That’s because i said it in a very different context. I said it to point out that one advantage to referring to punching up and down, rather than majorities and minorites, is that it covers situations where the majority has less power. You said it in a way that implied women are more powerful than men, at least collectively.
Also, you grossly misinterpreted my statement. I didn’t say that it’s okay to be bigoted towards those in power, i said there’s a qualitative difference between punching up and punching down. It is wrong to be bigoted towards the powerful, but it’s much less damaging than it is to be bigoted towards the disempowered. That’s an important difference.
That’s because puzzlegal made the opposite point than you. There are more women than men in America, but women still face many of the same issues that other minority groups do (and some other issues as well).
When has somebody said this? I have never seen anyone say “it is okay to be bigoted towards the majority group”. Maybe you can provide some examples of this widespread issue?
What I have seen is people pointing out real and present issues in our society, and people who don’t want to lose their privileged place in society alleging that these valid criticisms are in fact anti-white/anti-male/anti-christian bigotry.
I’ll fullheartedly agree with you that bigotry against white christian males is wrong. But I would guess that you would label things that I think are valid criticisms as bigotry.
Of course they dont say that. They just do it. Hey it’s punching up, so it’s not bigotry. They dont think what they are doing is bigotry as they are “punching up”.
I didn’t say you did. I just pointed out that simply declaring:
is misleading, because while it is true that there are more women then men in the United States, women as a group face many challenges that are shared with other minority groups.
In the absence of any examples, I guess I’ll have to take your word for it. Like I said, I don’t doubt that it occassionally happens; but I’d caution you not to confuse criticism of the way the majority group wields its privilege with persecution.
I really think even this is dangerous, in that hateful people will be hateful regardless of their targets, and some people really want an excuse to hate someone in public. We don’t want any kind of bigotry here, even if it’s directed against the “right” people.
This is still a bad, dangerous notion, because hurting individuals is wrong. You aren’t insulting an abstract group, you’re insulting an actual human being. Don’t do that.
I wouldn’t have chosen alphabetical organization, nor would I have put it all in one post, but you do you. Also it is entirely possible to create intra-post hyperlinks, for example this one goes to the end of my post.
Anyways, here are my opinions on the draft,
I think this paragraph is a good place to add, “please do not register more than one account. Your account is for you individually and is not to be shared with family or friends. Contact [insert email address] if you are having trouble registering, trouble accessing your account, or suspect your account has been compromised.”
If you are doing away with forum-specific rule threads, then this section should be removed.
If not, optimally you should include a list of links to forum specific-rule threads.
Emphasis mine. This definition of hate speech is unnecessarily restricted to racism, contrary to the preceding statement which implies the rule is intended to cover sexism, etc. Consider reorganizing the sentence like so,
Hate speech – that is, racial epithets that in our opinion are clearly racist and other pejorative remarks about groups – is prohibited in all forums.
Or using a less specific word word like “hateful”,
Hate speech – that is, racial epithets and other pejorative remarks about groups that in our opinion are clearly racist hateful – is prohibited in all forums.
I recommend replacing “racist” with “hateful” or “hate” as appropriate, like so:
Not all pejorative comments about groups rise to the level of hate speech or, in our judgment, are clearly hateful. We recognize there are differences of opinion on what constitutes hate speech. We leave it to the SDMB community to debate such questions. If you believe a post is racist or otherwise hateful, you are free to say so, provided you abide by our rule against insults – see point #10 below. Others are free to disagree with you. The belief that the truth will emerge from the clash of views in open debate is a cardinal principle of this board.
I also recommend revising this paragraph so it is clear:
Whether you prefer users report the post and await moderator judgement before resorting to open accusations in-thread, and
Please copy the actual list of site-wide prohibited topics into the text of the post. That goes with the whole objective of having all the site-wide rules in one place. The Great Debates rules thread says they apply only to that forum.
As above, this summary implies that all hate speech is racist (therefore sexism and gay slurs are not hate speech). I recommend revising it:
To summarize, posting hate speech is a violation of SDMB rules. However, we do not wish to rule preemptively on every comment that could possibly be construed as hate speech. We leave such judgments to the collective wisdom of this board.
Furthermore I recommend revising or clarifying the last sentence. As currently written, it is reasonable to conclude that moderators will let the community members decide (vote on) whether or not any given post should be sanctioned by moderators as hate speech.
I recommend adding, “however, see the rule prohibiting hate speech.”
I recommend adding that hate speech is always prohibited, including racial or ethnic slurs and cheap shots - see the hate speech rule.
This is a forum specific rule not only for MPSIMS, but also QZ.
This should be moved to the registration paragraph.
Apropos, it is currently bad form to include a link in the Trolls 'R Us thread. The reason being that the software creates a backlink in the original forum which reads “Trolls’R Us”, essentially accusing them of being a troll in the original forum.
I don’t believe moderators make their email addresses public, with the exception of @engineer_comp_geek. Should “e-mail” be replaced by “private message”?
I recommend moving this to registration because you choose the screen name at registration.
Same as above.
It seems you forgot to edit in the “other than political affiliation or leaning” part.
~Max
End of post section anchor
Hover to the immediate left of the section header and you will be able to copy an invisible link. I used this to produce the section anchor:
Your suggestions were good ones and I’ve incorporated most of them in the draft, the chief exceptions being those that would lengthen an already overlong document. A case in point is your suggestion regarding intra-post links. From what I can tell, the link anchor function you describe works only with headers, which must be on a line by themselves. For example, a section like this:
Deletion of posts. We reserve the right to delete any message for any or no reason whatsoever.
… would have to be reformatted as:
Deletion of posts
We reserve the right to delete any message for any or no reason whatsoever.
This would add 50 or so lines, which I don’t want to do. If there’s a way to avoid this - I profess no expertise in the fine points of Discourse coding - pls advise.
I’ve made a couple last tweaks to the rules draft. If there are no further comments, I’ll consider the draft final and post it to the appropriate locations in the next day or so. Thanks to all for the many helpful suggestions.
This is not true for all users as Discourse lets you customize the home page when signed in. You probably want to use this link: https://boards.straightdope.com/categories
I don’t visit the Game Room very often but could you clarify that this doesn’t affect cheap shots directed at fandoms.
Even if that were true (and a 2004 cite might as well have been cuneiformed into wet clay with a reed stylus, for all the currency it has,) it doesn’t mean it isn’t a cheap shot. If I were a mod, I’d mod that last one, at least.
To me the “you” in that example is where it crosses the line. And it looks like trolling (and could be modded as such even if the poster intended it as a joke).
“Trekkie” can definitely be used as a cheap shot. Just like the other examples I gave. But I wouldn’t say any of them are hate speech, because in my opinion not all cheap shots are hate speech. But it’s not my opinion that counts. I’m pointing out that under the draft rules, it seems all cheap shots of non-political nature are moddable as hate speech.
I myself am one, and have several friends who are, going to conventions, etc. It is not in any way shape or form a “cheap shot”. It is what we call ourselves, altho some use “Trekker” which outside of context leads to confusion.
I recognize that the rule as written is broad and includes fan groups and such where slurs seldom rise to the level of hate speech. However, rather than spend a lot of time trying to distinguish light-hearted slurs from hateful ones, I’m inclined to let this run for a while and see what kind of problems, if any, it creates. Meanwhile I’ll consider this draft final for now and post it.