PPR rules

Post Reply New Topic

I would say it would be a good idea to hide the PPR forum from public view and perhaps even make the access to it, age based like the adult forum or similar, I suppose most would disagree with the latter, saying it isn't necessary or too PC, but I tend to think to be safer somehow, and, that if the PPR remains more privileged, regarding the rules, than the rest of the site.

Perhaps anyone who wishes to enter PPR ought to go through an intermediate page that says:


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------WARNING!
FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS PERMITTED IN THIS SOLITARY SUBFORUM; YOU MAY GET OFFENDED.
READ THE UNCENSORED THOUGHTS OF OTHERS AT YOUR OWN PERIL.

i can see that you think people are arguing against freedom of speech... they are not. they are arguing against hate speech.

yeah well, that or 'NO CONDOM, ABSOLUTELY UNCENSORED'.

What is "hate speech"? Is it the words of a poster seething with hatred at another poster or is it the posting of ThoughtCrimes©?

Neither, and I hate your mom.

do you agree that hate speech should be moderated? you define it.

In all honesty I believe the issue about "PPR rules" seems somehow pointless, only concern of mine is what DW_a_mom stated a while ago, about such discussions being found by people unfamiliar with WP, and finding out questionable discussions from the posters, and getting the idea that aspies think like that. I mean, to me, it is still a fine point, because it leads to wondering wether that can be inonvenient for the site, for WP's sake, rather than just a few members who may complain about PC, I mean, WP could very well be 'PC' if she wants it anyway, other than that, if the PPR forum is disliked, then I believe avoiding it would be fine as many members prefer to do, and probably few members may feel more comfortable if the sections feels separated from the rest of the site. In any case, proposing the use of another, already existing forum as an alternative, rather than creating a new one, might do.


About hate speech, the rules excplictely site forbids racism, although it doesn't give details, so I believe that Alex should be the one who would have to have the word on the matter, and basically, for the sake of the site itself, how convenient or inconvenient that would be regarding the philosophy of WP, but he is not here often, and communitating with him about the issue, seems difficult.

No, I don't agree that hate speech should be moderated. It ought to be tolerated so long as there is no serious advocating of violence actions to be performed against individuals. Also, saying that a nation ought to go to war with another nation should not be censored, unless saying another nation ought to make peace with another is also banned - although this may not be the best of examples there are always at least two sides to a debate and the rules ought to not favor either side. If one side is silenced due to it being considered "unacceptable" then all sides of that debate ought to be as well, i.e. preferential treatment of any given side of an argument ought to not exist. It would be better if people didn't mind other people speaking their mind and thus getting offended, but offense will happen regardless of any rules implemented. To increase the level of censorship is to increase how easily offended people are.

Last edited by iamnotaparakeet on 18 Oct 2010, 8:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

so then why argue about what constitutes hate speech? since you don't want it to be moderated, then defending a definition to you is pointless.

i disagree that the level of moderation increases how offended people get, though. moderation simply allows people the protection that is already included in the site rules, so it doesn't make sense that it would increase overall sensitivity.

Well then, modify the site rules with regard to PPR in specific. Delete the term "hate speech" from the list of taboos.

Where is this list of taboos that includes the term "Hate Speech"? This might seem like a foolish question, and it probably is, but I couldn't find it in the Terms of Service or in the WP rules, so I think I'm looking in the wrong places.

Moderated on WP? First, the site is not bounded to the american constitution, nor it is necessarily democratic either, the issue is wether some speech is convenient or not to the philosophy and ideology of the site itself, I mean wether it can be consider that that could undermine the cause. In the other hand, I think that because of the nature of PPR, some opinions are allowed anyway, and it may seem a privilege compared to other sections of the site, the issue is wether some limits could be considered to be necessary to be imposed, regardless if some posters consider it PC or not.

Not only that, but the issue is that your perspective differs from others, I mean, likely, what people find offensive is largely related to their psychology and their life experiences, your case is based on your own experiences as well, as you stated in one of your threads, thus your bias is supported by it, but other people have different life experiences thus different perspective than yours, given that that and likely education is influential to philosophical and political inclination.

In any case, there is no indication that freedom of speech is being infringed or limited here, to make a defense, so I don't see much of a point.


Not banned, but by exercising your freedom of speech, you should expect the freedom of posters to reply to you in a matter you dislike and may make you uncomfortable, given that freedom of speech works in every direction, not just one.

Not only that, but as someone pointed out in the PPR forum, there are a**holes, so it isn't suprising people showing a low sense of empathy and some intentionally provoking, and hiding behind "freedom of speech", and some crying out loud about "Political Correctness" when being called out, even when there is no indication of a free speech infringment.


well, that doesn't seem much to be the case here, but one side can claim the other side has "preferential treatment", that is not surprising to happen.


Yes, offense willl happen regardless, I suppose in an aspie site, that should be expected, no?

Last edited by greenblue on 18 Oct 2010, 8:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.

good question! i am not sure it is ever spelled out with that phrase itself, but it seems to be an encapsulation of:

"Unacceptable content includes swearing; racist, sexist, homophobic language; behavior intended to provoke or belittle other members; violent or sexually demeaning content"

it is too lengthy to spell out all of that list every time a person wants to discuss the rules. though i had thought i had seen the phrase in that form before, i may have been mistaken.

FOUND IT!! ! in the Announcements for PPR. interestingly, i don't think it is in the Announcements or rules for any of the other subforums!

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp17314.html#17314

Ha! Wow, no wonder I couldn't find it. I thought that thread was just a relic that hadn't been unpinned*, so it never occured to me to look in there. Thanks for finding that.

Although I have to wonder if that mention of hate speech is really a formal proscription. It seems as though it was written because it was the phrase that came to mind at the time, rather than with a view to become a proper rule.

I've tried to follow this debate, over its multiple threads, but it's been very difficult. The debate has left me unsure as to what the rules in PPR actually are (I'm sure there are some rules, because I have heard that a member was recently banned for their conduct in that forum, but I'm damned if I know what they actually are), and I think this term "hate speech" is not helping because the debate, as it is now, seems to centre around the term needing to be used differently in PPR than it is in the other forums when, if you're right, it isn't used in the other forums in the first place.

I think you're probably right that it has come to be the term that encapsulates "swearing; racist, sexist, homophobic language; behavior intended to provoke or belittle other members; violent or sexually demeaning content", as well.

I think a lot of this issue has centred around that particular rule, when I think the more fruitful rule to focus on, since there seems to be a consensus that in PPR it is necessary to allow off-the-beaten-track beliefs their time on the soapbox, would be

"2. Personal attacks.
This includes insinuation, ridicule and personal insults, regardless of whether direct or indirect. Attacking an opinion, belief or philosophy is acceptable, but attacking the person making the comments is not."

I imagine this has already been brought up, since there has been so much written in this vast argument already, but I thought I'd put it forward here since it might sidestep the trickiness that the term "hate-speech" is causing in this debate.

Of course, this rule comes with its own problems. For instance, I don't doubt there are some thin-skinned posters who will not be able to seperate attacks upon their opinions/beliefs/philosophies from attacks upon their characters, because people have a tendency to define their characters in terms of their opinions/beliefs/philosophies, and likewise I am sure there are some posters who have a clumsy way of phrasing attacks upon an opinion/belief/philosophy that could land them in some trouble if they are interpreted to be making personal attacks.

* - I still think it is a relic that hasn't been unpinned.