PPR Rules 2.0: Hate Speech & Offensive Content

Post Reply New Topic

Durrr... Why are you so intent on confusing moderation policy with the reactions of board members to unpopular opinions? The fact that the majority of members disagree with you is NOT evidence of a 'double standard'. As far as I know, nobody has been repremanded or banned by the moderators for having an unpopular opinion.

I'm not. Some people have no room, based on their posting history, to have the nerve to lecture others on what does or doesn't cross the line....... or to suggest that their own arbitrary opinion should somehow be the official moderaton policy.



Actually, it would seem that now CONSERVATIVES and Right-Wingers are now the majority in PPR.............. You guys better get used to quoting sources ! !!

It would also seem that you're making this approximation by using FOX news accounting styles. The loud populus is not equivalent to the majority.

If they are browsing only and do not post, they may think this or that, but who knows what they think until they finally say something?

apparently, the best solution to the issue of moderation on ppr is to put a page between the forums forum index and the ppr forum. basically, it would just be a warning that "look, these guys want to talk about politics, philosophy, and religion. there's a lot of stuff to cover and a lot of it is contradictory. the people you find here can offer you great ideas, information, and arguments but also terrible opinions, faulty evidence, fallacious statements, and insulting attempts at humor. also: some of us are real dicks."

and then have a little button that says "i guess i'm ok with this" next to a button that says "that sounds just awful!"


i saw some great ideasmithing on the thread referenced by the OP but this thread apparently has nothing to do with that.

The forum description in the menu is sufficient.

I think obvious racial slurs could definitely fall into hate speech. Otherwise, basically what AG said.

Not even the majority of conservatives here agree with your views on 'race'. Sorry, you're still in the minority.

Nobody has to agree with him. As long as he doesn't say anything like "I call on everyone to beat up the (pick a group)", or "I'm going to kill some (pick a group)", it's freedom of speech.

Of course not. But disagreeing isn't the same as having a double standard.


But this website isn't a public space so there isn't any absolute right to free speech. The owner of the site is free to make the rules as it is his site.

What double standard?


It is a private site, but we are discussing what the rules should be, and I am advocating setting a set of rules similar to if we were in a public park or a street corner so that all issues are fair game and no one or no group can be above scrutiny by hiding behind political correctness.

I am a dyed-in-the-wool, capital "L" Liberal.

And I agree with John Browning.

I consider that "hate speech" is too broad a concept. When Fred Phelps stands at a funeral with a sign that says, "God hates fags," I am offended. I consider that an expression of hatred. But until Phelps crosses the line and starts, for example, to advocate violence, I am not prepared to see him silenced.

Similarly, "offensive," is too subjective a standard. Do we restrict to the lowest common denominator? Does every single member have a veto over posts that they consider, "offensive?" How many does it take? 10? 19,918?

If you come in here and spout a hateful or offensive message, then I think you needs to expect that others are going to come in and call you on it. But to expect an authority to come down from above and silence those opinions that offend you is to invite that same authority to come down and silence you, as well.

All it takes is one member who gets offended enough and knows how to manipulate people in charge, at least that is how people lose jobs often enough.

I agree with you, but I'd also expect possible anger and violent emotional reactions from a lot of people. I don't think you can expect a civil discussion when you attack and denigrate people based on race, gender, sexual-oreintation, etc. People are going to get hurt and angry. They might even express hatred towards you for stating such opinions.

There is a reason why "PC" exists. Contrary to what right-wingers think, it's not about enforcing conformity of opinion. It's about keeping the peace. I think there are times for breaking the "PC" protocol, but you have to be prepared for consequences.

Glad to hear you like that, I was rather proud that my initial guesses about what people might want were pretty on the money. Unfortunately, some people felt that by composing the poll questions and offering my own opinions in the OP of that thread I was trying to influence the results or engage in some sort of electioneering, so I'm letting this one run a little while before chiming in with what I happen to think. I'll give you a hint though, it's going to be pretty close to what AG, Visagrunt and John_Browning are saying. Damn, the fact that those three are just about agreeing on anything is probably some sort of portent...