Is antisemitism hatred of a religion, an ethnicity, a cultural identity, or some mixture of all of these?
What about, say, anti-Catholic or anti-Muslim hate speech? Historically, these have sometimes conflated hatred of a religious identity with hatred of an ethnic or cultural identity. It’s all about dehumanizing the “other.”
And it’s debatable the degree to which religion is “a completely personal and mutable choice,” though I don’t think this thread is the place to have that debate.
I don’t think we want to shut down expressions of criticism or negativity toward religions themselves, but I don’t want to see hate speech toward people based on their religious identity.
Religion has always been treated differently than any other choice. The defense in treating it that way is an easy one, because it is so nearly universal and minority religions have been the subject of so much hatred. (Minority being a local count.) The issue is one that is very personal and therefore easily aroused.
The problem I’m raising lies in rules-lawyering. One’s political orientation and party is also a completely personal and mutable choice. Yet epithets about parties and politics and representatives thereof are allowed even when they are vicious. How does the Dope sanction that? It does mostly in the way a parent lays down the law with an “I say so.”
I’m not expecting the Dope to break with the entirely of American history. I just want to point out that if the rules sanction a huge loophole, then expect that someone in the future will exploit it.
Sorry for bringing up the touchy subject, but I’m glad everyone is taking it seriously.
One of the reasons I quoted the specific section I did is that a lot of hate, justified and not, has been directed at various Christians and believers on the board. While I’m neither (Secular Jew), I felt that there was a certain truth in the complaints of individuals who felt targeted for their faith. This has always been more-or-less (often less than more, but still) been accepted as punching up based on the dominance of various Christian faiths in the USA, but as the section I quoted indicates, we’re moving away from such exceptions.
And the two terms I quoted are seen frequently, especially but not exclusively in the Pit. I was torn bringing it up, because all too often I feel it’s an accurate description of certain groups, and that while the comparison bites, it does so because of that accuracy. But I’m not sure I can’t see it as anything other than a cheap shot or slur.
At first glance, this would seem to permit the “debatable proposition” that some races are better than others (scientific racism), but from the examples (and the fact that scientific racism is elsewhere expressly prohibited—as it should be) I think a clearer way of saying what (I think) you mean to say (in light of the Will Smith incident example) is:
Allegations of racial, (religious?) or ethnic bias or favoritism to be clearly framed as a debatable proposition. Criticism of individual members of a racial, ethnic, (or religious? I hope so) group on the basis that they are showing bias against or favoritism towards members of their or another racial/ethnic/religious group is not considered hate speech and is not a violation of SDMB rules, provided it is clearly framed as a debatable proposition.
I’ll add my support for the general notion that managing the line between disparagement and slurs is going to be difficult. @ASL_v2.0 has a darn good start just above.
I also strong believe there there is a qualitative difference between a majority member complaining about minority members or groups and vice versa. Regardless of which aspect( race, religion, sex, etc.) we’re talking about. Protecting the minority members’ rights to complain about the problems the majority dumps on them is an essential goal. Kinda like “race blind admissions” aren’t.
I think the succinct way to describe that is “punching up is qualitatively different than punching down.” That has the benefit of working when you are taking about men and women, despite women being a small majority.
You’re right, parody threads are allowed only in the Pit. I’ll break this out as a separate rule.
Correct.
Agreed, “minorities” is a sloppy usage. I’ll remove it. Rather than list every possible category, I’ll make it “based on someone’s race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, gender orientation, or other group identity other than political affiliation or leaning.” This rules out blond jokes but allows japes against Republicans, Democrats, liberals, conservatives and what have you. Not sure if this distinction will work but let’s give it a try.
This has been covered by others - the homework rule hasn’t changed. I’ll add clarifying language.
You may consider not linking to the Glossary which is out of date to the point of uselessness. There may have been updates but it was originally written in 2005. People don’t need TMI or IMHO to be defined and most of the references like “I Burning Your Dog” or whatever are never used anymore.
I personally don’t think it’s useless. TMI, WAG, and IMHO are all in the section as examples of internet slang that the Glossary isn’t intended to cover. The SDMB-specific slang starts below that with All your ____ are belong to us.
I think Perfect Master doesn’t belong in that section at the top. I can see where that causes some confusion.
And yes, there are terms in there that don’t see as much use today, but that’s a good reason to keep them in there. We have a lot of long-time users, and they will dredge up one of these older terms from time to time. How else is a newbie supposed to know what the heck they are referring to?
Correct. And far too broadly, based upon ignorance. I mean, saying you do not like the politics of the Evangelical Christian Right is one thing, but attacking all Christians is hate speech.
You know, I have always hated that. That means that it’s okay to be bigoted and hateful, as long as you are doing it against a group that (in America) holds a majority, That’s not right. Eighter bigotry is wrong, or its not. You cant say “I am only bigoted against this group (Blacks, Jews, Muslims, men, whatever) so i am not a bigot.” Yes, you are. If you are bigoted against white females, you are a bigot.
However, in America, Females hold the majority.
Thank you. Let us not have any bigotry, or “punching” either up or down.
I am glad to see this rule that applies to the Pit also. But will it actually be enforced?
I’m pretty sure I first encountered the notion of “punching up vs. punching down” in the context of jokes, humor, satire, and in that context it makes sense.
But I don’t think it means that hate speech against certain groups is fine as long as those groups are the majority or have power/privilege, nor that some groups are beyond criticism because they’re minorities or less powerful/privileged.
In addition to your point that bigotry and hatred are wrong no matter who they’re directed against, I’d also note that who is the majority or holds the power is context-dependent. For example, Chrstians are not the majority (nor are they especially powerful or privileged) here on the SDMB, but they are in most parts of the US, but they are not in various other parts of the world.
And too often I see people seeming to commit the fallacy of thinking that “The rich and powerful are members of group X” means that “Members of group X are rich and powerful.”
And that’s all well and good. The problem is that often when the minority group points out a real problem, the majority group uses their place of power to shout, “help, help, I’m being oppressed!” and completely shuts down honest criticism. For example - “not all men” or “all lives matter”.
Any moderation that doesn’t take this all-too-common tactic into account will end up stiffling useful critique of our current system by labeling it as an attack on the majority group in power.
While it’s true that there are more women then men, America as a society is still controlled mostly by men. That was a very misleading statement.
I don’t know whether it’s “misleading” or not. But it’s a reminder that just because a group has a numerical majority doesn’t necessarily mean that they have a majority of the power or influence. After all, “rich people” are a (numerical) minority.
The point is that “women”, as a group, share many characteristics with other minority groups. Namely, a history of oppression, disparate outcomes in all types of areas, etc. When we talk about “minority groups”, we talk about something specific. If whites fall below 50% of the population, they won’t suddenly become a minority group, even if they make up a minority of the population.
Yeah. That was the cause of lots of the anti-semitism.
Oddly when puzzlegal said the same thing, you did not call that statement “very misleading”. And, it doesnt matter that "America is still controlled mostly by…(fill in the group you’d like to be bigoted about) " . What matter is you are a bigot or not.
The issue is when we say 'that group holds a majority so it’s okay to be bigoted towards them", but as he pointed out here.
So bigots like to toss around “majority” as if it excuses their bigotry.