Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

PPR Rules 2.0: Hate Speech & Offensive Content

Page 6 of 10 [ 153 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

12 Oct 2010, 6:33 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
you are approaching this from an american perspective, and although the servers are in the u.s., the WP users are international.
i prefer the canadian approach:

Quote:
The Criminal Code prohibits "hate propaganda." The Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on various grounds, and forbids the posting of hateful or contemptuous messages on the Internet.

That is very subjective.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

12 Oct 2010, 6:46 pm

John_Browning wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
you are approaching this from an american perspective, and although the servers are in the u.s., the WP users are international.
i prefer the canadian approach:

Quote:
The Criminal Code prohibits "hate propaganda." The Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on various grounds, and forbids the posting of hateful or contemptuous messages on the Internet.

That is very subjective.

your idea of 'freedom of speech' is also very subjective.... which is why we are hammering out guidelines.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

12 Oct 2010, 7:22 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
you are approaching this from an american perspective, and although the servers are in the u.s., the WP users are international.
i prefer the canadian approach:

Quote:
The Criminal Code prohibits "hate propaganda." The Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on various grounds, and forbids the posting of hateful or contemptuous messages on the Internet.

That is very subjective.

your idea of 'freedom of speech' is also very subjective.... which is why we are hammering out guidelines.

Our freedom of speech is pretty simple
1) No making threats of violence.
2) No inciting others to commit violent acts.

Your Canadian standard of free speech can be a double standard and can be used as a political weapon to suppress dissent. It has even persecuted mainstream religious beliefs. Advocating what I think should be done with those that promote such censorship would violate the set of rules I have proposed here.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


sartresue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 70
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,313
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism

12 Oct 2010, 7:56 pm

John_Browning wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
you are approaching this from an american perspective, and although the servers are in the u.s., the WP users are international.
i prefer the canadian approach:

Quote:
The Criminal Code prohibits "hate propaganda." The Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on various grounds, and forbids the posting of hateful or contemptuous messages on the Internet.

That is very subjective.

your idea of 'freedom of speech' is also very subjective.... which is why we are hammering out guidelines.

Our freedom of speech is pretty simple
1) No making threats of violence.
2) No inciting others to commit violent acts.

Your Canadian standard of free speech can be a double standard and can be used as a political weapon to suppress dissent. It has even persecuted mainstream religious beliefs. Advocating what I think should be done with those that promote such censorship would violate the set of rules I have proposed here.


Speech is free Theatre topic

The US First Amendment allows the WBC to be free with their speech. That would not fly in Canada.


_________________
Radiant Aspergian
Awe-Tistic Whirlwind

Phuture Phounder of the Philosophy Phactory

NOT a believer of Mystic Woo-Woo


BigK
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 400

12 Oct 2010, 8:13 pm

sartresue wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
you are approaching this from an american perspective, and although the servers are in the u.s., the WP users are international.
i prefer the canadian approach:

Quote:
The Criminal Code prohibits "hate propaganda." The Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on various grounds, and forbids the posting of hateful or contemptuous messages on the Internet.

That is very subjective.

your idea of 'freedom of speech' is also very subjective.... which is why we are hammering out guidelines.

Our freedom of speech is pretty simple
1) No making threats of violence.
2) No inciting others to commit violent acts.

Your Canadian standard of free speech can be a double standard and can be used as a political weapon to suppress dissent. It has even persecuted mainstream religious beliefs. Advocating what I think should be done with those that promote such censorship would violate the set of rules I have proposed here.


Speech is free Theatre topic

The US First Amendment allows the WBC to be free with their speech. That would not fly in Canada.


It wouldn't fly in the UK either.

So basically there can be no agreement.


_________________
"It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out of your door," he used to say. "You step into the Road, and if you don't keep your feet, there is no knowing where you might be swept off to.

"How can it not know what it is?"


hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

12 Oct 2010, 8:22 pm

John_Browning wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
you are approaching this from an american perspective, and although the servers are in the u.s., the WP users are international.
i prefer the canadian approach:

Quote:
The Criminal Code prohibits "hate propaganda." The Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on various grounds, and forbids the posting of hateful or contemptuous messages on the Internet.

That is very subjective.

your idea of 'freedom of speech' is also very subjective.... which is why we are hammering out guidelines.

Our freedom of speech is pretty simple
1) No making threats of violence.
2) No inciting others to commit violent acts.

