What a field day for the heat
A thousand people in the streets
Singing songs, and carrying signs
Mostly say ‘Hooray for our side’
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.
You need to read it again.
Christ, have you never read Thurber? He is LITERALLY THE ONLY INTELLIGENT MAN WHO EVER ATTENDED OHIO STATE!
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.
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.
That was back when Marley was still here. Lately, claims of racism have been modded.
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!
You think the people of that sort here don’t already also have a presence there? That’s laughably naive.
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?
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.
Then I suggest you shut down reddit, Stormfront and 4chan first. Then you can have your happy free speech bubble.
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.
You see the free exchange of ideas, I see trolling.
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.
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.
Moderator Note
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.
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?
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.
nm
Regards,
Shodan
Is that limited to physical harm…or would cutting back on a social program constitute harm as well?
exactly.
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…
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.
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.
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?