The female troll squad in love & dating

Post Reply New Topic

can you show me where it i would be able to see that it is okay to express an opinion like wanting to kill all members of a certain relisgion? because at the top of the PPR forum, the rules state:

[bolding mine]

AND

[bolding mine]

according to the only guidelines listed, hate speech is not to be tolerated. i interpreted the thread as hate speech, therefore it is not unreasonable to flag it.

Or maybe he was trying to stir up some shite? It can be seen both ways and he explained his feelings only later in the thread. His choice of words was also interesting since that sentence was already used in the past to justify abusive actions.

But that's not the point - you are asking hyperlexian to explain herself for reporting the thread which is not against the rules. You invoke an unwritten rule that she didn't know about and even if she knew she had no obligation to respect.

Saying all of any group of people should be killed = hate speech. Saying all members of any one religion should be killed = definate hate speech. No two ways about it.

The only real argument is if said hate speech is allowed on PPR. The rules quoted a few posts back say no. Case closed.

Why the need for further debate?

This comment points to a bigger-picture split within WP that I noticed some time ago, but didn't speak up about until now that someone else has mentioned it. The split is that there are some sections of WP that are clearly for support (e.g., Haven, Parents, etc) and there are other sections that are clearly related to discussion of topics and special interests (e.g., PPR, Math/Science, Current Events, Games, etc). However, from a newcomer's perspective, there is no "road map" and it is not very clear where the division is. Again, this is just from a newcomer's perspective. To those of us who are familar with WP it seems obvious. Given there are almost 40,000 members but only...what maybe 500 "active" members if that...perhaps it would encourage more people to contribute if there was a clear link to take one to the support forums and a different link for topical discussion sections. I know, probably the wrong place to make a suggestion like this. Also, WP is not really broken, so there may not be a need to "fix" anything. But as I said, it follows on SP's post which I thought was spot on. Food for thought

This is why I'm trying to get a definite position out of the mod team concerning PPR as well as brainstorming within the forum to devise an agreeable code of conduct. In the past, PPR has technically been held to the same rules as the forum at large, but practically speaking things are run a little bit differently there, and that creates gray areas and confusion when newer members such as yourself don't know the lay of the land. Some other posters and I don't think one man's opinion constitutes hate speech, you feel otherwise, it would seem that the mods agree with my interpretation so there is no need to continually rehash the situation.

Notice though that all that happened was that you flagged something, people noticed, and those that disagreed said so and presented their arguments as to why. Why is that such a big deal to you? If I were to report something and someone else disagreed, I wouldn't take it personally and might even withdraw my flag if it turned out I just wasn't aware of something, no biggie at all.

See, that's not how she presented your PM, she described being "warned off" reporting a poster like the secret PPR police came out of the woodwork to threaten her about breaking PPR Omerta. Your PM makes perfect sense in context, and is pretty close to what I've been trying to get across in open threads about how things work in PPR. I only used the term "nebulous" because this is not the first time I've seen a complainant in a moderator attention thread claim supporters that wanted to remain anonymous to bolster their case, so I'm a bit suspicious of such claims, they feel a bit too much like Joe McCarthy's phantom list of communists to my taste.



Well I'm trying to get some official rules set up, but in the meantime I don't think anything too awful happened to Hyper, unless you consider being corrected in public to be an intolerable affront. Like I said before, she's entitled to complain, she's NOT entitled to not have the specifics of her complaint questioned and critiqued. If PPR regulars seem a bit defensive, it's because we've had open conflict with members of the moderation team before, and as a whole we don't want to return to that situation. So yes, we're quick to point out that we handle our own business and don't like to take things to the mods unless absolutely necessary, but there is a good reason and historical precedent behind that.



I didn't ask her to explain herself, I didn't even directly address her when I countered her initial flag in the since reset moderator attention thread, I just posted that the thread in question conformed to the normal standards of PPR and moderator attention was not needed. Even if the OP was just trying to rile some other posters with his opinion, that's still not out of line for PPR. As said, I'm working on the "unwritten" part, and I think Hyper and some of the other posters here are reading more criticism into my posts than is intended; my point is to educate and explain, not to put down.

Says you. Are you a recognized expert on hate speech? Apparently not, as you've confused a statement of opinion with advocating a course of action.



