# tomndebb, allowing racist hate speech was a bullshit mod call **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [August 12, 2015, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-allowing-racist-hate-speech-was-a-bullshit-mod-call/727632 "2015-08-12T06:18:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2015, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-allowing-racist-hate-speech-was-a-bullshit-mod-call/727632/161 "2015-08-15T01:41:15Z")
What a field day for the heat A thousand people in the streets Singing songs, and carrying signs Mostly say ‘Hooray for our side’ ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2015, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-allowing-racist-hate-speech-was-a-bullshit-mod-call/727632/162 "2015-08-15T01:47:36Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > By saying that a particular issue is settled, done, over, and that anyone having a different viewpoint is not fit to participate in reasoned debate, then those people go underground, to their own chatrooms with like-minded people. Those ideas grow and come back again. > > If we have truly settled the ideas promoted in Selma, for example, then we can easily shoot down arguments against civil rights for blacks. And we should keep doing that. We don’t want a new generation of pro-segregationists. > > Plus, and as a counter-example, take gay rights. Assume the year is 1993 and the internet is active and this board is here. Should we shut down threads about gay marriage because it is an absurd topic as the Supreme Court clearly ruled in Bowers v. Hardwick that states can ban sodomy? And marriage?!? Whew, boy, that’s ridiculous stuff. That is hate speech against traditional marriage which is the bedrock of society. > > IOW, labels like “hate speech” only serve to stifle the free exchange of ideas. If some idiot wants to propose segregated lunch counters, then go ahead. We can debate the merits of that. Where is the harm in allowing free and open debate on that topic? You’re ignoring the fact proposing “segregated lunch counters” has never been considered “hate speech” on this board. You’ll notice the board mods have always been happy to allow various “scientific racists” propose their theories. "Hate speech has generally only been reserved for open calls for genocide, ethnic cleansing and similar behavior. That’s how Marley described it when he justified instabanning a guy for “hate speech” someone who signed their posts “Heil Hitler”. That’s also the way Miller has described it. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2015, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-allowing-racist-hate-speech-was-a-bullshit-mod-call/727632/163 "2015-08-15T02:38:34Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > You’re ignoring the fact proposing “segregated lunch counters” has never been considered “hate speech” on this board. You’ll notice the board mods have always been happy to allow various “scientific racists” propose their theories. > > "Hate speech has generally only been reserved for open calls for genocide, ethnic cleansing and similar behavior. > > That’s how Marley described it when he justified instabanning a guy for “hate speech” someone who signed their posts “Heil Hitler”. > > That’s also the way Miller has described it. I’m guessing tomndebb would instaban him for trolling. I think the complaints about not him not enforcing the rules are misguided and the whining about the impossibility of understanding the rules of this board neither quick nor alert in perception. **Dibble** ’s concern about bigoted inundation is legit, but I have every confidence in this board’s ability to handle such a scenario. The general dreariness of having to deal with these bigots, pseudo-scientific or elliptical, is something I don’t have a ready answer to. I suppose that’s where the thread spam restrictions kick in. I’ll bow out on the specifics of the OP. **jsgoddess** : "I just don’t see what your “counter argument” is to a post advocating genocide. Advocacy of genocide is not an argument you can counter. " Well, you can associate such advocates with genociders whom they disagree with. But ultimately, no core moral argument can be refuted well, as it involves the equivalent of axioms and assumptions. And simply tracing through the consequences in detail gives the arguments more credence than they deserve. It also sidesteps the bullying aspect. The pit, however, is always an option. ---
**Author:** ![Grotonian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c2a13f/32.png) [@Grotonian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grotonian)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2015, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-allowing-racist-hate-speech-was-a-bullshit-mod-call/727632/164 "2015-08-15T02:47:20Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > No you didn’t. That fable is mocking people for raging against garbled gossip. You need to read it again. Christ, have you never read Thurber? He is LITERALLY THE ONLY INTELLIGENT MAN WHO EVER ATTENDED OHIO STATE! ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2015, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-allowing-racist-hate-speech-was-a-bullshit-mod-call/727632/165 "2015-08-15T04:56:34Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > One of the marks of a good message board is that it _should_ make your blood boil once in a while. If there were no opposing viewpoints, even extreme ones, we may as well debate with our reflections in the mirror. I hate this bullshit. It’s not about “extreme opinions.” It’s about being so sociopathic as to think people deserve to die for being of a different race/sex/religion than you. There are rules against attacking the poster in GD. Thinking that your opponent is a horrible person is an opposing viewpoint, but we cannot state that. Hell, there’s a rule against wishing death on people even in the Pit. I’m pretty sure that’s an opposing viewpoint, at least to the person you are talking to. A moderated forum by it’s nature will limit certain viewpoints. If it doesn’t, then it isn’t moderated. But it’s ridiculous to paint it as getting rid of the viewpoint because you disagree with it. Your argument would inherently mean no moderation at all, since absolutely anything can be treated as just an opposing viewpoint. It’s so self-defeating that I don’t know why people even bother to try it. