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

Post Reply New Topic

As an expansion on the concept of attacking the belief and not the believer, how about an amendment to The Rules that states:

It is prohibited to express contempt or hatred toward another member of WrongPlanet on the basis of their:

• Age
• Appearance
• Caste or Social Class
• Citizenship Status
• Disability
• Education (or lack thereof)
• Employment Status
• Ethnicity or Race
• Gender Identity
• Hobbies or Special Interests
• Intellectual Capacity
• Nationality
• Place of Residence
• Religion (or lack thereof)
• Sexual Orientation
• Spoken or Written Language

Note that illegal activity is exempt from this directive.

Last edited by Fnord on 02 Jan 2022, 4:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.

^Certainly a step in the right direction.

^ ^^ I agree. I'm so tired on the knuckle draggers who always stir trouble and turn the hate on if someone dares to say something different.

I'm sure others will agree that wanting that oasis of calm on the net isn't too much to ask.

I just wish we could nuke troll island for good.

Unfortunately, on a public forum there's no guarantee of reasoned academic responses from anyone. We certainly have a core of members who do respond respectfully, constructively and with detail - but sad to say, this has always been a minority.

I see a twofold problem here - such a list has no end, with a good possibility of each point branching into sub-points - and it would be encompassed by the straightforward "It is prohibited to express contempt or hatred toward another member of WrongPlanet".

Could it be that some (a lot) of the hatred could be fought against by trying to understand "the hate" and where it originated while attempting to educate them, instead of locking them away from discussions?

I want to be "educated" to have a better understanding of my opponent's point of view.
This is not going to happen by censorship.

I believe a lot of the hatred is really lack of understanding.

To ban questioning of certain topics or demand a specific type of phrasing by the one who is questioning, is not going to help creating more understanding and less hatred.

At the very least, "education" should be the first attempt to get on the right track. If it's unsuccessful to the discussion then it's another situation.

". . . But their beliefs and opinions may still be fair game."

I could agree to that.

So will that mean openly calling for the homeless and addicts to be killed will warrant a response?

Some dangerously sensible observations there!

All I'll say is this: if I have reason to believe that a person or persons may have opinions which would make me uncomfortable, which may be 'threatening' or make me feel 'unsafe', then I want to know who those people are and exactly what their opinions are and why they hold them. You don't (or shouldn't) deal with a situation like this by forcing such people to conceal their real views or, to use modern parlance, by cancelling them.

I just shake my head in despair and disbelief whenever I see a thread being locked on this site.

If the usual trolls would stop their disinformation campaigns, their gaslighting of other members, and their outright lying, there would be fewer locked threads.

But when what's been reported as, and is seen to be, hateful - what then? Continue promulgating the hatred in an attempt at educating them and understanding it, all while the people reporting it and affected by it look on aghast?

I'm not sure it's a role of WP members to take on and educate others about their hatred (although I understand the motives for doing so), because that often leads to more arguing, disputes and hatred. If the participants are willing and impervious to the rocks and knives being thrown around, that's all well and good - except it can and does affect others who are taking no part.
It's easy to say "look away", but by then the upset has already happened.

No doubt.

Certain "hot topics" up for discussion need to be carefully worded to avoid giving the impression that the intention is to attack or denigrate - antisemitism, transphobia, racism etc.
AFAIK the only topics explicitly banned are as per the site rules - excretory function, animals or people being harmed, and so on.

If it's not clear from the notice normally posted when a thread is locked, you are of course free to ask the moderator locking the thread for an explanation.

^ I think we're still waiting for a meaningful analysis of what constitutes 'hate speech' or 'hateful content'. It seems to be implied that if someone simply reports a post as 'hateful', then it must be regarded as such by default without being subjected to any serious scrutiny.

Many of my own views could be categorized as 'socially conservative' and those seem to be regarded by definition in the current climate as borderline 'hate speech', even though they were just seen as 'mainstream' or 'common sense' opinions a decade or so ago.

I don't 'hate' the people who oppose my opinions or have any wish to 'cancel' their opinions, but can't help wondering whether they'd return the favour, given half a chance. Clue: no.

The same people would probably describe themselves as 'liberal', and somehow manage to keep a straight face while so doing.

I'm gonna throw a custard pie in your face and squirt water in your eye simply because you are left handed.

Is that hate speech?

I'm paranoid, was it something I said that made HeroOfHyrule leave? I'm not used to upsetting people and when I'm responsible I spend the rest of my life feeling guilty.

Beliefs and opinions might be mostly predicated on several points in that list. For example someone could be a religious nut job and it should be fair game to point out their religion has made them a nut job. (Religion)

Someone could also have extreme political views that regularly lapse into outright hatred that might have developed after years social and economic isolation caused by a disability and it should be fair game to point out a disability has made them potty. (Employment status/disability)

Someone might just have crazy regional cultural traditions that they keep hawking on WP, like piercing the ears of infants and it should be fair game to point out said moronic mentality of that entire region. (Nationality/place of residence)

A lot of that list isn't necessarily separate from opinions and beliefs. In fact, everything in that list plays a significant part in how someone develops.

Why try and prune toxic branches when you can go in for the trunk if the problem runs a lot deeper?

Last edited by Nades on 03 Jan 2022, 7:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

It could be defined as aristeracheirophobia, and is potentially a serious matter.

Joking about PC culture and identity politics is also well on the way to being included under 'hate speech', if it isn't already.

I'm not joking.