PPR Rules 2.0: Hate Speech & Offensive Content

Post Reply New Topic

i didn't advocate silencing at any time. please go back and read my comments and you will see that i have not ever asked for the silencing of any debate opponents.

there are many levels of moderation that do not require silencing. for example warnings, thread locking, and so on.

i don't claim to have the definition of hate speech pinned down, and i definitely don't consider it to be self-evident, hence my examples and explanations of my own interpretation. i offered suggestions and other people have made suggestions as well... which is the point of the thread.

i don't expect people to agree with my interpretation, but the real problem is that some posters do not actually want hate speech to be banned at all, which makes discussion of what constitutes hate speech rather irrelevant. do you want hate speech banned, as per the ToS?

You've have advocated your government's laws against "hate speech" to be enacted upon this forum. Q.E.D.

I hate hate speech, death to hate speeches!

i advocated using the canadian definition of free speech over the american one. that does not equal silencing. canadians are not silenced either - there is a due process for cases of hate speech. here was my comment for your inspection. i don't see anything about silencing in there - it is just a stricter definition of what type of hate speech can be prosecuted, but it makes absolutely no mention of the process involved in prosecution or the punishment:



edit: fixed quotes

You seriously prefer the Canadian approach?

A lot of people have a problem with the term "hate speech" because it's vague, but if that term were replaced with a more delineated list of what is and isn't acceptable they would be happier.

Personally, I'd take it as a given that name calling and slurs directed against individual members are out. I'd also count slurs and name calling directed against a particular race, gender, sexual orientation, disability status, physical feature, etc. as out. This basically includes anything people are simply born with but excludes things like cultures, religions, or political leanings.

Slurs against ideological and cultural groups (including religions and political leanings) is where we get into muddy water as there isn't a clear precedent for the moderation team enforcing against those types of attacks in this particular subforum. Probably 90% or more of the regular members here are guilty of using name calling or slurs directed against an ideological or cultural group at one time or another. At this time it seems like it would be hard to enforce a measure against such attacks without being arbitrary.

I'm going to have to come back and elaborate since I'm short on time at the moment, but I'm thinking that it's minority opinions that need protecting here on PPR rather than ethnic or sexual minorities. When someone lashes out at another race or group in an overly broad way, the forum tends to respond by either calling the person on their faulty reasoning, or by simply ignoring them. Now the person who puts forward an idea that rubs certain people the wrong way is liable to be personally attacked and marginalized until they either give up or abandon the idea; THOSE are the people who need protection both from overly aggressive attacks and from moderator interference in discussing controversial topics. I've yet to see someone here be personally attacked based on their race, sex or sexuality, personal attacks here tend to be based more on religion and ideology than anything else.

Personal attacks are already covered by the rules. If people are out of order then a moderator should step in. That is their job.

some people call them out, some ignore them, and others agree with the racist comments. in no way do these commenters seem deterred by the response of the forum, which kind of points to the current system not being effective.

This probably belongs more in the 1.0 rules thread, but I've begun wondering this: Spam shouldn't be allowed on the forum, and I think we all agree here. But is there a distinction between spam such as, say, porn links and using the forum to post literature of a religious nature? I'm not saying that religious literature can't be discussed, and I'm not saying that religious literature/holy books can't be quoted. I'm only talking about cut/paste kinds of posts of literature that don't really serve any purpose in open discourse but appear to be intended ONLY to promote religious/pseudo-religious agendas.

I personally think something that is acceptable is making a point and supporting it with Bible quotes. Something that I might do that others who believe otherwise might find offensive is, for example, create a thread in which I quote the entire book of Ephesians.

I don't see anything wrong with promoting a religious viewpoint. But something I DO think might be corrected is relentless copy/paste kinds of practices that don't really show any original or, at the very least, creative or critical thought. In such a case, postings seem more like spam/propaganda than legit posts. I also recognize that with some of my own posts I might be seen as doing the same thing, though I do try to avoid it. My interpretations of religious/scriptural ideas ARE my own conclusions. There's no website or anything from which I get my commentary--indeed, if there were, I'd probably be a lot less stream-of-consciousness in my writing! No doubt at all that there is likely someone who's come up with these kinds of ideas before, and I don't mind confessing having Southern Baptist influence. I just think a more productive discussion comes from those things which we have internalized and carefully weighed in our own minds rather than merely regurgitating someone else's words.

Thoughts?

While I agree wholeheartedly with this sentence, I think banning any sort of copy/paste posting would also be over the line.

I think I know which poster you might be referring to, and while I don't agree with that guy, and the excerpts he posts tend to be excessively verbose, still, sometimes good points get raised. Often they're raised in rebuttals rather than the OP, but that's fine.

Under your definition of "effective", what is the goal that is not being effectively reached? Freedom of speech or freedom of hearing only what doesn't offend you?

if you do not agree that racist comments are unacceptable, there is no point in hashing out what is effective in quashing those statements. you don't seem to agree that it is an offense to make the statements in the first place, so of course you would not agree with any potential goals regarding them. you must first accept the premise that the statements are unacceptable before it would make any sense to hash out what consequences would be effective.

I don't like any form of racism, for or against anyone. However to say that what a person says is "unacceptable", that is what I don't accept. Too often is the case that when an offense is deemed worthy of punishment people then look for ways to claim that other people whom they hate have committed that offense, and thus deserve the punishments linked to the action. In the case of speech, there's not even any action involved. There are feelings and rantings and ravings and other forms of emotionalism involved, however words in themselves are nothing more than assemblies of letters, especially when there is no deeper meaning than mere venting. Yet for such venting some people would invoke punishment upon them. That is wrong, and not the venting.

well, that's the basic premise i disagree with. words are NOT just assemblies of letters. bullying can be nearly as painful and as traumatic when expressed through words, which you would understand if you have ever been a victim.

i can't see any reason why 'venting' against other groups of people should be permitted. there is no conversational (or debate) value in that whatsoever, and it reinforces negative stereotypes about different groups. it is possible, and in fact much more productive, to debate ideas without throwing in any racial slurs or stereotypes.

i have seen several examples of racism on the forum that do not fall into the category of 'venting' anyway. there is at least one member that likes to insinuate nasty things seemingly for effect. there is no 'venting' involved in what some members say.

the idea of racist commenters being required to curb their racism on WP does not worry me (again, this is NOT equal to silencing), because hate speech is not permitted on WP, based on the current ToS. therefore, a person could reasonably expect that WP would either be free of hate speech, or that it would be moderated in some way. this is not a forum with no rules. if the statement were not in the ToS, i wouldn't be having this argument because i would not have a leg to stand on. i wouldn't be arguing this side in a forum with no protection against hate speech. really the argument is about how hate speech should be defined, and how it should be moderated on WP.