"Some blacks are just dumb and enjoy killing each other" - no warning issued, Tom?

[Huey_Freeman]

@Giraffe

I don’t actually get to make the rules, I’m just explaining how some common sense rules might look. The thing about common sense is that it matches the reality we currently live in, and doesn’t try to impose an artificial symmetry and consistency that doesn’t actually exist in the world today. Racism is not currently symmetric. Sexism is not currently symmetric. Imposing an imaginary symmetry on rules regarding these issues immediately waters them down into meaningless or makes them unnecessarily draconian.

Solve the actual problem you have. Stormfront racists drive people away and make the site unappealing. You can ban them without also banning discussion on why Belgians are the way they are. Even though it’s the biggest injustice they’ve faced to date, white men will survive.

@Bricker

I’d suggest that asymmetric rules about racism ALSO drive fair-minded people away. I’m sorry you don’t see that as a problem.

I agree with Giraffe here. Asymmeteric rules are a problem, but it’s not a problem that can be fixed by offering facts or evidence. And, based on the response, I don’t think a long discussion would be productive. It may be better tothrow the baby out with the bathwater and just make all hate speech (including “anti-‘white’” speech) against the rules.

@tomndebb

Hate speech? Calls to kill or deport or criminalize groups is hate speech. Incitement to violence or to taking prejudicial action is hate speech. Being stupid and expressing nonsense, however hateful to the audience or target, is not hate speech.
Borrowing from Wikipedia on Hate Speech: If anyone wants to expand that definition to the simple expression of a racist thought, feel free to bring it up as a suggestion to modify the SDMB rules. (At which point, I would suggest that attacks on any group–by nationality, by sex or gender,** by politics**, by religious belief, or any other way to identify a group–should be covered by the same rule.)

(emphasis mine)

I agree with this, even if this would mean that writing “white folk” would be a bannable offense. I dig the consistency (even if it’s uneven). But one question: why political affiliation? Why should political affiliation be afforded the same protection as people with disabilities, women, or people of color? If you decide to respond, I *promise *not to debate, nitpick, demean, use coded language, or respond negatively to your answer: just interested in your reasoning (if you choose to share).