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2015, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-allowing-racist-hate-speech-was-a-bullshit-mod-call/727632/166 "2015-08-15T05:29:03Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Yeah, I agree with you. I think tomndebb is getting a bad rap here. Of course he is. He has flat out said he refuses to moderate one of the rules of the message board, possibly two. He has been asked several times to come back and clarify, and has not. The bare minimum requirement to be a good mod is that you enforce the rules you have been given to enforce. Somebody who has decided that he doesn’t like a rule and won’t enforce it CANNOT BE A GOOD MODERATOR. Whether he made the right call on this is irrelevant if his reason is that he’s not going to enforce the hate speech rules. If he can’t understand what it means, then he needs to get together with the other mods and work it out, or quit and let someone who can figure it out. Imagine if we had a mod who couldn’t understand the concept of a personal attack. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2015, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-allowing-racist-hate-speech-was-a-bullshit-mod-call/727632/167 "2015-08-15T05:33:19Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Wait a minute. I thought the mods ruled it was OK to call people racists in GD, as long as we weren’t doing it “gratuitously”. Am I wrong? > > IOW, you can call someone a racists for saying they like Chris Rock as a comedian. But if they say “blacks are stupid”, it’s OK. That was back when Marley was still here. Lately, claims of racism have been modded. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2015, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-allowing-racist-hate-speech-was-a-bullshit-mod-call/727632/168 "2015-08-15T06:10:15Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Style is the way that most trolls are discovered. (Some do admit their intent.) > > Unlike the claims of some posters, we do not sit around hoping to ban people. Sometimes a poster has trouble figuring our how to fit in. Sometimes a poster goes through a spell of contrary attitude and works his or her way out of it. > If the only reason he or she posts is to troll, then they should be banned. If they can work their way out of it and become decent posters, I am not eager to shut them off before that can happen. And what reason does someone who has not been Warned for trolling have to stop doing it? It’s not as if people fighting back will stop him–as that is a positive thing to a troll–and we all know that this board–like most–is incapable of not feeding a troll. You already strongly suspect he is a troll, which means he’s already shown he’s not going to change without moderator intervention. So intervene. Giving people a chance to reform is what the Warning system is for! ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2015, 9:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-allowing-racist-hate-speech-was-a-bullshit-mod-call/727632/169 "2015-08-15T09:48:28Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > By saying that a particular issue is settled, done, over, and that anyone having a different viewpoint is not fit to participate in reasoned debate, then those people go underground, to their own chatrooms with like-minded people. You think the people of that sort here don’t already also have a presence there? That’s laughably naive. > [@](#): > > Those ideas grow and come back again. Where do you think the current lot of MRAs and racists are coming from, if not from the shitty side of the web? You think they came by their ideas _de novo_? > [@](#): > > If we have truly settled the ideas promoted in Selma, for example, then we can easily shoot down arguments against civil rights for blacks. We shoot it down by saying “That’s racist”. Any more effort than that is just wasted. They’re not here to debate us, they’re here to antagonize us, plain and simple. This is not Republicans vs Democrats. this is Right vs Proven Wrong. > [@](#): > > And we should keep doing that. We don’t want a new generation of pro-segregationists. Then I suggest you shut down reddit, Stormfront and 4chan first. Then you can have your happy free speech bubble. > [@](#): > > Plus, and as a counter-example, take gay rights. Assume the year is 1993 and the internet is active and this board is here. Should we shut down threads about gay marriage because it is an absurd topic as the Supreme Court clearly ruled in Bowers v. Hardwick that states can ban sodomy? And marriage?!? Whew, boy, that’s ridiculous stuff. That is hate speech against traditional marriage which is the bedrock of society. Yeah, you’ll note I didn’t make a legal argument against hate speech. I made a moral one. You are free to think some things are still up for debate. I don’t agree. > [@](#): > > IOW, labels like “hate speech” only serve to stifle the free exchange of ideas. You see the free exchange of ideas, I see trolling. > [@](#): > > If some idiot wants to propose segregated lunch counters, then go ahead. We can debate the merits of that. Where is the harm in allowing free and open debate on that topic? It creates a poisonous atmosphere on the board for those of us who are the ones having, say, our entire continent labelled as literally moronic, or are told we should all be lined up and shot for our ideology, or that we should just shut up and get back in the kitchen if we won’t suck an MRA dick. That’s the harm. And I’m so fucking sick of us all being told to just ignore or suck up the outright abuse. Or waste my time debating trolls. