tomndebb, allowing racist hate speech was a bullshit mod call

About This Message Board
101

So, just to be clear:

Individual mods have the latitude to decide that certain portions of the SDMB rules need not be enforced.

In this case, your reasoning is that although the rules ban “hate speech,” you are of the opinion that it does not exist and that the rule is therefore unenforceable. Other mods reserve the right to disagree, but within the forums in which you have purview, there is, effectively, no such thing as “hate speech.” Or, if there is, it has never been properly defined by any agency. Either way, the rule is null.

Is that correct?

102

You don’t enforce the rule against being a jerk either? Are there any rules you do enforce?

Regards,
Shodan

103

Agreed.

That said, I will sincerely congratulate Tom for openly saying that he does not believe in moderating “hate speech” because I think it’s far better to just openly declare that you won’t enforce than to have it be very selectively enforced.

Beyond that, yes if the mods are going to declare that you can openly call for the ethnic cleansing of Muslims from Europe and doing so isn’t even worthy of a mod note much less a warning then they should simply get rid of the “hate speech” rule.

104

I fully support tomndebb’s refusal to moderate so-called “hate speech” for the reasons he mentioned. It is a meaningless phrase that has no objective definition and can only be used to ban ideas that one subjectively disagrees with.

Even an outrageous post advocating genocide of a particular group should be left open, with counter arguments mercilessly heaped on the poster so that we are forever reminded why such ideas are bad, that those ideas remain, and that we must continue to be vigilant against them so that such genocide doesn’t happen again.

Also, the phrase “Group X should be lined up against a wall and shot” is a rather common hyperbolic expression of strong disapproval of a group. I don’t believe that such a thing should necessarily be taken at face value.

105

In the venn diagram of hate speech and being a jerk, I would expect the overlap to be near complete. Just because one tool is eschewed does not mean others are not available.

106

How is “trolling” any less objective?

People vehemently disagree with what constitutes “trolling” and it can rather easily be used to ban “ideas that one subjectively disagrees with”.

107

In previous bannings of posters, mods have sometimes listed “hate speech” among the offenses for which a person has been banned in their “This person has been banned” PSAs. Here’s Miller doing it, for example, un the 2011 banning of mac_bollan00:

One of the comments offered as an example of mac’s offending behavior was this one:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14529829&postcount=232

Which is reasonably similar to Construct’s oeuvre. I’m not suggesting that Construct is socking, just that he makes similar remarks to someone else who got banned for hate speech.

This example is just one of many I found of people who had ‘hate speech’ listed in their ban announcements. Here’s a link to the Google search I did. If I refined it more, I’d get more specific results, but you can wade through it if anyone wants to see more examples.

https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Astraightdope.com+banned+hate+speech&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=site:straightdope.com+banned+hate+speech&start=30
It’s just odd to me. I’ve been posting here off and on for ages and I know that hate speech has never been allowed, even though people usually don’t get bounced for a first offense. I know I’ve seen it cited in previous bannings. I’m not sure why all of a sudden it’s too complicated.

108

So, why do we have a rule against it if it’s a meaningless phrase? IOW, you are saying there shouldn’t be the rule in the first place. And yet it’s on the books.

109

Y’know, while I’m apt to support you on this subject, I wouldn’t be too certain. Yes, it’s rather clear that(to paraphrase the movie The Departed) Jews are group you can hit, but you can’t hit as hard as Muslims, I actually don’t think that Jonathan or Tom would have given that a warning for “hate speech” though they might have modded it for trolling.

Yeah, there’s been little consistency amongst the mods on what does and doesn’t constitute hate speech. And yes I do get disgusted when this post

Resulted in a warning for hate speech that was promptly upgraded to a ban even though significantly it’s less offensive and not within 10 miles of hate speech in comparison to this gem from Construct

For the record, I reported the first post for trolling since I don’t think even neo-Nazis refer to “the Jew” but since it doesn’t come close to what was the then stated definition of hate speech which was “calling for violence” was genuinely shocked at the hypocritical decision.

That said, I think if someone made such a post again about Jews having a propensity for terrorism(which is beyond common in regards to Muslims) they might get a warning for trolling I doubt they’d one for hate speech.

110

You been here four years and some. You really should stop bothering now. It’s the way this board is. They have their blindspots and moderation staff is pretty provincial minded.

This place has other things to recommend it. It’s not worth your blood pressure.

111

Thing is, I always thought provincial was the opposite of who they were. They were more in the over tolerance camp. But lately it does seem more the more provincial mindset that being called racist is worse than actually being racist.

Either way, the lack of moderation of the more bigoted content is a big reason why I don’t recommend this site to anyone else. The people we need are the smart ones. The people who want to come are the ones that want to be “controversial.”

112

Point taken and thanks.

113

I’m not sure you understand how venn diagrams work.

114

Oh, do please explain what he’s gotten wrong.