Your Canadian standard of free speech can be a double standard and can be used as a political weapon to suppress dissent. It has even persecuted mainstream religious beliefs. Advocating what I think should be done with those that promote such censorship would violate the set of rules I have proposed here.

such a set of rules as you propose protects the rights of racist speakers to express their opinions, but does not protect the right of minorities to be free of attacks based on their skin colour. they have a right to feel safe here. people of non-white race are a minority on WP, therefore they cannot speak as loudly as the majority. if we do not protect their right to express their opinions without personal attacks against their race, then they may choose not to speak their opinions here. that would be a big loss.

an example of what i would consider acceptable/not acceptable, and which is based on WP's own rules:

OK: "i do not agree with female genital mutilation that is performed in some african countries"
NOT OK: "black people are animals."

i use racism as an example, but this could be extended to gender, sexual orientation, religion or any other group.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

12 Oct 2010, 8:43 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
such a set of rules as you propose protects the rights of racist speakers to express their opinions, but does not protect the right of minorities to be free of attacks based on their skin colour. they have a right to feel safe here. people of non-white race are a minority on WP, therefore they cannot speak as loudly as the majority. if we do not protect their right to express their opinions without personal attacks against their race, then they may choose not to speak their opinions here. that would be a big loss.

But one could also argue that although non-white people are a minority, so are the people who would attack a non-white person for being non-white. A non-white person being attacked on the basis of race wouldn't truly be on their own as the majority would come to his/her defense.

Quote:
i use racism as an example, but this could be extended to gender, sexual orientation, religion or any other group.

I don't really agree with religion being added as a "protected" group. First, religious faith is a conscious choice, not something someone is born with like race, gender, or sexual orientation. Second, many religions themselves have beliefs that could be considered hateful towards certain groups.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

12 Oct 2010, 8:57 pm

marshall wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
such a set of rules as you propose protects the rights of racist speakers to express their opinions, but does not protect the right of minorities to be free of attacks based on their skin colour. they have a right to feel safe here. people of non-white race are a minority on WP, therefore they cannot speak as loudly as the majority. if we do not protect their right to express their opinions without personal attacks against their race, then they may choose not to speak their opinions here. that would be a big loss.

But one could also argue that although non-white people are a minority, so are the people who would attack a non-white person for being non-white. A non-white person being attacked on the basis of race wouldn't truly be on their own as the majority would come to his/her defense.

Quote:
i use racism as an example, but this could be extended to gender, sexual orientation, religion or any other group.

I don't really agree with religion being added as a "protected" group. First, religious faith is a conscious choice, not something someone is born with like race, gender, or sexual orientation. Second, many religions themselves have beliefs that could be considered hateful towards certain groups.

i have no idea what you are getting at, as it is filled with confusing double negatives.

perhaps i should clarify and say that whites would be equally protected under the rules. it's just that, if we only listen to the opinions of the majority, the rule would seem to be unnecessary, as the majority on WP are american white males. so why would they want their rights protected? they already have the power of the majority.

about religion? those people whose religions have hateful statements towards others (which would pretty much be all of them) should not state those beliefs on WP. easy-peasy. we are protecting the users on WP, not the citizens of the world.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

12 Oct 2010, 9:11 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
you are approaching this from an american perspective, and although the servers are in the u.s., the WP users are international.
i prefer the canadian approach:

Quote:
The Criminal Code prohibits "hate propaganda." The Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on various grounds, and forbids the posting of hateful or contemptuous messages on the Internet.

That is very subjective.

your idea of 'freedom of speech' is also very subjective.... which is why we are hammering out guidelines.

Our freedom of speech is pretty simple
1) No making threats of violence.
2) No inciting others to commit violent acts.

Your Canadian standard of free speech can be a double standard and can be used as a political weapon to suppress dissent. It has even persecuted mainstream religious beliefs. Advocating what I think should be done with those that promote such censorship would violate the set of rules I have proposed here.

such a set of rules as you propose protects the rights of racist speakers to express their opinions, but does not protect the right of minorities to be free of attacks based on their skin colour. they have a right to feel safe here. people of non-white race are a minority on WP, therefore they cannot speak as loudly as the majority. if we do not protect their right to express their opinions without personal attacks against their race, then they may choose not to speak their opinions here. that would be a big loss.

an example of what i would consider acceptable/not acceptable, and which is based on WP's own rules:

OK: "i do not agree with female genital mutilation that is performed in some african countries"
NOT OK: "black people are animals."

i use racism as an example, but this could be extended to gender, sexual orientation, religion or any other group.

People who are that emotionally fragile should post in the haven where there are already strict protections against flaming. The PPR forum is where all the heated debates get dumped. As of right now conservatives are not a majority here, but you don't hear us complain about special protections. We either hold our own (by ourselves if need be) or go post in another forum. The ethnic minorities here do the same thing. Everyone that posts in the PPR forum should be able to stand the heat or get out of the fire regardless of race. If there is any group that attacks in packs it is the strident atheists- in other words, liberals.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


Hanotaux
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 9 Aug 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 355

12 Oct 2010, 9:41 pm

hyperlexian wrote:

Quote:
as the majority on WP are american white males. so why would they want their rights protected?