Again, says you. Which rules apply and how they are applied are at the heart of this discussion, as of now nothing is settled and plenty of debate is merited. Go vote in my thread in PPR concerning the forum etiquette and offer your opinions there if you want to talk specifics, with any luck we'll soon have an agreeable set of standards for people to consult regarding behavior in that forum.

Would an attempted utilitarian argument for destroying all members of a certain group be considered hate-speech? I am just curious, as although I would likely not buy such an argument, I have issues against labeling an attempt at such an argument impermissible. Random racial slurs are an issue, but ideas, even extreme ones, should be permitted to some extent.

Secondly, I am not sure that PPR can really work within a perfectly defined set of rules. This seems an odd statement, however, the issue is that PPR is a debate forum with a difficult to define subject matter, one that can question the rules, or even approach an issue from an unavoidably grey area perspective. The issue is that because I think PPR unavoidably has the possibility of a grey area in anything it approaches, I am not sure that rules can ever be anything but guidelines. Guidelines fail to be formal demarcations. This makes PPR a rougher ride to get used to, however, exposure can allow one to learn the underlying mentality. (Note: The idea that formal demarcations fail isn't something that I would argue is unique to PPR, but rather intelligent people have argued this as an issue with a large number of social endeavors. I think Wittgenstein used this for the notion of a game, which has a family relation, but not a clear demarcation. Michael Polanyi in his book "Personal Knowledge" argued that science was really defined by the intuitions of scientists with talk about clear demarcation being a failed and post-hoc effort, and Thomas Kuhn's own work tends to support that thesis, both drawing from historical science to make their case. So, in suggesting the idea, I am not trying to be cruel to outsiders, most PPR members had to be on the outside at one time, but rather, I am just suggesting that PPR is in a less-clear area of activity, and in good company at that.) And of course, the lack of formal demarcations really supports a structure of self-monitoring, just like a number of cultures today, such as science. While we see gate-keepers of science in culture, in science itself all that we have are other scientists.

As it stands, I think formalisms are intellectually overblown.(an issue I really shouldn't digress into here) Maps and instruction manuals are great, however, somehow, despite even the clearest efforts at both, people don't "get" these efforts, which either suggests dumb people, or that cognition isn't as formalistic as is often presumed by those who think that both maps and instruction manuals provide an easy guide to reality. (and don't get started on laws, they are the clearest example at attempted formalism failing to really get us there) I'd say the latter, as even I've had interpretation issues. Reality is messy. PPR peers into the messiness.

it can't be both a utilitarian argument and a personal opinion. the OP felt it was a personal opinion.

here's a definition of hate speech from wikipedia:

that thread clearly does meet this definition for hate speech.

i said it before, and i will say it again (in different wording, because i can't remember exactly how i said it):

would it be acceptable for a person to state that they think the americans deserved what they got on 9/11, and that in fact the entire nation or people should have been wiped from the face of the planet because of their horrible human rights record?

how about saying that all white men should be slaughtered, for similar reasons?

curious to hear what you think of that.

i think PPR needs more moderation because of the rampant name-calling, racism, and hate speech on threads in there. i believe that if the posts were kept civil and actually followed the rules on WP (under proper moderation) more people of diverse background would feel welcome in there.

seems to me L & D should be for support, but i wouldn't go there for it.

i don't really spend any time in PPR but (as evidenced here) there are issues concerning people's concerns not being taken seriously in both forums, as well as disagreement about what constitutes"correct" interpretation of the ToS. this is unarguable.

where are the mods in this conversation?

eh, whatever.

That thread had nothing to do with anyone's "feelings". It was an offensive and hateful invective against all Muslims. Hyperlexian was right to object.

I don't even remember the context you were referring to. I might not have read the thread, or I might have. I do not know, but I assume that this was ruveyn in one of his crazier moments. I am not making a statement about that context, but rather my point is more abstract.


I have no reaction to that. I mean, it is perfectly reasonable for a person to believe that Americans deserve what they got on 9/11 given the various actions of our government during the Cold War to control various areas of the world using highly questionable tactics. One might also argue that America, the entire nation, deserves to be destroyed in a manner like Sodom and Gomorrah, in that our culture contains an unacceptable level of sinfulness that requires that the majority of the people need to be purged from the earth, perhaps even all of our people. I would tend to oppose these positions, but I certainly could see someone espousing them in some form or fashion. The argument could go forward to be all white-men as well. Certainly a eugenic argument could possibly be made by someone somewhere. Heck, one might even just go off and make the claim that all these people should die simply because one doesn't like them. I really don't see the issue here though, and honestly, I would imagine that the negative reactions from other people in the forum would be sufficiently negative to get the point across that there is a problem with that kind of comment anyway. Most people are opposed to genocide, as far as I can tell.

