Clearly, more concrete rules will be needed when the sitcom version of the SDMB is launched. <laughter><applause>
Heh, and I don’t think I really agree- but then again I might, it all depends. Hence the “I’ll know it when i see it”- most things sit well with me, but if it doesn’t, then it def. probably deserves a second look, because most things don’t phase me.
But it’s fine with me. Though when I think of tv shows- I think more along the lines of House, and other dramas where you can certainly say plenty of things just as long as you don’t get grossly offensive. Mainly, I just wanted an excuse to use the gypped line.
And no harm, no foul on your insult to moi- I don’t really give that much thought to it. But thanks for trying to explain yourself (as I didn’t get the reference/joke).
Let’s try another tack then. In this post, in this thread, Ed Zotti says that phrases that single out an entire ethnicity in a derogatory way are hate speech. Indian Giver singles out an entire ethnicity, and claims that they are thieves. I fail to see how common usage creates a pass.
I now see that you support this view as well.
The fact that “Indian Giver” used to be OK is irrelevant. “Nigger” used to be OK.
Under the wikipedia definition of Hate Speech, most of the usual suspects in GD would have to be banned for things routinely posted about Christians, Conservatives, Republicans, the South, Southerners, or pretty much anyone else that doesn’t follow the strong leftist slant that pervades this board.
When the rule was reiterated some time back by Ed I asked point blank about the casual use of “retard” and “retarded”. I never got a straight answer at all.
I can’t see why other words are strictly forbidden and these are allowed. It would be foolish to demand consistency throughout, but in this particular case it seems pretty clear.
If we’re not allowed to insult Texans, then the terrorists have already won. 
You did? I searched and found several places where you spoke disapprovingly of that usage, but I didn’t find one where you asked **Ed Zotti **or anybody else about it. Was this in an e-mail or a PM?
I believe email - I’ll check later.
Up to you. I’ll take your word for it.
I think that “Indian giver” is offensive and should not be used. The implicatation, as you say, is theivery. I think that “Dutch treat” has origins in stereotypes, but is not outrageously offensive. The implication is [del]niggardly[/del] stinginess 
However, I don’t think of either of those as “hate speech.” Hate speech (IMHO) is more than just a word or phrase, generally; hate speech is a diatribe. The word “nigger” is NOT, in itself, hate speech: we could have a discussion about the use of the word “nigger” in Huckleberry Finn, for instance, and it would be a literary discussion, not hate speech. To me, hate speech is a SPEECH, not just a phrase.
I personally find the word “retard” offensive; I wouldn’t call it hate speech. I’d call it narrow-mindedness, stereotyping, and making light of serious disabilities.
You have a right to your opinion, Dex, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen “hate speech” defined as an actual “speech” before anymore than “freedom of speech” has to refer to a speech.
I think the word nigger is hate speech when it is used to put someone down as a member of a group or to denigrate the group as a whole by suggesting that any member is somehow inferior.
It has not always been hate speech. At one time it was common to refer to black people as “niggers” without any malice intended. As foreign as that may seem to us now, that was the common word used in many areas of this country even when a white person felt love or a genuine affection for a black person.
That’s why Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn called Jim a “nigger.” That would have been the appropriate dialectical choice just as “Injun” Joe was in Tom Sawyer.
When the short story “Stagger Lee” was written – sometime around mid-Twentieth Century – the tone had changed and the use of “nigger” was definitely more loaded. Though Stagger Lee was also portrayed as a hero and the material was Board of Education approved, I always excused any students who were offended by the use of the word in literature from my class before reading the story aloud.
I wouldn’t read the story aloud today without asking a student to lead a class discussion on hate speech the day before and then there would be the same opportunity to opt out. Then I would have more discussion afterwards.
I have very mixed feelings about controlled speech. I didn’t like it the other day when a mod took a swipe at me. Part of that is because I don’t think that Dopers should be discouraged from posting civil criticism of mod actions in this Forum. Part of me wanted him gagged from doing that sort of thing. Another part of me worships at the First Amendment Center in Nashville on the Vanderbilt Campus. Thanks to the mod, everything is fine now. But sometimes it is really hard for me to sit quietly and listen to bullshit.