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2015, 10:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-allowing-racist-hate-speech-was-a-bullshit-mod-call/727632/170 "2015-08-15T10:33:00Z")
In the Moderator information loop, it was pointed out that the “hate speech” issue is further defined in the Registration Agreement as “_Do not post threats or state or imply that any individual or group is deserving of harm._” It had been a while since I re-read the agreement and my view of “hate speech” has been influenced by the many reports that have boiled down to “I don’t like what this poster said.” The agreement definition is pretty clear and I will have no trouble with Modding to that standard. ---
**Author:** ![engineer\_comp\_geek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/engineer_comp_geek/32/504_2.png) [@engineer\_comp\_geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/engineer_comp_geek)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2015, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-allowing-racist-hate-speech-was-a-bullshit-mod-call/727632/171 "2015-08-15T11:10:17Z")
**Moderator Note** > [@Grotonian](#): > > 1. I then posted an awesome Thurber fable mocking people who scream that others should be ostracized for their speech. Discussions in ATMB are expected to be polite and civil. This isn’t the Pit, or anything close to it. Posting something that by your own admission is mocking only serves to be inflammatory, and that does nothing towards resolving any issues that are being discussed. Don’t make intentionally inflammatory posts in ATMB. No warning issued. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2015, 11:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-allowing-racist-hate-speech-was-a-bullshit-mod-call/727632/172 "2015-08-15T11:42:04Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > In the Moderator information loop, it was pointed out that the “hate speech” issue is further defined in the Registration Agreement as “_Do not post threats or state or imply that any individual or group is deserving of harm._” It had been a while since I re-read the agreement and my view of “hate speech” has been influenced by the many reports that have boiled down to “I don’t like what this poster said.” The agreement definition is pretty clear and I will have no trouble with Modding to that standard. So are you going to be modding the statement that an entire group of people (of which I am a member) should be lined up against a wall and shot, then? ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2015, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-allowing-racist-hate-speech-was-a-bullshit-mod-call/727632/173 "2015-08-15T11:47:50Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > I hate this bullshit. It’s not about “extreme opinions.” It’s about being so sociopathic as to think people deserve to die for being of a different race/sex/religion than you. > > There are rules against attacking the poster in GD. Thinking that your opponent is a horrible person is an opposing viewpoint, but we cannot state that. Hell, there’s a rule against wishing death on people even in the Pit. I’m pretty sure that’s an opposing viewpoint, at least to the person you are talking to. > > A moderated forum by it’s nature will limit certain viewpoints. If it doesn’t, then it isn’t moderated. But it’s ridiculous to paint it as getting rid of the viewpoint because you disagree with it. > > Your argument would inherently mean no moderation at all, since absolutely anything can be treated as just an opposing viewpoint. It’s so self-defeating that I don’t know why people even bother to try it. No, my argument is that good moderators know where to draw the line, and if you draw it too narrowly you risk stifling open and frank discussion. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2015, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-allowing-racist-hate-speech-was-a-bullshit-mod-call/727632/174 "2015-08-15T13:00:22Z")
nm Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![What\_the](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f4b2a3/32.png) [@What\_the](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_the)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2015, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-allowing-racist-hate-speech-was-a-bullshit-mod-call/727632/175 "2015-08-15T13:18:34Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > In the Moderator information loop, it was pointed out that the “hate speech” issue is further defined in the Registration Agreement as “_Do not post threats or state or imply that any individual or group is deserving of harm._” It had been a while since I re-read the agreement and my view of “hate speech” has been influenced by the many reports that have boiled down to “I don’t like what this poster said.” The agreement definition is pretty clear and I will have no trouble with Modding to that standard. Is that limited to physical harm…or would cutting back on a social program constitute harm as well? ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2015, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-allowing-racist-hate-speech-was-a-bullshit-mod-call/727632/176 "2015-08-15T13:23:05Z")
