SDMB to ban Tom Sawyer?

Congratulations. You got the point. Might want to mark it down on your calender. I’m sure it’s not something that happens too often.

Miller, just to clarify, is it your position that there is no evidence suggesting that the SDMB may have adopted a zero tolerance policy for “hate speech” and that anyone who believes there is such evidence is an idiot?

Actually, Truth, I’ve given a counter-example. That’s not just evidence. It’s proof. There is no zero-tolerance policy.

I think the whole idea that the mods would institute a new board rule, and enforce it, without telling anyone about it is pretty stupid, yes. I think anyone who comes to that conclusion based on the material linked to in the OP is an idiot. Or possibly insane. I’ll grant that I don’t agree with the warning given to Airman Doors as discussed in the thread you linked to in your previous post, but one bad mod decision does not a policy make. And, it is worth noting, Airman himself has no problems with the warning he received. If he doesn’t care, then I’m not going to do it for him.

Of course, Lynn isn’t your ordinary mod. It’s possible that she did institute a new rule and forgot to tell anyone, also possible is that warning Airman was caused by her judgment being impaired. Could be something else entirely but there’s no way to know for sure until (and if) she decides to tell us. Whatever the reason, I think there is sufficient cause for concern.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t Lynn answer to TubaDiva?

Hell, I don’t know. I was under the impression they’re pretty much equal.

Either way, I don’t know that Lynn could institute a new board-wide rule without discussing, or at least informing, the moderators and other administrators, to say nothing of the board at large. All previous changes to the board rules have been announced via sticky. There has been no sticky about a “zero-tolerance” policy on hate speech, which is a pretty clear indicator that there is no such policy. Which makes sifting through posts by mods and dissecting them to find “evidence” of such a policy like we’re a pack of Talmudic scholars studying the Holy Text pointless in the extreme.

I also can’t conceive why they would institute a new policy, begin enforcing it, and refuse to tell anyone about it, as Truth Seeker seems to be claiming. That’s just paranoid bullshit, and I suspect the only reason we haven’t seen a mod post a clarification in this thread is that they take Truth Seeker about as seriously as I do, but have less free time on their hands to waste on his hare-brained conspiracy theories.

Whether a term constitutes hate speech depends entirely on context. A thread whose topic is the discussion of what constitutes hate speech would be severely compromised by not permitting examples of such language to be given.

IMO, whenever any term is used either for insulting purposes or in callous disregard of the common usage of such term as insult and its consequent offensiveness to someone belonging to a group it is commonly used to denigrate, it becomes hate speech. To say, “Duck Duck Goose is a Fundamentalist” is not hate speech – she admits that her beliefs are based in the original Five Fundamentals (as opposed to what latter-day fundamentalists have transmogrified them into). But to say “You’re nothing but a fundamentalist bigot” to someone is transforming it into an offensive epithet.

Take the “N” word. I have an unusual history with that – I come from a small and parochial city where racial prejudice against blacks was something that was done in the South, and was roundly condemned. But it was the common descriptor for someone of African-American heritage in my father’s generation, and to a lesser extent in much of mine – with no slur intended. I can recall him warning me, on penalty of spanking, to treat all grownups with respect, and a shopping list of people that injunction included that specified the N word among them. (For obvious reasons, it died out with the spread of broadcast media.) And I would have no problem, and would foresee no moderator objections, to its proper use in giving the standard epithet for Huck Finn’s African-American sidekick, or with reference to the books by Joseph Conrad or Dick Gregory where it constitutes part or all of the title. But if I ever were to use it to refer to a fellow member of African-American extraction, I would be callously disregarding the history of its use as a pejorative and subhumanizing term, and would justly be condemned.

Likewise the insulting terms for our gay and Lesbian members may have the occasional proper use, as in “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy” or the musical group Pansy Division. But to use them as descriptors is extremely likely to be taken as insult, and therefore constitutes hate speech.

So, now we can’t say fundamentalist or bigot, or maybe it’s just the two next to each other. Thanks Hitler. Oh, and thanks N-word Jim.

Watch me now, Muslim, Jew, negro, foreigner, person other than I. Wait, I’m still here because I didn’t say “you are nothing but a…”. That makes it bad right? Context you say, isn’t that a might subjective? I say it is. When you do write the “rules” let the rest of us know. I know a few people here would like a list of “naughty words”, I’d like a more descriptive policy statement.

I fully understand the “don’t be a jerk” rule, and I agree with it. But the guy that cut me off today was a jerk. Would that same rule apply to the pit? People that piss you off intentionally are jerks? If so, why is there a BBQ pit? I’ll tell you why, to be a jerk, nothing more, maybe some insight here and there. I am as against hate-speech as anyone I know, but there needs to be a line drawn between simple name-calling, and blatant racism.

I don’t give a fuck what the “zero-tolerancy” policy is, I’ll behave according to what I think is reasonable. As, far as I know, the mods will act accordingly.

No personal offense intended Polycarp.

