-the-pit/311150/385 "2005-07-18T21:22:41Z")
> [@movingfinger](#): > > There was only 3 hours between my post and the one before it. Where do you get 24 hours? > > Cuda :smack: I hate sharing a computer!! This and the reply to Daniel were from **Barracuda** , not **Movingfinger**. Sorry. Cuda ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2005, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/point-of-order-hate-speech-in-the-pit/311150/386 "2005-07-18T21:31:17Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > I’m not trying to pick nits, but can you double-check this premise? I’m guessing that you’d concede terms like “faggot” are hate speech, but that they are not racist. I’m really not sure what you’re trying to say here. Did you mean to say “that racist speech is hate speech is my premise”? > > Daniel Actually, not even that. I buggered it up completely. I meant to say “That white trash is hate speech is my premise.” Thanks for catching that. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2005, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/point-of-order-hate-speech-in-the-pit/311150/387 "2005-07-18T21:36:50Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > But a move nonetheless, and hence my point. Less of a move, I’d say, than the move against “White trash” in this thread. I think your argument against “white trash” is far stronger than the argument against “Maine Coon,” but I still find it unpersuasive, and yet still many people are agreeing with you that it’s racist. **barracuda** , I agree that the “you’ll know hate speech when you see it” rule is pretty arbitrary, but I’ve seen no evidence at all that administrators mostly prevent the goring of their own oxen. Granted, I have no idea what races any of the mods or administrators are, but they’ve not seemed to defend self-interest when enforcing the rules. I’m obviously in favor of the reasonably-bright-line approach, and I think I’ve set out a reasonably bright line that corresponds to what’s traditionally been considered hate speech on this board. And **dropzone** , it’s due entirely to my accident of birth, but about the worst thing you could call me is a left-handed red-headed stepchild; the things that I end up finding insulting are invariably things directed at my personality, not directed at my genetics. That’s not to say that other people are wrong to be insulted by epithets derived from their genetics; it’s to say that I’m not (to the best of my knowledge) part of any group that’s the target of a pattern of violence due to inherited features and coupled with epithets. (Granted, I suppose if you shouted, “Death to the Great Satan!” at me, you’d put the lie to that last statement–but I’d still not feel very threatened somehow) Daniel ---
**Author:** ![barracuda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e19b73/32.png) [@barracuda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/barracuda)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2005, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/point-of-order-hate-speech-in-the-pit/311150/388 "2005-07-18T21:41:15Z")
> [@Lute Skywatcher](#): > > I meant that there hadn’t been a _real_ argument since **Liberal** posted on 14 July at 8:42PM EDT. 🙂 > > Of course, now we have **Contrapuntal** back. I thought Wookinpanub said it quite nicely: \*To me “nigger” is just the nastier term for “black trash”. \* So if Wookie thinks ‘nigger = black trash’, and nigger is hate speech, then wouldn’t ‘white trash’ also qualify. Sounds like a pretty good argument to me. Cuda ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2005, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/point-of-order-hate-speech-in-the-pit/311150/389 "2005-07-18T21:44:00Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Oh bullshit. When has ignorance **ever** been a defense against a claim of jerkiness? Wow, you _really_ don’t get it. Someone dumb enough to use hate speech here would also be dumb enough not to realize that it violated the “jerk” rule. Dopers are generally too smart for that. > [@](#): > > _Have it your way. Show me an example of an appeal to ignorance resulting in the rescinding of a warning._ Can’t right now. The search engine is acting weird. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2005, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/point-of-order-hate-speech-in-the-pit/311150/390 "2005-07-18T21:47:17Z")
> [@barracuda](#): > > if Wookie thinks ‘nigger = black trash’, and nigger is hate speech, then wouldn’t ‘white trash’ also qualify. > > Sounds like a pretty good argument to me. Yeah, but she (? I _think_ **Wookie** ’s a she) was talking to herself. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2005, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/point-of-order-hate-speech-in-the-pit/311150/391 "2005-07-18T21:54:50Z")
> [@Lute Skywatcher](#): > > Wow, you _really_ don’t get it. Someone dumb enough to use hate speech here would also be dumb enough not to realize that it violated the “jerk” rule. Dopers are generally too smart for that.Can’t right now. The search engine is acting weird. So what? If all the rules were crystal clear to everyone we wouldn’t need so many moderators, now would we? When have I said that a violater could not _plead_ ignorance? Half the posters who get popped claim they didn’t know what they did was a violation. Your invention of hate speech as a special case is just that–an invention. You as much as admitted it when you agreed that the “jerk” rule was sufficent. How can it be both sufficient (equal to the task) _and_ deficient (requiring reinforcement) at the same time? ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2005, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/point-of-order-hate-speech-in-the-pit/311150/392 "2005-07-18T22:02:41Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > How can it be both sufficient (equal to the task) _and_ deficient (requiring reinforcement) at the same time? Because there are idiots out there who have somehow mastered the use of a computer. By the way, I just realized that I read this wrong: “Show me an example of an appeal to ignorance resulting in the rescinding of a warning.” I never claimed that that pleading ignorance would result in a warning being rescinded. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2005, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/point-of-order-hate-speech-in-the-pit/311150/393 "2005-07-18T22:09:56Z")
Let’s say the only traffic rule Under the lion’s paw was “drive safely” without specifying anything. Would you want to venture out into traffic? ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2005, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/point-of-order-hate-speech-in-the-pit/311150/394 "2005-07-18T22:15:16Z")