In case the situation ever changes one day and white males are no longer the majority.......

Or in isolated smaller threads when a bevy of minorities may gang up on a member of the majority.

Quote:
such a set of rules as you propose protects the rights of racist speakers to express their opinions, but does not protect the right of minorities to be free of attacks based on their skin colour. they have a right to feel safe here. people of non-white race are a minority on WP, therefore they cannot speak as loudly as the majority. if we do not protect their right to express their opinions without personal attacks against their race, then they may choose not to speak their opinions here. that would be a big loss.


Some liberals also choose to assign a person's personality and identity to their race and ethnicity(when seeking quotas and such things.) Why would minority posters even necessarily identify themselves first and foremost as a "somalian" or whatever as the primary facet of their identity?

Such a definition of what constitutes a "personal attack" would be arbitrary and subjective anyway.

JB wrote:
Quote:
People who are that emotionally fragile should post in the haven where there are already strict protections against flaming. The PPR forum is where all the heated debates get dumped. As of right now conservatives are not a majority here, but you don't hear us complain about special protections. We either hold our own (by ourselves if need be) or go post in another forum. The ethnic minorities here do the same thing. Everyone that posts in the PPR forum should be able to stand the heat or get out of the fire regardless of race. If there is any group that attacks in packs it is the strident atheists- in other words, liberals.


I quite agree........... If you can't handle the heated tone of the forum and some of the controversial topics, than you should really post in a more cuddlepants area like 'the Haven.'



Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

12 Oct 2010, 9:51 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
you are approaching this from an american perspective, and although the servers are in the u.s., the WP users are international.

Why not let canadian laws apply in canada and american laws apply in america? That's how it actually works, anyway.

If you really think canadian laws should apply to non-canadian internet users, are you ready to comply with the laws of Iran and China?

Quote:
The Criminal Code prohibits "hate propaganda." The Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on various grounds, and forbids the posting of hateful or contemptuous messages on the Internet.

Sounds like a way to supress *any* ideas you find distateful.

I dislike any and all 'hate crime' laws. They either try to ban 'bad' thoughts or speech (where 'bad' is just what some group of people dislike merely because they dislike it) or they try to make already illegal activities doubly illegal, but only if the target of the crime fits into special categories.

That isn't to say that I think free speech is completely absolute. Libel, slander, and threats are not ok. I think the WBC morons should have their chance to say whatever stupid things are on their minds also. Just not at a funeral.


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

12 Oct 2010, 10:07 pm

Hanotaux wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
Quote:
as the majority on WP are american white males. so why would they want their rights protected?


In case the situation ever changes one day and white males are no longer the majority.......

Or in isolated smaller threads when a bevy of minorities may gang up on a member of the majority.

you just proved my point. thanks for that! i agree - let's protect everyone's rights, including white american males. i have no problem with that!

Hanotaux wrote:
Some liberals also choose to assign a person's personality and identity to their race and ethnicity(when seeking quotas and such things.) Why would minority posters even necessarily identify themselves first and foremost as a "somalian" or whatever as the primary facet of their identity?

it isn't up to you to decide how people define themselves, and they have no reason to want to work around you.

Hanotaux wrote:
Such a definition of what constitutes a "personal attack" would be arbitrary and subjective anyway.

about personal attacks... that's why we are trying to define some ground rules here.


Hanotaux wrote:
JB wrote:
Quote:
People who are that emotionally fragile should post in the haven where there are already strict protections against flaming. The PPR forum is where all the heated debates get dumped. As of right now conservatives are not a majority here, but you don't hear us complain about special protections. We either hold our own (by ourselves if need be) or go post in another forum. The ethnic minorities here do the same thing. Everyone that posts in the PPR forum should be able to stand the heat or get out of the fire regardless of race. If there is any group that attacks in packs it is the strident atheists- in other words, liberals.


I quite agree........... If you can't handle the heated tone of the forum and some of the controversial topics, than you should really post in a more cuddlepants area like 'the Haven.'


as i have said countless times on other threads already, debate is good. personal insults, personal attacks, racism and hate speech are not.

it is possible to argue quite eloquently without using any of those tools. civilized debate is worth striving for. it takes some work, some editing and some consideration, but the point is better served. however, not everybody can handle a civilized debate, and some people must instead rely on lesser methods. when the argument is groundless, it seems easier for some people to descend into nastiness.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

12 Oct 2010, 10:09 pm

Ancalagon wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
you are approaching this from an american perspective, and although the servers are in the u.s., the WP users are international.

