Thanks, tom, for the explanation. It’s obviously a judgement call and people are going to disagree on where to draw the line. If it were cut and dried we could use a computer algorithm to moderate this MB.
Do you know all the verses to We Shall Overcome ?
This thread has been a real eye opener. One of our oldest moderators doesn’t grasp a difference between hating on black people and hating on Republican voters. I think I’ve changed my mind about MrDibble being over the top on this issue.
I don’t think this will fly.
The white people on this board love to talk about how evil and stupid white people are.
It makes them feel “special”.
I find these types of responses extremely frustrating. Only one poster brought up the idea that it deserved an instabanning, and that hijacked the thread. But that was not the original topic.
The question is why you didn’t give this guy a Warning. You flat out said that further instances of the same behavior would mean a banning. Why is that not a Warning? Why is it not going on their permanent infraction record, so that you’ll know their history for next time? Why is something that you think is trolling not getting a single Warning and then a ban if they continue, as is the usual case?
You do mention a posting history, but what does that have to do with our argument that you effectively gave a Warning in all but name? And, if they do rarely post, why is that not more reason to suspect them of trolling?
The problem I have is not that you made a judgement call. It’s that you gave all the criteria for it to be a Warning, but then didn’t give one, and guaranteed that further behavior won’t be a banning offense since there is no record, and their name is (deliberately designed to be, in my opinion) hard to remember.
As long as there’s a prevailing view that hedging gets one out of a full-fledged warning, we’ll continue to see racist comments that hedge just enough to get their sickening views across with impunity. Are people here seriously OK with that?
That was brought up by 3 different posters.
Emphasis added. I, too, think a warning was warranted but that’s not why tom said he didn’t give the poster a warning.
Jesus, it seems like the line for “too racist = warning” is hard to cross.
“Perhaps some white people shoot up random places because their genetics incline them to random acts of murder and mayhem, moreso than other races. We can also look at white history to see the many atrocities committed by some white people. I think it’s pretty obvious that some white people are inherently dangerous to society, and perhaps should be preemptively monitored by the police for potential random violent acts. I said perhaps some, this is very unracist!” 
I doubt that quoted passage would raise a single eyebrow much less a note or a thread full of hand wringing.
And your statements demonstrate why I do not Moderate “Hate Speech.” You would apply the phrase to all sorts of statements that others would not regard in the same way. I am using the definition encouraged by an approach to law that requires specific actions on the part of the speaker without depending on how insulted someone in the audience feels. A call to action is already covered under the SDMB rules, and does not require the invocation of “Hate Speech.” The phrase has no serious definition outside the limited definition I use. I note, for example, that you chose to omit various groups that I indicated could be the targets of hate speech, suggesting to me that you would have no problem allowing them to be targets under your definition, whatever that might be.
And THAT is why I do not Moderate for Hate Speech. Accusations of Hate Speech are too often simply a matter of whose ox is being gored.
In an earlier thread, my statement eschewing the Moderation for Hate Speech said
My words were not nearly as absolute as your apparent paraphrase.
No. There are posts that will garner a Warning even if t is the poster’s first submission. This one did not happen to get to that point in my opinion on that evening.
Different Mods have taken different actions in many situations. We have not yet perfected the Uniform Mod Bot.
Almost all jerkish behavior is stupid. Do you try as hard to avoid moderating trolling and insults or is there something special about racists that they need to be treated with more kindness than others who post stupid, jerkish things?
Political affiliation is pretty dependent on the local culture in which one is raised. In a period such as the current one, labels are used to silence and humiliate people. I do not see a purpose in allowing a person to be silenced or humiliated simply because their world view, shaped by their life experience, differs from that of others. Unlike favorite foods or music, which one may choose or ignore by choosing one’s stores, restaurants, radio stations, or media sources, politics directly acts on one’s living conditions and the sort of attacks that we see, today, upon holders of different views are direct attacks on people’s psyches.
If I was a cynical man, I would assume you stuck in political affiliation to poison pill the whole idea of toughening up on racists.
I’d happily accept moderation of broad brush insulting attacks on political affiliation if it meant that very obviously bigoted assertions like “(less-intelligent) blacks…” were also moderated. I find it very easy to avoid both.
Would you think “Stupid Black person idea of the day” thread would currently be allowed? Golly, why not? Old tom still hasn’t gotten a good explanation for that.
Tom, altho only a couple of us liked my idea of Banning (Ok, maybe a bit of over reacting, but as you said, he only had 32 posts), but from what I see, there’s a clear consensus of making it a warning.
Thanks for responding to my question, Tom. I recognize, as I hope most do, that being a mod is a tough and thankless job. I wouldn’t do it for–well, OK, I’d do it for a million dollars, but I sure wouldn’t do it for free.
Maybe the Straight Dope policy is a little vague, but as you can see, it doesn’t ban “hate speech,” it bans “hateful speech.”
(bolding mine)
The ICCPR is much more complex than Wikipedia indicates and has been criticized by the HRC For instance, re: incitement, his is from the 9/2008 report from the HCHR:
Document is available for download here.
And the fact is, the ICCPR pertains to national and international laws, not social media, which wasn’t around in 1965.
Facebook isn’t a site I particularly admire, but bear with me:
Cite.
The point is the rules for social media sites by necessity differ from national or international law. They reflect the philosophy and principles of the site itself.
I salute you for trying to find a definition that works for SD purposes. While I don’t want to see mod bots, I sure think moderating would be less of a headache if there’s a clear, uniform understanding of what constitutes a hateful speech violation.
This is not true. I said I’d eliminate attacks on them them as targets for instabanning or mandatory warnings. I would still have them moderated, though - that’s not “allowing them to be targets” at all: (my emphasis)
That’s not omission, that’s mitigating circumstances* in the punishment* for an offense, something the mods have indicated they’re *quite *OK with doing for *some *classes of offenders like, oh, just as a random example, “posters who post racist screeds but don’t post a lot so that’s OK, then, no real harm done.”
Same here.