If you say [racial/ethnic group] is bad, go ahead, hater. If you say you want to exterminate [racial/ethnic group] with the intent that members of [racial/ethnic group] hear you, that can plausibly be interpreted as a threat. The first should not warrant the attention of law enforcement (if it does, I’d say that was overstepping). If the second gets you arrested, I’m not going to shed any tears for you.
As far as I know, the convention is that “hate” is an *aggravating *factor in judging crimes. Beat up a black person, it might just be assault and battery. If it becomes clear you beat him up mainly because he was black, then I can understand the justification for charging you with a more serious crime.
If you want me to describe some perfect formulation or test that defines “hate” and can precisely determine if it was an element in a particular act of violence… well, too bad.
It says in the article Connecticut has an anti-ridicule law. Which is even more ridiculous. Regardless, in the US, the state and its proxies such as public universities have no constitutional authority to punish free speech.
You keep calling adoptive parents “foster parents”. This is incorrect. Foster parents don’t adopt the children they foster, they are part of the foster care system. They look after children without parents until parents can be found, or the children turn 18.
Are other uses of “real whatever” offensive? Real is used in many common contexts, such as real parents, real American, real racecar driver, etc. Even real men/women is used when it has nothing to do with trans issues, such as “real men drink whiskey” or “real men smoke the same cigarettes as me”.
Turn that shit around. Aren’t the people talking about “real America”, “real men” etc… not pushing toxic, divisive ideas that cause a lot of misery (even within themselves) ?
…since you have popped back here: for the purposes of this discussion, can you acknowledge that you were incorrect to say that “There is no such thing as hate speech” when the concept of “hate speech” was part of the registration agreement you agreed to when you signed up to the boards?
We’re going to allow “contra positions” whatever that is, fine. Apparently we’re not going to mod Annoyed’s whatever the fuck without even a comment about it from the Pit mods because… idk… it was a political jab so therefore not transphobia or something??? But apparently now we’re okay with transphobic jokes, including an allusion to “chick with a dick” which is a slur on the level of “tranny”, and “Transylvanian” which isn’t a standard slur but is deliberately mocking trans people in a slur-like way, and just generally posting in the thread to make driveby transphobic jabs instead of meaningfully engaging with the topic?
I think the board is going to have a difficult time defining “explicit hate speech”. I’m trans, but I use terms which have rapidly fallen out of favor (MTF, GG, biological woman), and in certain circles would likely be considered a bigot or at least rather self-loathing. I think there is value in having to defend the assertion “trans women are women, trans men are men” rather than just accepting it axiomatically.
That being said, I do think the mods need to crack down on, as Jragon states, “posting in the thread to make driveby transphobic jabs instead of meaningfully engaging with the topic”.
Well, once again we’re in the same general debate about what’s allowed here. Jragon, thank you for your enlightening posts. I know how hard it is to come on here and face antagonism, and I appreciate your attempts to fight ignorance.
There’s a very vocal segment (majority?) that dismisses anyone who complains about the speech someone uses. “If you don’t like it, don’t read it,” they shrug. Yet the objectionable remarks set a tone here, and looking the other way allows that. The question we–or at least TubaDiva and TPTB–have to answer is this: why have so many women/trans people vanished? And what kind of place will the Dope be when we’ve had enough and left?
I have to wonder if it’ll be the kind of place Ed had in mind when the SDMB first went online. Somehow I doubt it.
“Chicks with dicks” is A-OK, but one time I told Shodan to “piss off” (in context, we were arguing over the same point, and I said "piss off – here’s a bunch of evidence to the contrary). I admit that was wrong. Within 40 minutes, I had been told to “knock it off” by Bone and warned by Jonathan Chance. Yep – not even a note, even though this was my first mod interaction in years and years. Straight to a warning.
Fine. That’s fine. But if “piss off” is worth a warning, “chicks with dicks” and “Transylvanian” deserve a banning. Or we could just ignore them, and point out that there aren’t any STATISTICS that show that Trans people left the Dope, so we can ignore the problem.
Oh, and yeah: though the OP case could pass as ignorant, but nonetheless an example of the arguments involved, the later one even leaving aside “what is hate speech” would ISTM be clearly over the line even by the basic Don’t Be A Jerk rule.