Why not let canadian laws apply in canada and american laws apply in america? That's how it actually works, anyway.

If you really think canadian laws should apply to non-canadian internet users, are you ready to comply with the laws of Iran and China?

Quote:
The Criminal Code prohibits "hate propaganda." The Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on various grounds, and forbids the posting of hateful or contemptuous messages on the Internet.

Sounds like a way to supress *any* ideas you find distateful.

I dislike any and all 'hate crime' laws. They either try to ban 'bad' thoughts or speech (where 'bad' is just what some group of people dislike merely because they dislike it) or they try to make already illegal activities doubly illegal, but only if the target of the crime fits into special categories.

That isn't to say that I think free speech is completely absolute. Libel, slander, and threats are not ok. I think the WBC morons should have their chance to say whatever stupid things are on their minds also. Just not at a funeral.

....
so you think hate speech is okay... except when YOU think it's not okay. priceless.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

12 Oct 2010, 10:20 pm

John_Browning wrote:
People who are that emotionally fragile should post in the haven where there are already strict protections against flaming. The PPR forum is where all the heated debates get dumped. As of right now conservatives are not a majority here, but you don't hear us complain about special protections. We either hold our own (by ourselves if need be) or go post in another forum. The ethnic minorities here do the same thing. Everyone that posts in the PPR forum should be able to stand the heat or get out of the fire regardless of race. If there is any group that attacks in packs it is the strident atheists- in other words, liberals.

you think you should have the right to say what ever you want, whenever you want. well, why don't you do so... on your own website. you are sharing this website with a diverse international population, and your rights should not override theirs.

heated debate is a fabulous thing, and i engage in it regularly. however, racism (for example) is not necessary to debate of any sort. racist remarks are intended to denigrate and degrade others - they are not necessary to discussion. how can you expect a person of a minority to defend themselves against racism? it is frankly ridiculous, and about as mature as calling someone poopypants and expecting a logical defense.

anyway, people shouldn't have to defend themselves against pointless, baseless, unnecessary attacks against them based on their skin (or religion, gender, etc.). it is one thing to attack an idea or philosophy, and another thing to make blanket statements against all people who are the members of said group.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


Ancalagon
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Dec 2007
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,302

12 Oct 2010, 10:52 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
the majority on WP are american white males. so why would they want their rights protected? they already have the power of the majority.

Belonging to one group doesn't prevent you from belonging to another group. Sure, I'm a white male, so I'm part of 2 majorities in PPR. I'm also religious and relatively conservative, making me part of 2 minorities in PPR.

I'd like my rights protected period, and I'd like other people's rights protected too. People shouldn't be treated differently for belonging to a particular group *period*, whether the group is racial, sexual, ideological, or something else.

Quote:
about religion? those people whose religions have hateful statements towards others (which would pretty much be all of them) should not state those beliefs on WP. easy-peasy. we are protecting the users on WP, not the citizens of the world.

Right. Because it's not enough that atheists are a majority in PPR, nor that they have their own group specifically dedicated to turning up the heat on the religious minority here. It's enough for White Males to merely be a numerical majority, but not Strident Atheists. Really, we have to silence those horrible people who dare to be religious. Just because the subforum's name has the word 'Religion' in it doesn't mean that people actually get to talk about it here. </sarcasm>

I've spent a fair amount of my time in PPR defending unpopular ideas, sometimes alone. Despite often being in a minority, I do not think that minorities should get Special Rights that nobody else gets.

IMHO, the rules for PPR should be:
1. No personal insults. Period.
2. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
3. Thou shalt not set the kitchen on fire.


_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton


Hanotaux
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 9 Aug 2010
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 355

12 Oct 2010, 10:58 pm

Quote:
how can you expect a person of a minority to defend themselves against racism?


I dunno......... probably cry to a moderator?

for me, its always been subjective and variabled where exactly things cross the line into "racism."

For liberals, a huge blanket of ideas conveniently fall under the "racist" blanket.

Quote:
you are sharing this website with a diverse international population, and your rights should not override theirs.


Again, who the heck is saying this? I've never seen conservatives on this site ever call for any exceptionalism or privileges.

Quote:
however, racism (for example) is not necessary to debate of any sort. racist remarks are intended to denigrate and degrade others


What are some examples of things that cross the boundary into "racist remarks."? I mean, things that are right on the cusp between being racist and non-racist. I would just like to know where the boundary is and what exactly you would define as the limits of acceptability.


Analcagon Wrote:
Quote:
Sounds like a way to supress *any* ideas you find distateful
.

I quite agree. This is the massive undertone I get from hyperlexian's posts on this thread.