I disagree that thread is problematic. I thought it was over the top when I first saw it, but conservatives reliably showed up to demonstrate that they really do think they have the right to kill “the other” without punishment.
Not to say they go around ruminating about “I feel like killing someone, I wonder who I should target”. Just the fact that they believe different rules apply to them when it comes to killing people who displease them.
i.e. Kyle Rittenhouse never needed his life to be in danger. He just held several beliefs whose sum computes to “I can kill people who displease me.” He believed these things:
That he has the right to kill people who are threatening him
That, in his judgement, there were a lot of threats in Kenosha
That he has the right to take his gun to the conflict and “help” the police
All this adds up to “I can travel to a conflict and kill people if I feel like it.” We had a number of conservatives stop by that thread and affirm all 3 of those beliefs (and even more). They demonstrated by logic that they think they can kill anybody who needs killing (in their judgment).
I have noted you are following me from thread to thread and posting personal attacks on my character, which are against the rules. I was also, you note, AGREEING with the other posters in this thread that feel that the subject of that thread is pretty much the definition of bad faith. And you have still have argued based on your feelings about the subject without actually addressing my concerns. But since you are insisting on violating the rules of discourse, I’m throwing you in with urbanredneck on my ignore list, because I choose to be a better person than you and NOT make personal attacks on your character just because I disagree with you. Please try to be a good person.
I tried to suggest that exact point Velocity, but HMS and his ilk don’t want to acknowledge it. I also mentioned if they had used more specific language, such as White Nationalists or the like that it would be likely more factual and correct, but they seem bound and determined to prove themselves as intolerant as any of the Fox-news monocultures.
At this point, would it be appropriate to open a new Great Debate thread titled ‘All self-proclaimed liberals believe that anyone disagrees with them are evil murderers?’ Because since the entire support for the thread we’re complaining is an op-ed piece, and no factual information is required, I’m not naming any names, and I wouldn’t like to the parallel thread. It might get some attention.
Naturally you cannot name the rule you think I broke or provide an example of breaking it.
I’m pretty sure it is against the rules to talk about who is on your ignore list, especially before floating some personal insults and dropping the mic.
Why not go ahead and try it? It’s an allowed topic. You might learn something from it (probably that liberals show a lot less fragility than what was on display in that other thread).
As was pointed out many times, nobody said “all conservatives”. Someone decided to insert “all conservatives” and then they got mad about “all conservatives”. Tiredest rhetorical hijack in the book.
Actually it does bear on the accuracy, because if the characterization is accurate, then your rule would stifle debate of an accurately characterized subject.
I don’t know if that topic in and of itself is the strongest GD topic ever, but people always have the option of just not getting into topics that give them the vapors.
How much you like or dislike any particular political group (or any other group for that matter) is not a topic for ATMB. This is also not the forum to debate issues. Many of the posts in this thread are getting too personal. Talk about the issues as they relate to board rules or the moderation here all you want, but treat all other users, even ones you strongly disagree with, with respect while in this forum. As always, if you have an issue with a particular user, take it to the Pit.
Let’s all dial back the personalization, sweeping disparaging remarks against entire political viewpoints, and snippy responses, and focus on the actual issues here, such as whether particular arguments should or should not be allowed in GD. If this thread continues to devolve into bickering due to differing political views, this thread will be closed and all involved will be directed to take their issues to the Pit.
In my opinion, the rule against personal accusations of lying/trolling already stifles debate on “accurate” subjects. Why would a rule against topics that accuse a whole class of having an ulterior motive be any different?
Fair enough. So, I understand why we don’t want to have a hard definition of hate speech because the SD has a long history of smart posters going right up to the limit of the technical definition without stepping over. But, if the previous specified thread isn’t at that level, it is going to be hard to put together any useful definition of hate speech.
Everyone is going to have a different definition - in my research I found the following to be helpful, both in defining and explaining concerns about why it was an issue.
Despite my disagreements with other posters, I don’t believe that they are actively trying to incite action against others, but I do feel that would otherwise fall well within the category. If we as a board don’t want to have a hard, fast line, that’s fine, but I suggest we set at least some standards and most importantly clearly define them. People are going to push, and that’s when the moderators will have to use their judgement just as before.
Was rereading my post, and in order to be more clear - I do feel that banning any language that can be construed as hate speech could have a stifling effect, something we want to avoid. I just feel that it more likely belongs in a different forum, whether that be IMHO (because an abhorrent opinion is still an opinion) or the pit, or something all on its own. Sorry for the late quasi-edit, but after this ruckus, I feel “I’m just a soul whose intentions are good
Oh Lord, please don’t let me be misunderstood.” with all due credit to the songwriters and singers.
Let’s just be clear about what is and isn’t hate speech:
“Group X wants to kill Group Y” is not hate speech. It can be plain wrong, or just over-general, or even accurate. not pertinent.
“Group X wants to kill Group Y and therefore we should kill Group X” or “…therefore we can hurt its members” is. The incitement to violence is, I feel, essential there.
It can even be implied, as in “…and therefore we should take care of Group X”.
But “…and therefore we should vote against Group X” or even “And therefore members of Group X should be barred from holding office” is not it, either.
I’m not sure about “…and therefore members of Group X should be sent back where they came from.” but I feel it’s more hate than not.
Aye, there’s the rub, because we disagree in part about your later point.
I do appreciate and agree that you’ve made a careful distinction, and I agree, but I feel both are dangerous. The first statement is still hate speech by my books, but I still respect the hypothetical poster’s right to have the opinion even if I find it and potentially the person putting it forward abhorrent. I’d probably tolerate it in an Op-Ed piece or similar non-factual source, if I considered it hyperbole towards making a point, even if was incredibly over-general.
You second point takes the first and makes it a crime in many jurisdictions. So yes, I agree incitement is essential in our legal treatment of Hate crimes as a criminal defense, but it does not change that the language is in and of itself meeting many definitions of hate speech, which is why I think we should continue the discussion of what it means in terms of this forum.
Since I think you make great points, could I have your opinion on whether this belongs in Great Debates? I think that many of the cited threads fall under your definition of “plain wrong, or just over-general”, but I’m certainly biased by this point.
It’s about this board’s rules, I say it belongs here, not in GD.
And I, for one, am not concerned about the legal definition of hate speech, but only what this board’s moderation staff considers to be hate speech, as that’s all that affects me, as I’m not subject to America’s hate speech laws. I’ve outlined what I consider the difference, you clearly disagree, now it’s up to the mods to show us who’s right by how they mod the forum.
Note that one of the previous GD mods just refused to moderate hate speech at all, despite the no hate speech rule. I hope the new mods do better, but I also hope they don’t adopt your looser definition of it.
I mean, maybe you think that one particular topic should be moved out of Great Debates because of hate speech. I don’t see the hate speech, so I must disagree with that argument.
You’re free to think otherwise, but perhaps a separate topic would be warranted.