Is it time for a zero tolerance policy on hate speech?

Post Reply New Topic

As are we. Much is obvious, others not so much.

I had my response to a report backfire on me: it reported an instance of gaslighting but to me, and given the context of the following posts, it seemed more of a poorly worded statement and that was how I explained it.
The reporter then condemned all moderation here and left in a huff.
What to do...

That's not how we handle it, and it's not that simple - see above.

Opinions, and opinions of those opinions, change over time. I don't think there's any denying that currently, the entire world seems to have gone bonkers where "You're a great big poopy-head!" can be seen as a personal attack where previously, it was just childish name-calling.

No - but you can bet someone, somewhere would claim it is.
Also it's pieism: how dare you denigrate a noble pie by using it as a weapon! (joke, obviously)

In my opinion, there is a difference between hate speech and being politically incorrect.

I agree that hate speech - if defined as bullying and discrimination - should be dealt with, with severe consequences.

Expressing one's opinions and questioning of cultural, religious and political values in a decent, though perhaps in a awkward phrasing, is not hate speech and should be allowed.

Expressing that you 'hate' something should not be categorized as hate speech.
Though if you say "no blacks/whites should be allowed to vote" is - in my opinion - worse than stating "no liberals/conservatives should be allowed to vote".

The reason is that you do not choose your skin color, but you do choose your political opinions.
In other words, in my opinion there exists difference levels of hatred, some being worse than others.
Only the most severe form of hatred should be categorized as hate speech.

Political disagreement should be allowed. Religious disagreement should be allowed.
Discriminating people because of their skin color, gender, disabilities etc. is not ok.

Though to have some people in the above categories enjoy special privileges and remove any questioning of those groups (we're not talking about questioning individuals within each group ie. whether someone is genuinly disabled or not, genuinly a male/female etc., but the group as a whole) is - in my opinion - discrimination of other people and infringement of our right to free speech.

So . . . hate speech would be against people, but not against institutions.  Examples:

• "Christians are stupid because . . ." is hate speech because it is against people who practice Christianity.

• "Christianity is stupid because . . . " is not hate speech because it is against Christianity.

Does this make sense?

Just as a brief comment on this one aspect (I'll leave it to others to flesh out the other things you said) -

Legal definition of freedom of speech: The right to express information, ideas, and opinions free of government restrictions based on content and subject only to reasonable limitations (as the power of the government to avoid a clear and present danger) especially as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/diction ... f%20speech

Thus, "freedom of speech" does not apply here.

What you're talking about is the removal of a comment or thread in breach of the site rules; those rules regarding behavior and what is permitted on a privately-owned website.

Only to a limited extent. There is tarring all Christians with the same brush and there there is tarring a select few or an individual who are/is an idiot because of Christianity. One particular posters family members comes to mind for example (You know who I mean) and there are many more outside WP.

Attacks against an individual and their "protected characteristics" should be justified if that particular characteristic is turning them into a bigot.

It's not just religion that can turn people into bigots if their beliefs get out of hand. Bigots can be made by isolation brought about by disability, a sense of entitlement because of disability, regional culture clashes, age and different values that come with it ect. Often it's not the belief that's the problem but something much more taboo that's influencing their beliefs.

I've seen a lot of unsavoury and self entitled behaviour on WP because others think they're entitled to (insert whatever here) because they have autism.

Outside of WP, bringing up such a conflict of interest would be perfectly acceptable, even if it comes in the form of a personal attack.

A question is will the amount of people who will be driven away and banned by a zero tolerance policy exceed the amount of members who will be driven away by the current some tolerance policy?

Based on previous experiences some of those who leave because they worry about how their speech might be impacted will end up returning.

Hate speech also includes badmouthing NTs, which I see goes on a lot on autism forums. I hate it when NTs give hate speech about autistic people, and I equally hate it when autistic people give hate speech about NTs.

This is basically is Newton's Third Law: Action causes reaction.

It is the main reason I hate on NTs. If they stop, I'll stop.

Stereotyping 98 percent of the population is illogical.

Neurotypicals aren't 98% of the population. Maybe about 80%, which is still the huge majority, but there are neurological disorders or disabilities that aren't autism but aren't neurotypical.

That’s part of it, at least as far as WrongPlanet is concerned, but it should be noted that evoking e.g. “the gay agenda” could be (and usually will be) considered homophobic, even if you are specifically attacking nebulous agenda-pushers or the concept of equality of sexualities.

Criticism of religion is usually fine, but if someone said “Judaism is stupid because you have to drink children’s blood” or “Islam is stupid because you have to be a paedophile” then that would be hateful, in part because those statements are untrue.

Similarly with political ideologies, while not protected classes that can be victims of hate speech in most places, “liberalism is stupid” is definitely within the rules but “liberalism is a mental disorder” is not, for a few reasons:

- the metaphor is ableist
- it’s very provocative
- it is more likely to be interpreted as a personal attack than “liberalism is stupid”

Saying "Christians are stupid" is unacceptable, but saying "Christianity is stupid" is acceptable. The problem I have with this logic is that you still leave a large lane open for insults that usually lead to most of the conflicts here.

As far as I'm concerned, if you say a particular ideology is stupid, you are basically saying those who have adopted it are also stupid.

The metaphor “liberalism is stupid” is also ableist language but I understand you have to set the bar somewhere for the sake of creative discourse.

Liberalism is stupid =
Liberalism is inherently flawed and might be incapable of addressing our most pressing concerns =

There is, unfortunately, still a political bias on this board where the rules have often ignored. I see continued slamming of Trump supporters that goes unchecked by mods. If makes no difference to me whether one calls Trump supporters morons, or Biden supporters for that matter. I just don't believe the rules are being equally applied.

Either the rules apply to every group, or do away with them altogether.