> [@Lute Skywatcher](#): > > Because there are idiots out there who have somehow mastered the use of a computer. Non sequiter. > [@Lute](#): > > By the way, I just realized that I read this wrong: “Show me an example of an appeal to ignorance resulting in the rescinding of a warning.” I never claimed that that pleading ignorance would result in a warning being rescinded. Then what’s the problem? If understand you, you are arguing that, while the 'jerk" rule covers a multitude of sins, one and only one (hate speech) needs reinforcement. When asked to provide an example of such an occurence, you demurred, and attempted to deflect by saying what you _really_ meant was that without such reinforcement, an appeal to ignorance was open as a defense. When asked to provide examples of such a defense being successfully argued, you admit that such a thing has not happened. So I ask you. Are appeals to ignorance not open to those who offend in ways other than “hate speech?” Do we need special rules for them as well? If not, why have any at all? Are idiots with computers only going to commit hate speech, and no other crime? ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2005, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/point-of-order-hate-speech-in-the-pit/311150/395 "2005-07-18T22:44:48Z")
> [@Lute Skywatcher](#): > > Let’s say the only traffic rule Under the lion’s paw was “drive safely” without specifying anything. Would you want to venture out into traffic? Huh? We gots all kinds o’ traffic laws down here, (just like we gots all kinds o’ laws at the Dope), and I still don’t want to venture out into traffic. Are you suggesting that adding “and don’t speed” to your one law would make it safe to do so? Face it **Lute**. Your dog in this fight has turned tail. If a law is sufficient, it is sufficient under all conditions. You have conceded that the jerk rule is sufficient. Either you are going to have to retract that concession, or admit that the hate speech rule is unnecesary, and no amount of bobbing and weaving can change that. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2005, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/point-of-order-hate-speech-in-the-pit/311150/396 "2005-07-19T00:24:33Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > Then what’s the problem? If understand you, you are arguing that, while the 'jerk" rule covers a multitude of sins, one and only one (hate speech) needs reinforcement. ::shakes head in amazement:: No, the other seven rules also fall under “don’t be a jerk” but _you_ singled out the hate speech part. > [@](#): > > \*Are you suggesting that adding “and don’t speed” to your one law would make it safe to do so? \* No, I’m trying to get your opinion on one flat law that would cover _everything_. > [@](#): > > _If a law is sufficient, it is sufficient under all conditions._ “Don’t be a jerk” _isn’t_ sufficient under _all_ conditions, otherwise the [Pit Rules](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=127729) and [Wishing death on someone](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=168963) threads wouldn’t exist. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2005, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/point-of-order-hate-speech-in-the-pit/311150/397 "2005-07-19T02:28:58Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > When asked to provide examples of such a defense being successfully argued, you admit that such a thing has not happened. I admitted no such thing. To my knowledge, there has been one instance of a Doper claiming ignorance and being reinstated. That would be **Ilsa\_Lund** and his overabundance of ASCII art. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2005, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/point-of-order-hate-speech-in-the-pit/311150/398 "2005-07-19T13:32:26Z")
> [@Lute Skywatcher](#): > > ::shakes head in amazement:: > > No, the other seven rules also fall under “don’t be a jerk” but _you_ singled out the hate speech part. Which are those again? > [@](#): > > No, I’m trying to get your opinion on one flat law that would cover _everything_. How is that relevant? If you can show me anywhere in this thread where I have suggested that one law covers everything I’ll eat your hat. Otherwise, admit that you are on yet another of your little sideways jaunts into meaninglesssness. > [@](#): > > “Don’t be a jerk” _isn’t_ sufficient under _all_ conditions, otherwise the [Pit Rules](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=127729) and [Wishing death on someone](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=168963) threads wouldn’t exist. Sufficient under all conditions of jerkiness. If you will go back and read carefully (i.e., for what is said, rather than for what you think is said,) you will understand. I rather think that wishing death on someone is on a completely different level than personal insults. Focus here, **Lute,** we’re talking about being a jerk. > [@](#): > > I admitted no such thing. This is what you claimed– _“a more specific rule was needed to avoid those who would spout hate speech and claim ignorance when informed it violated the “don’t be a jerk” rule.”_ If such a claim is bound to be without merit, why is a rule necessary to, in your words, “avoid” such posters? ( I still haven’t figured out how rules “avoid” anything. Perhaps you meant _forestall_?) > [@](#): > > To my knowledge, there has been one instance of a Doper claiming ignorance and being reinstated. That would be Ilsa\_Lund and his overabundance of ASCII art. So to be clear, to the best of your knowledge, over the course of 6 or more years and over 5 million posts a claim of ignorance has been successful exactly **ONCE**? And you feel that we need a law to keep it from happening again? OkeeDokee. Nice talkin’ to ya. **Lefty** –Caution, plaiditude alert. > [@Lefty](#): > > I think your argument against “white trash” is far stronger You said my argument was stronger! I win! ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2005, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/point-of-order-hate-speech-in-the-pit/311150/399 "2005-07-19T15:12:33Z")
> [@Contrapuntal](#): > > **Lefty** –Caution, plaiditude alert. > > You said my argument was stronger! I win! You used a plaiditude! I win! Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [July 19, 2005, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/point-of-order-hate-speech-in-the-pit/311150/400 "2005-07-19T15:28:11Z")
> [@Left Hand of Dorkness](#): > > You used a plaiditude! I win! > Daniel Sigh. I assume you are younger than I, and by all accounts much nicer, so I expect you to live much longer, making it extremely difficult for me to get in the last word and seal my victory. If only you weren’t white, I could call you one of those bad names, declare victory, and hope for a mod to lock the thread. For now all I can do is eat more healthy food, exercise daily, try to be nicer, and hope for the best! 🙂 This debating is tricky stuff. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/point-of-order-hate-speech-in-the-pit/311150.md?page=19) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/point-of-order-hate-speech-in-the-pit/311150.md?page=21)