> [@Fenris](#): > > In addition, it’s lazy and fundamentally bad moderation to refuse to moderate stuff like “Every single one of them should be lined up against the wall and shot” and other obvious hate-speech-isms. > > I’m with Mr. Dibble regarding the back-asswards mod-idea that using the term “racist” to describe someone who promotes murder/lynching/ethnic cleansing/racial inferiority is BAD and worthy of generating mod note or a warning, but that actually _advocating_ those positions is just fine and dandy. > [@Fenris](#): > > Y’know…the more I think about it, any forum where calling someone who uses the term “racist” to describe a poster say who repeatedly says “Science proves blacks are teh dumb” carries a much higher penalty than outright calls for genocide and ethnic cleansing does is a forum that is seriously broken. Or one that belongs on Stormfront, where that would be a feature rather than a bug. > > Either get rid of the hate-speech rules AND the namby-pamby prohibition on calling a racist a racist (or a liar a liar, or any of the other forbidden accurate descriptive words), or actually enforce the hate-speech rules so the descriptive terms aren’t needed. Either way. exactly. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2015, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-allowing-racist-hate-speech-was-a-bullshit-mod-call/727632/177 "2015-08-15T13:25:22Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > our entire continent labelled as literally moronic but one can not hurt the feelings of the racist by any accurate comment, but has to keep to faux politeness of faux debating divorced from realities. insult to all black persons, it is not the real insult, it is only the sensitive feelings… ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2015, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-allowing-racist-hate-speech-was-a-bullshit-mod-call/727632/178 "2015-08-15T14:17:22Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > In the Moderator information loop, it was pointed out that the “hate speech” issue is further defined in the Registration Agreement as “_Do not post threats or state or imply that any individual or group is deserving of harm._” It had been a while since I re-read the agreement and my view of “hate speech” has been influenced by the many reports that have boiled down to “I don’t like what this poster said.” The agreement definition is pretty clear and I will have no trouble with Modding to that standard. Fair enough, with that in mind, would you agree that Construct openly and explicitly calling for the Ethnic cleansing of Muslims was hate speech since it rather clearly states Muslims are “deserving harm”. And no, I’m not saying that as a challenge or even expecting you to go back and give him a warning but because if openly calling for ethnic cleansing isn’t considered hate speech then there’s no point in having a rule against it. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2015, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-allowing-racist-hate-speech-was-a-bullshit-mod-call/727632/179 "2015-08-15T14:27:51Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > You’re ignoring the fact proposing “segregated lunch counters” has never been considered “hate speech” on this board. You’ll notice the board mods have always been happy to allow various “scientific racists” propose their theories. > > "Hate speech has generally only been reserved for open calls for genocide, ethnic cleansing and similar behavior. > > That’s how Marley described it when he justified instabanning a guy for “hate speech” someone who signed their posts “Heil Hitler”. > > That’s also the way Miller has described it. So suppose I wanted to open a thread and played devil’s advocate that as a solution to illegal immigration, we should start a war against Mexico whereby genocide is our goal. Now, I clearly do not support that position, but as an exercise in debate, I would like to hash out the arguments on each side. Say I am writing a law review article or something. But for the purposes of the hypothetical, I am not trolling, attempting to insult anyone, or really advocating genocide, but I do play the role of devil’s advocate and argue forcefully from the pro-kill them all side. It seems that such a thread would be allowed under your understanding of the rules. However, if I truly believed in genocide and used the same argument, it would be banned as “hate speech.” Some might say that such a position is a threat of physical harm, but I do not believe so. Advocating genocide against a group in the abstract is not the same as a personal and direct threat. Further, as there is nearly 0% chance of such a policy being enacted, a Mexican poster, for example, shouldn’t fear harm by reading those words. If some guy on the internet threatens me as an individual, it is much more likely he would be able to track me down. Again, I think tomndebb has it right. If I am posting something that is solely to irritate people, then it has no place here. If I am posting something as a result of a sincerely held belief, then it should be debated. I am not comfortable with line drawing as to “worthy” and “unworthy” political thoughts. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2015, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-allowing-racist-hate-speech-was-a-bullshit-mod-call/727632/180 "2015-08-15T14:57:19Z")
Obviously context is important - just like ‘nigger’ in a discussion of Twain is not ‘nigger’ in a discussion of Ferguson. Are you seriously suggesting the board racists are just JAQing off? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-allowing-racist-hate-speech-was-a-bullshit-mod-call/727632.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/tomndebb-allowing-racist-hate-speech-was-a-bullshit-mod-call/727632.md?page=10)