Is the statement “members of [Group X] tend to be [Y]” necessarily “hate speech” (assuming that Y is or is perceived as a negative trait), and does this depend on which group is being discussed?
I started the thread wondering if there was a definition but I think it’s all a matter of judgment and hate speech is speech which in the opinion of the moderators is hateful. It’s far too slippery an animal to be nailed down. It may defy definition but presumably the staff know it when they see it. Unsatisfactory perhaps, but how could it be otherwise and I can’t say I have any problems with the way it’s been handled thus far.
Except there is no reason to have a hate speech rule. “Don’t be a jerk” should cover it. The only thing having a hate speech rule accomplishes is that certain groups are in a protected class unnecessarily.
I don’t disagree with your first two statements, Contrapuntal. When we started, we thought “Don’t be a jerk” was the only rule we’d need. The other rules have been pretty much added over time, because the posters were unhappy with such a fuzzy guideline. Thus, we’re torn between trying to leave things general, and trying to give specific guidance on what “being a jerk” means.
Defining “hate speech” isn’t an issue outside the Pit (it’s certainly covered under “no personal insults.”) But in the Pit, where personal insults are allowed, the question was: are there limits? The answer was: Yes. (So I do disagree with your last statement.)
You’ve not addressed my question in post #41, but I deduce the answer from this line. Because you seem to be saying that all “hate speech” is a personal insult, while the example I gave is not a personal insult.
See, i don’t understand this at all.
It’s quite possible to use hate speech, as we commonly understand the term, without making it a personal insult directed toward someone who is a member of the SDMB. Definitions of hate speech are generally based only on the particular individual at whom the speech itself is directed. If someone in a group starts ranting about how all faggots should be beaten, isn’t that hate speech even if there’s not a single gay person in the group?
If all that is true, then surely it’s not simply enough to say that, outside the Pit, hate speech isn’t an issue because it’s covered under the “no personal insults” rule.
There’s actually a recent example that i think is rather on point here. In the GD thread about the fake marine, one poster observed:
In what possible world is that not hate speech? Even if it wasn’t directed at a particular SDMB member, or at any individual posting in the thread, surely it qualifies under any reasonable definition of the term?
I’m ambivalent about whether we need the hate speech rule at all, but if we’re going to have it, surely this is a cut-and-dried case for its enforcement?
And yet two moderators have specifically responded to that post without invoking the hate speech rule. One wrote:
and the other specifically noted that he let it slide because it wasn’t a personal insult:
As i said, we can debate the merits of having the hate speech rule at all, but if we’re going to have it, then at least its enforcement needs to demonstrate some basic concordance with the general understanding of what hate speech is. And referring to gay people as faggots, as far as i know, generally qualifies, particularly when there was clearly no irony and no humorous intent in the post.
It’s been almost five days, so I doubt you’re still talking about it. So, are “Shut the fuck up” and “Get the fuck away from me” acceptable in the Pit? How about refering to a woman as “Man-Hands”?
Don’t know about those, but I know that “hand stabber” is forbidden, at least for me, in reference to hardcore evangelical atheists.
Liberal, are you saying that you are not allowed by TPTB at SDMB to use the term “hand stabber” as a description for hardcore evangelical atheists?
For you it’s gender that can be good-natured ribbing in one context and hate speech in another. For someone else, it might be race or ethnic background sensitivity that “changes” according to context (whose in the room, for example).
I don’t know any gender comments that are actually hate speech that are good-natured at all – not if hate speech has to be more than just a word.
The epithet is based on an urban legend – supposedly Madelyn Murray O’Hair stabbed someone in the hand in an argument. Or somebody stabbed her or some other such.
At the time of this discussion it was not proven that it was a true story. It was just an urban legend. We asked you not to spread ignorance by the use of such an epithet.
As to whether “hand stabber” is hate speech, maybe not . . . but it is surely not a compliment to anyone, either. Don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone say “What a great hand stabber that guy is!”
mhendo: You’re right; I was just thinking of one-on-one situations. Clearly, hate-speech can arise elsewhere than the Pit. Thanks for the correction.
Carol: I answered you back in Post #39: it depends on the context. With certain limited exceptions, we have chosen NOT to try to legislate which words or expressions are OK and which are not. We prefer to allow lots of freedom in the way people express themselves.
Zoe: Yes, certainly there can be racial comments that are meant/taken in jest, but they seems more common with gender: there are softer words, like “darling” or “honey” that are still basically sexist, but not something we’d care about. There’s not so many softer terms for race; perhaps “Oriental” to mean Asian? Anyhow, I was generalizing, because there are so very many sexist terms that are not so worrisome. (Yes, yes, any sexism is worrisome, but we start to cross the line into absurd political correctness.)
“Honey” considered hate speech?
Hmmm…Come to think of it, my first husband called me “Bee Poop.” I see what you mean.
? Color me confused. My point was that there is a difference between comments that are sexist at base (e.g., calling every woman “honey”) and hate speech.
Yes, that’s correct — the power being TubaDiva. Her “reasoning” was that it was not proven to her satisfaction that Madalyn Murray O’Hair — well known for her Fred Phelps style evangelism, quirky moods, and unmitigated rudeness to all people of faith — had indeed stabbed a man in the hand with a pencil when he blessed her after a sneeze.
I heard the story from her son — her son. Directly out of his mouth. On the radio in Charlotte in the mid to late 1980s. Since the station is now defunct, and no Internet record exists, she (Tuba) has decided to call it an “urban legend”, which incidentally is not how urban legend is defined.
The fact of the matter is that she just had a stick up her ass that day and decided that I — specifically I — could not use the term. It was just another one of those bizarre ad hod rulings, followed by equally bizarre email correspondence.
All in the world that it is, is a descriptive term for hard-ass atheists who believe they need to use intimidation, threats, and violence in dealing with people of faith. It is a perfectly good descriptor, and her decision to ban it is on par with Ed’s decison to ban “fuck you”. It’s just stupid.
That is rather bizarre.
Say, for argument’s sake, that we knew for certain that O’Hair had never stabbed someone in the hand with a pencil. Why does it matter, for the purposes of using an insult, whether or not that story is true? Even if it were nothing more than an urban legend, its veracity should not be the determining factor in whether or not the term “hand stabber” is an allowable epithet.
Happy Thanksgiving, to handstabbers and fundies alike. 
Yeppers. Precisely.
The current on-going diatribe regarding the Confederacy seems to me to be filled with hate speech as well as numerous violations of the “don’t be a jerk” rule. Slavery existed and it shouldn’t have; it doesn’t exist in this country any more. It seems to me that a line is crossed when people are labeled “monsters” and “racists” simply because they refuse to feel shame regarding certain actions of their ancestors.
[quote=“Liberal, post:54, topic:515624”]
It was a stupid decision, but also a stupid descriptive term, since no-one in the world knows the story/term except for you (and the people here who you’ve told).
It’s not a good insult* if you have to footnote it each time you use it.
I agree it’d be nice to have a mod-allowed insult for rabid atheists like “fundie” is for Christians, but this ain’t it.
*in the sense that “fundie” is an allowed insult
You’re probably right, Fen. (Although “fundie” had to be explained to me when I first saw it. I thought it meant “hedonist”, or “someone who likes fun”.)