Not at all: a prohibition on private boards can be more restrictive than necessary. “Nigger” is a poor example, both because it makes me twitch to type it and because it’s often used in a nonracist context. Shall we go with “Mick,” inasmuch as it’s the closest to a racist insult that could apply to me? (The last hate speech I had hurled at me was “dyke,” but that’s a little too weird to go into right now).
The folks running the board may decide that Mick is used, when referring to someone’s Irish ancestry, in an overwhelmingly negative way, and therefore may ban the use of the word. Sure, it may catch the rare person using it in a positive sense, but that’s not their problem. Banning it just in case is a perfectly rational and defensible course of action.
Note, of course, that “Mick” doesn’t exactly have a history of adjacent propinquity to violence, at least not that I know of, so the analogy doesn’t hold completely. But I don’t see that a mystical belief in the inherent meaning of arrangements of letters is a necessary sine qua non to a hate-speech policy.
I think you have the wrong end of the stick here. I’m not asking whether a private message board has a right to ban words. I am asking whether it is coherent to do so. I am not stating that a “mystical belief in the inherent meaning of arrangements of letters” is a necessary component of a ban of certain words; rather that if words have no inherent meaning, is it not nonsensical to insist they do?
No, it is not nonsensical. Allow me to ask you two questions, following a statement.
Statement: I have two cats, named Polyphony and Sasha.
Questions:
What are the names of my cats?
Which of the words in my statement have an inherent meaning?
Though none of the words in my statement have an inherent meaning, you the reader nevertheless successfully divined the message I intended to communicate with those words. Words derive their meaning from the way the speaker intends them to be understood, and the way the audience believes the speaker intends them to be understood.
The overwhelming majority of the time, the speaker’s intent and the audience’s understanding are right on. These intents and understandings are guided by customs regarding the use of words. Most of the time, folks follow these customs; when they don’t, there’s lots of room for misunderstanding.
Some words are attached to customs indicating that they be used as insults. Some words are attached to customs indicating that they be used as insults, as well as to a history of use as insults alongside racist violence. A messageboard administration may very well act to ban such words, based on their customary use.
The fact that some people may use them without intending insult is neither relevant nor indicative of a fundamental irrationality in the policy.
Thereby avoiding any question of the “speaker” having racist intentions or not. Denziens of messageboards have a nasty habit of assuming the worst and asking questions later–or not at all, really.
“Some words are attached to customs indicating that they be used as insults, as well as to a history of use as insults alongside racist violence. A messageboard administration may very well act to ban such words, based on their customary use.”
If you’re trying to catch TVeblen on a technicality, then her statement is a rejection of itself. She used the word “raghead” in it, yet she didn’t use it as a suckerpunch to the gut, did she?
Obviously, you need to read her statement with a bit of leeway: she used the word in one of the unusual circumstances in which the audience may reasonably understand the speaker’s intent as NOT malicious.
Inasmuch as she did so assuming that we (the audience) would transparently understand her point, it affirms my premise: she used the word “raghead” recognizing that it had no inherent meaning, and could therefore be used in a non-malicious manner such as the manner of her statement.
I wasn’t trying to catch her in a technicality. As far as I know, she has never affirmed the premise that words have no inherent meaning. You have.
So far, all you and Lute have shown me is that there are some situations where words are not defined by agreement between speaker and audience, but rather the definitions are imposed by audience alone. To you, this may be a technicality. To me, it is the core of the issue. I am being told by the moderators and administrators that my claim of “white trash” as hate speech is invalid. I am forced to accept arbitrary definitions for both “hate speech” and “white trash.” They are not doing so because it is right, or necessary, or even coherent. They are doing it because they can.
Why even have the rule? Would the “don’t be a jerk” rule not cover all cases of alleged hate speech?
Indeed, and her quote affirms that, as I described above.
I fully grant that I might be very stupid, but I have no idea how you got this idea from what I said. Could you elaborate on how you concluded that from my posts, and I can try to explain my view again?
Because if it’s the core of the issue, it’d be good for us to get it straight.
To avoid “any question of the ‘speaker’ having racist intentions or not. Denziens of messageboards have a nasty habit of assuming the worst and asking questions later–or not at all, really.”
The smoke from all your wheel spinning must be obscuring your vision.
If the admins (audience) are asserting that a word or phrase has a specific meaning, and banning those words as a result of this assertion, then they are imposing the definition regardless of any agreement with the speaker. They are, in effect, saying that such and such a word has only one meaning, and also that it is immutable, at least until they change their minds.
Except that I’ve used several words of hate speech over the course of this thread–a thread that the admins are obviously reading–and they’ve not banned me or even warned me for using them.
Why? Because from the context in which I used the words, it was clear that I was not using them as a sucker-punch to the gut. The audience–the admins–understand how I was using them correctly.
So your understanding of the hate-speech ban is simplistic. The admins are not saying that such and such a word has only one meaning, nor that it is immutable.
We are going round and round about this. Either the quote from TVeblen represents policy or it doesn’t. My position is weakened not one whit if restated thusly–(addition in italics)
"If the admins (audience) are asserting that a word or phrase has a specific meaning* in certain contexts*, and banning those words as a result of this assertion, then they are imposing the definition regardless of any agreement with the speaker. They are, in effect, saying that such and such a word has only one meaning, and also that it is immutable, at least until they change their minds.
Why the hell not? Why couldn’t a mod swoop in and say “Hey Contrapuntal, language like that violates the jerk rule”? Give me a situation where it would not apply. Specifically.
Not at all. They are, in effect, saying is that such and such a word has one primary meaning and banning said word based on that meaning, thereby avoiding any question of the “speaker” having racist intentions or not, etc. etc.
You’re misunderstanding me. I’m saying that the TPTB decided a specific rule was needed for hate speech, for reasons stated above, because “don’t be a jerk” is too vague.
Right. They are imposing the meaning. You get it. Although it is unclear to me how banning hate speech avoids the question of racist intentions. I think you have the cart before the horse here.
Give me one example of a poster using hate speech that could not be addressed using the jerk rule. Its very vagueness is what gives it power.
First, in case there’s any doubt in anyone’s mind, I don’t speak for the mods. I’m just saying what their logic appears to be from my position. (That probably goes without saying, but I figured it was time for a disclaimer).
Second, your rephrasing can be paraphrased as, “If the admins are asserting that language used in a certain way is almost certain to be intended to convey a given thought, then they are interpreting that language-use as conveying that thought regardless of any telepathic abilities to read the mind of the speaker. They are, in effect, saying that such-and-such language use in that context almost certainly conveys only one thought.”
As such, I agree, and I have no problem with it. Language is a powerful, spiffy tool we humans have, and one of its totally dudical features is that it works almost as imperfect telepathy, allowing you to read the thoughts that are in my head.
It’s true that it’s imperfect, and that sometimes the thoughts you think you’re reading from my head aren’t the thoughts that were really in my head–a “misunderstanding,” in the technical jargon. However, though language is imperfect, it’s really quite good, and the mods may feel comfortable that:
WHen someone writes, “I have two cats,” they are trying to communicate the concept that they have two cats; and
When someone writes, “Shut up, you stupid fucking towelhead,” they are with very few exceptions* trying to give a sucker-punch to the gut.
You persist in showing a simplistic understanding of how language works, treating words as if they either have meanings discovered by archeologists or else have no meaning at all. Neither view is correct.
Daniel
This sentence is one of those very few exceptions, and it’s an exception that the mods have historically recognized and allowed.