It is not as hard for me to listen to informed criticism. I have a mental illness. It doesn’t bother me if someone says that I am crazy. It doesn’t bother me if “crazy” is used idiomatically either. It bothers me if “are you taking your meds?” is used as a put down for other people. It shouldn’t be. People shouldn’t be encouraged to feel ashamed of being on medication for their brain chemistry anymore than they would be for their pancreas. I wouldn’t call that “hate speech” though.
The more that I write, the more I see Dex’s point. Although I’m still not in agreement with him. One of the most recent examples of hate speech was an OP describing a visit to a doctor’s office. Someone was going to be late for work because another person was holding up the line. He went on to describe that person’s disability in great detail. That description was either intentional hate speech or the poster was greatly disturbed or both.
That’s precisely the point. The saying has entered our lexicon in such a way that we no longer consider it an insult. I always took it to mean that Dutch people have a different social system where everyone paying for their own food is the norm for a date.
I also thought Indian-giver was a self-derogatory term, referring to something we gave the Native Americans, and then, after driving them out of their land, we took back.
I don’t think the rules are arbitrary. They’re based on actual societal rules of what is and isn’t acceptable in the majority of social environments where the majority of us live.
I think we’re in agreement, Zoe. A single word, out of context, is not necessarily hate speech. I said it needs “speech” but I didn’t mean it needs a three page oratory. I meant it needs context, surrounding words or situation, to be identified as hate speech, which usually means surrounding words. Thus, if someone reported that you had used the word “nigger” in your post above, I can’t (neither as mod nor as human being) assume that means you engaged in hate speech. And, of course, you didn’t; you were talking literary history/analysis.
The words don’t stand alone. The context of the words determines hate speech. It would be possible (indeed, happens alla time) for someone to write a post that was hate speech, that didn’t involve ANY derogatory terms at all. A post calling for all [fill in ethnic group, race, or religion] in the US to be sent back to where they came from, for instance, could be written in the most polite terms and yet be hate speech. Or it could, in fact, be an honest (if misguided) discussion of a possible (albeit improbably) solution to a problem (for instance, if the group were “illegal immigrants from X”). It would all depend on context.
I don’t object to “crazy” as a term in the way that I dislike “retarded.”
The question of origin of phrases raises interesting points. In the Hottentot example we had a while back, most of us were completely unaware of the history of the word, or it’s racist usage. We learned. But when a phrase has come into common usage, what do we do with it when we learn the origin was racist? And I think there’s no easy answer that covers all cases, I think it just depends on HOW evil the term is. And where we want to draw the line between fighting racism and … well, being silly about political correctness. As Zoe said, we heartily favor free-speech, and we don’t want to be censoring unless we absolutely have to.
I don’t think you ever “absolutely have to” unless the speech itself is illegal — for example, if someone posted a short story in Cafe Society about a woman seducing her young son’s best friend.
But, but, but, Ed said it was. He said that singling out an entire ethnic group and referring to them derogatorily qualifies.
Why have rules against hate speech at all if it so elusive of detection that that it is impossible to define? Surely there are other reasons to sanction against offensive speech that don’t at the same time place certain groups in a protected class.
The problem is that their conclusion is their premise. (1) Hate speech is bad because we say it’s bad. (2) The Bible is true because the Bible says it’s true.
(1) and (2) same same.
When a person (or persons) is convinced that a conclusion is true, and then attempts to reason from it, a logical circularity develops. Your question can be answered only by Jabberwocky.
I’ve several posts from this thread thread to thisone that **Carol Stream **started about the Pit rules because the **Carol Stream’s **question is about those and not about hate speech.
Carol, this isn’t the Pit. Please don’t hijack threads with unrelated questions.
It wasn’t intended as a hijack. Dex always says to use the report button, but when the Mods (including you) don’t respond, what else should we do except bring in up in a polite fashion to an Administrator? That’s all I was trying to do.
Question about hate speech then. Are derogatory comments based on gender hate speech, or not?
As always: it depends on the context.
Especially with gender, there is good-natured ribbing, there’s nasty insult, and there’s hate speech. The same words or phrases in different context can be any of those.
Again, we don’t give personal responses to all who press the “Report” button, and again, just because you don’t immediately see results that personally satisfy you, doesn’t mean that nothing has been done(or that we aren’t talking about the situation).