115

Then you would never ban anyone for trolling, since the only way a person can indicate their intention to rile up other posters is by their posting style. (Unless, of course, you’re waiting on a confession–which I guess does occasionally happen, but would hardly out most trolls.)

Furthermore, for something to to metaphorically “scream” something means that you think it should be completely obvious, to the point that no one should be able to miss it. So, if you think his posting style “screams troll,” you are saying that the only means by which you have to determine whether someone is trolling or not does in fact obviously indicate he is a troll.

There’s your logical, non-emotional reasoning.

For a more emotional type of reasoning: You’re “give 'em a long time to show their true colors” method gives them what they want. The longer you take to stop a troll, the more time they have to wreak havoc, and the more troll friendly the board is. I’ve been to other boards that talk about how easy it is to troll this board.

116

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.

117

"Islam is the religion of a pedophile and a false prophet."

Muhammad was betrothed to his wife Aisha when she was 6 or 7 and consummated the marriage at age 9 or 10; according to our friends at Wikipedia.

As far as I know, sex between an adult man and a 10-year-old girl is illegal, punishable by a long prison sentence, and considered pedophilia in every English-speaking country on the planet.

Christians, over 2 billion people, consider the canon of prophets closed with the book of Revelation. Any “prophets” coming after The Revelation are considered false by all mainstream Christian sects. The prophet Muhammad lived in the 7th century, so fits well after the time any Christians could consider him a true prophet.

Where is the “hate” in the above quote from Construct? Are Christians not allowed to define for their own faith who their true prophets are? Is it “hateful” for them to do so, according to the rules of the SDMB?

Is there a single Christian on the planet who DOESN’T agree that Muhammad is a false prophet? Because I think there’s a word for Christians who believe Muhammad was a true prophet–they’re called Muslims.

I am not arguing that the statement, as written above, is not inflammatory, but the content of it seems totally accurate from a 21st century perspective. If anyone wants to defend the cultural marital norms of 7th century Arabia, go ahead. (It seems equally accurate, to me, to say, “Jesus gave booze to minors”, and I would take no offense.)

I think the quotation cited above is an excellent point to start a discussion, not end one, and I cannot believe any intelligent person thinks that statement should be forbidden and its author banned from this board (based on that statement alone.) If you have no interest in defending or denying the statement, ignore it and find a thread that interests you. But this nurse-maiding element on the board of posters who think their tender sensibilities should be the adopted mores for all permissible topics are a total pain in the ass.

118

Theoretically, though, any troll could become a not-troll. Do you have some timetable in mind where you’d need to see some change, lest you step in?

119

I have no opinion of the thread in question, nor do I have an opinion of the mods here, as I haven’t been around long enough to get a sense for the moderation style.

With respect to the topic of moderation, I like the idea of free speech and I favor a pretty loose moderation policy. Speaking as someone who tends to be ‘progressive’-leaning, I’m okay with a moderation policy that allows for the posting of bigoted speech, provided that there’s at least an attempt to post ideas and not just obvious trolling. I think that’s basically consistent with the philosophical premise of free speech, that we encourage the free flow of ideas and compare the quality of one person’s ideas to the next person’s.

The problem I’ve seen in other forums is that moderators on these other sites have been a little biased in the types of controversial speech that they allow. For instance, moderators will tolerate bigoted speech, but when someone calls that poster a bigoted cnt or motherfcker for instance, then the respondent gets sanctioned for violating forum rules. Profanity in and of itself is not nearly as offensive as the idea that the poster was responding to. In fact, if anything, using profanity in response is authentic - it’s what one would hear on the street or in a bar if we were to say something so outrageous in real life.

If people want to defend hate speech on grounds that offensive speech should be nevertheless tolerated, then that’s fine provided that you late that sort of speech lead to its natural consequences, which might include a few unpleasant words in return. But don’t enforce the normal rules of moderation when someone decides not to turn the other cheek. As with all things, there are boundaries. I wouldn’t defend constant harassment of the bigoted poster, but within the context of the post and thread, it’s fair game to express vulgar displeasure not only about the post but about the person behind it. On the other hand, if mods decide that they don’t want the forum turning into the equivalent of a UFC press conference, then they might want to take steps to curb bigoted speech that provokes a response and not just the response borne out of provocation. If they want to be fair, that is. The problem I’ve seen in the past is that some moderators aren’t really interested in being fair. They just want more of the opinions they personally agree with, and fewer of the ones they don’t.

Again, I’m not jumping into this debate here - I have no idea who’s right or wrong on this one. And I also agree that sometimes moderation is a judgment call that’s not always easy to make. Sometimes people, myself included, point out things about a particular group of people that aren’t flattering. I don’t see that as being racist. Even so, it’s offensive and it invites rebuttals, occasionally stinging ones. I’m okay with stinging rebuttals provided that someone’s not being gratuitous. I’m okay with bigoted speech provided that someone can accept the inevitable backlash.

120

Glad it’s not just me.