Well, I hope you brought a lot of tin foil 'cause we’re gonna need a lot of hats.

There’s more like that, but that will do to be going on with.

So all these long-time posters are “paranoid” and have “hare-brained conspiracy theories?” Moreover, you think ** Gobear, belladonna, ultrafilter, IzzyR, GaWd, Jeff Olsen, Esprix** and numerous others are “idiots.” If you consider all these people “idiots,” I’m not sure I’d want you to think of me as an intelligent, thoughtful poster.

The point here is, of course, that there are lots of people who are concerned about this latest shift in SDMB policy. That you, personally, don’t perceive a shift in policy is irrelevant. Many other people do and their concerns deserve to be addressed, one way or the other.

Not at all, Truth Seeker, not at all. Although I think their concern is misplaced, those are still legitimate questions about the recent implementations of a long standing policy, as regards a completely different thread. This, on the other hand:

…is idiotic in the extreme, especially in relation to the link in the OP. Asking, “Is this a change in policy?” is reasonable. Throwing a tantrum and declaring, “Since you’re not listening to me, there MUST be a new policy you won’t tell anyone about!” is risible. Hell, the fact that you’re still nattering on about DrMatrix thinking that Brown Sugar is racist says everything that needs to be said about your credibility.

Come now, Lib, I happen to know for a fact that your reasoning abilities are infinitely better than that. Your counter-example is not proof that there is no zero-tolerance policy, it is proof of inconsistent enforcement of whatever policy there is.

Let’s consider the two posts.

This drew an explanation from Lynn, albeit in another thread.

The post you linked to – which did not draw any official response – read,

Airman Doors’ and UselessGit’s posts are qualitatively identical – indeed, they are even employing the same rhetorical device.

I cannot imagine what policy would prohibit Airman’s post while permitting UselessGit’s. But if there is, in fact, such a policy, then we really need someone to come along and clarify it as it is otherwise completely incomprehensible.

Yes, and Truth Seeker did the proper thing and opened a thread about the issue in the Pit.

This thread is a week old, now. No moderator or administrator response.

Do you think that would cause people to worry more, or worry less?

It is a legit question posted in the correct forum, and it’s been ignored for a week.

If you’ll notice, there was a lot of concern in the subscription threads early on about the “don’t be a jerk rule”. That, too, was ignored.

Apparently the board admins and mods are either discussing the hell out of it in their private forum, or they’re just ignoring it and hoping it will go away.

Or is this where you say that I must be the only one who has noticed that the people in charge around here have been getting more and more erratic?

-Joe

That seems to be the main concern here and is definately the main concern of the thread I started.

Maybe they’re just deferring to Lynn. After all, it was her warning to Airman that started this.

I have no problem Brown Sugar nor with Green Bean’s post. Note that I did not issue any warnings in that thread. I closed the thread because, the OP was asking for examples of racism in rock and roll, which would have resulted in someone posting racist lyrics. I know the OP specifically asked not to post racist lyrics, but how do you give an example of racism without giving an example? As Miller pointed out, not every poster follows the suggestions of the OP.

I suggested that censorship right or wrong would be a good topic for Great Debates, but I didn’t move the thread, because the OP would need to be reworked first.

If someone wants to discuss Othello or Tom Sawyer in Cafe Society that’s fine. If there’s a factual question about either, GQ would be OK too.

DrMatrix - GQ Moderator

I guess I don’t consider the posting of racist lyrics in this context as “hate speech.” I suppose a racist could use such a thread to get lyrics posted that supported his/her agenda but that’s a bit of a stretch. I think someone needs to refine the definition of “hate speech.” I understand the idea of erring on the side of caution but…

Dr. Matrix, thanks very much for dropping by!

Exactly so. Someone on the SDMB ought to be able to ask “Is popular music racist?” That’s both an interesting and worthy topic for discussion. It is the antithesis of hate speech. Nonetheless, this will necessarily involve a discussion of racist lyrics. The current SDMB policy on hate speech forecloses these discussions.

Asking something like “Are there examples of racism in popular music?” is certainly better suited for Cafe Society than GQ. Nonetheless, it does have factual answer. Moreover it has an interesting and even potentially consciousness-raising answer.

Does the SDMB view “Are there any examples of racism in Shakespeare?” differently than “Are there any examples of racism in rock or rock and roll music?” Would both question be permissible if they were posted in Cafe Society instead of GQ?

I was, sir, engaged in the time honored recreation of expressing an opinion – something I believe you too have done on a few occasions.

I will certainly let you know if anyone “punishes my contempt for authority by making me one.” Until then, what I post, unless quoted from somewhere else, is a statement of my own perspective.

While I really appreciate Dr. Matrix putting in an appearance, I am disappointed that neither he nor Lynn have really clarified the new hate-speech rules. I’m not the only one who cannot fathom the difference between Airman Door’s post and UselessGit’s.

Even if I don’t agree with the rules, I would try and follow them, as would most everyone on the SDMB. But if people can’t figure out what they are, I don’t see how people can follow them.