A venn diagram with “near complete overlap” would mean not only that all hate speech is “being a jerk,” but also that almost all instances of “being a jerk” are hate speech.
Aah, I see what you mean. I was picturing the hate speech as a much smaller subset completely contained in the jerk set (can’t really see any non-jerky hate speech, myself) , but I guess “overlap” wouldn’t be the right word there.
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.
Ahh, I phrased it very wrong then. What I meant to say, was that the complete overlap would be from the perspective of the circle of hate speech. A more descriptive way to say what I meant would have been to say that hate speech is a subset of being a jerk.
Carry on.
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.
I thought we were back to “racist” or “anti-Semite” and similar being forbidden words to use against a poster like “cunt” or “liar”. The rules flip-flop* weekly, so it’s hard to keep track.
*Pardon me. The rules are an interpretive ballet of understanding and parsing that defy explanation, description or coherence. Every rule MUST be on a case-by-case basis, because what if, for example, someone said they enjoyed the posture of reclining on a flat surface and another poster said “So, you’re a lie-er?” Or if someone says “I love that harp-like hand-held musical instrument so much that I’m doing body mods to turn into one?” and another poster called him a “Lyre”? Obviously that kind of delicate nuanced hair-splitting that can’t be codified in petty “rules” and such-like.
Although I believe that if the statement can be considered a direct insult to the person being addressed, it would be a violation. So don’t say it to a black poster. Although, if that poster then responds to your insult, in some cases, that renders the matter “closed” and mod intervention at that point would be considered “taking sides.” I’m still figuring this all out myself.
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.
‘People’, sure. Other posters, no. Not as far as I’m aware. In the past, they’ve been quite … definite… that calling other posters racists in GD is verboten.
I’m tentatively of the opinion they’ll even apply that to posters who straight-up proudly claim to be racist, but I’m not going to test that, i already got my one warning over being goaded by someone posting racist shit.
Well put.
Maybe my memory is wrong. Wouldn’t be the first time.
On the subject, though, I’m OK with a situation where we don’t moderate so-called hate speech. But if we’re going to to have the rule, then it should be moderated, and it should be moderated by all the moderators.
The rule is that you can’t “insult” people in GD, so theoretically you could call another poster a racist in GD without getting dinged if the mods decide that you used it as an insult.
Now, what Fenris is referring to is that I thinks some have said they would “always” consider it an insult when directed at another poster.
This.
I love it when a person with a join date less than 2 weeks old and self-declares that they don’t have a good sense of moderation style nevertheless has the ability to claim they see the moderators showing bias to support their own positions.
Add my approval to this. If we need a free enough exchange of ideas that obnoxious racist ideas are okay, the only way that’s a good thing is if we can call out such posts for what they are. Paranoia about how “If we forbid outrageous racists, what’s next, we’re gonna forbid people from saying that Joss Whedon is overrated?” is just silly slippery-sloping.
To be fair… from further up in that post:
Emphasis added.
Really? If a new poster proposes that the solution to the high U.S. spending levels on social welfare programs is to exterminate all black people, you would have trouble making a counter argument against that position?
Likewise, a problem with illegal immigration? Kill all Mexicans. There is nothing to say that could rebut that statement?
I know it isn’t what you meant, but if there isn’t an argument against it, the proposition must be a good one.
But I agree with the hate speech v. trolling argument. If someone is putting forth a ridiculous argument just to get a rise out of posters, then close the thread. If someone is putting forth a ridiculous argument because he/she really believes that argument, then debate and/or educate. Again, I think tomndebb is spot on with his way of telling the difference between the two.
Yeah, I agree with you. I think tomndebb is getting a bad rap here. Thus far I’ve seen a lot of people who are outraged about ‘hate speech’, but the only example I’ve seen so far was in post #8 which is a link to a Pit thread (the OP didn’t bother giving his own examples, sadly). Granted, the guy quoted was…well, I can’t really say, here, but I’m guessing enough folks in the Pit told him what he was. I have every faith in my fellow 'dopers to hand down an epic beating to anyone spouting that sort of crap. Reading what’s quoted in the link in post #8 though, the only ‘genocide’ I’m seeing is against Marxists, who, this poster thinks should be put up against a wall and summarily shot. Now, I’m not big fan of Marxists, personally, but that does seem a bit harsh…and unnecessary. It was in a Pit thread though, so presumably tempers were running high. His comments about Muslims were definitely offensive, and if he spouted something like that in GD then I would definitely say that warnings were in order…because he was doing the whole ‘being a jerk’ thingy, and inflammatory language like that has always been pretty well moderated.
The thing is, there is a fine line here between allowing free discussion within some constraints and stifling discussion because it offends someone. I think most if not all ‘hate speech’ (outside of the Pit) is going to fall afoul of the ‘being a jerk’ rule, or something similar, and is and should be stepped on when it rears it’s ugly head. The things quoted in post #8 definitely fall into that category for a post outside of the Pit…and, I think, bear watching of the poster by the Mods (I’m guessing he’s already on ‘the list’ and IS being watched). But as you say here, if 'dopers can’t hand such their ass then it’s not the board I think it is.
Nothing new with me being in the minority position on this board…but I think Tom is a good Mod, and I think he makes the right call. And I think him pointing out how thin and nebulous ‘hate speech’ is by definition is the right thing…all the while ready with the ban-hammer for folks who act like assholes and need to be stomped on, as well as to reign in folks who get overly excited and keep this message board on the rails.
I await the wide swathes you cut through Stormfront with the power of your arguments.
He might, depending on who reports the post, IME.