Is it time for a zero tolerance policy on hate speech?
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...
Is that hate speech?
Also it's pieism: how dare you denigrate a noble pie by using it as a weapon! (joke, obviously)
_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.
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?
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.
_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view.
• "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?
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.
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,491
Location: Long Island, New York
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?
_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity
It is Autism Acceptance Month
“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,567
Location: Right over your left shoulder
Based on previous experiences some of those who leave because they worry about how their speech might be impacted will end up returning.
_________________
Watching liberals try to solve societal problems without a systemic critique/class consciousness is like watching someone in the dark try to flip on the light switch, but they keep turning on the garbage disposal instead.
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う
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.
ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,491
Location: Long Island, New York
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.
_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity
It is Autism Acceptance Month
“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman
• "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?
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.
_________________
What do you call a hot dog in a gangster suit?
Oscar Meyer Lansky
Doberdoofus
Veteran
Joined: 31 Dec 2021
Age: 51
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 1,166
Location: Orbiting Wrong Planet
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.
_________________
I don't follow society's rules. But that doesn't mean there aren't rules I have to follow when the Dark Passenger calls.
Don't be so eager to be offended. The narcissism of small differences leads to the most boring kind of conformity.
funeralxempire
Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 39
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 25,567
Location: Right over your left shoulder
Liberalism is stupid =
Liberalism is inherently flawed and might be incapable of addressing our most pressing concerns =
_________________
Watching liberals try to solve societal problems without a systemic critique/class consciousness is like watching someone in the dark try to flip on the light switch, but they keep turning on the garbage disposal instead.
戦争ではなく戦争と戦う
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.
_________________
What do you call a hot dog in a gangster suit?
Oscar Meyer Lansky
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
US Reviewing Venezuelan Sanctions Policy In Wake Of Court |
28 Jan 2024, 6:38 pm |
I hate getting these |
13 Mar 2024, 8:11 am |
Does anyone else hate being outdoors? |
30 Mar 2024, 11:36 am |
Why do people hate lima beans? |
10 Apr 2024, 7:38 pm |