I dunno, do you expect to offend me? I also wouldn't see a problem with someone having an honest opinion as to that effect as well. As for the definition of hate speech, I actually would not hold to it. By that definition, many of the major religious texts are off-limit because they disparage homosexuality, as well as various cultural ideas about homosexuality as well, as it is not uncommon for disparaging attitudes to shape public policy in the US. If major religious claims, claims that currently shape the state of politics today, cannot be discussed, then I think that what you are advocating is unreasonable. (Note: I am selecting a very obvious issue, but there are less obvious issues)

I would not likely define hate speech to include single statements of opinions, but rather slurs, and ongoing insults upon certain people-groups. The definition of hate speech given also impacts racial humor, which, while not popular on PPR, also involves disparaging a group, but often does not involve actual hate. However, given that one of the major religions has a deity that plans to send those who succumb to their unnatural desires to hell, like I said, I really do not think that a guideline that disallows us to talk about this can be considered reasonable at all. It may work for some areas more to avoid the subject, but these claims are major issues on a forum about philosophy, politics, and religion.


Honestly, I really would defend our racists. Although I do not like racist remarks, I do think that racist ideas should be allowed in response to the need for freedom of thought. Once again: while you may not like racists, are you going to say that certain philosophical, and political beliefs just cannot be talked about, despite their interest to certain individuals? If so, then how can we have free inquiry on PPR? Certainly I'd have to argue that free inquiry is more important to PPR than most other requirements.

Additionally, I am not sure how rampant name-calling is, but I somehow doubt that it is so horrible that we have to have a crack-down. People may very well get angry in a discussion. This is reasonable. The only point where I see something unreasonable is if someone repeatedly and actually insults somebody for no reason and in rapid succession.

I don't know what kinds of diversity shifts you would expect. I also don't know who is being warded away. I would guess that the biggest group pushed away is likely Christian due to PPR's more secular and atheist tendencies. Possibly also conservative as well, given that most people on the forum are social liberals. However, I don't think that hate-speech, or racism would be preventing these people from coming on, as Christian conservatives are probably more likely to have issues with this given the strong views many might have on homosexuality or the perversity of the Islamic religion. I really don't know the racial background of PPR members, despite my hunches, and I don't know how this compares to the racial background likely found on the rest of WP. I would guess there are less women, but I think that's likely to be expected regardless, given that women usually are less involved in arguing ideas due to personality differences that are either genetic or culturally created or some combination of the two. People who can't handle the "pressure" though, likely wouldn't be good on a large number of forums of a similar nature to PPR though.(and I am not trying to be insulting to those people either, but I think the culture is likely similar there to a lot of other debating sites.)

and because their opinions are not taken as seriously. it's part lack of inclination and part lack of encouragement.

there are (at least) two types of arguments:
debates, in which you are invested in constructing a sound argument semantically.
disagreements that need to be resolved, in which you are trying to arrive at the most reasonable solution.

(and then maybe there are verbal explosions that are aimed at the groin, whose purpose is only to vent - irrelevant here .. )

the PPR club here is arguing semantics (which is what you do in PPR), while some of us are trying to present the problem of intimidation of users who object to posts they find offensive or inappropriate and solve it.

it matters far less who has behaved more appropriately to the nuanced and unwritten rules of PPR than it does this: people are being dismissed for objecting to objectionable things. this is the problem.

what is the solution?

I think there's an unspoken subtext about the particular thread in question (about killing Muslims) that no one has talked about (as far as I know -- I haven't read all the posts in this thread). Ordinarily, to combat hate speech I feel the appropriate remedy is to counteract it with more speech. But in the thread in question there was an undercurrent of agreement with the hatefulness of the thread, and I believe this is because in the US there's a general feeling of distrust and dislike of Muslims, even among those who object to hate speech or unwarranted prejudice against other groups. (In the thread, many of the replies agreed with the the OP rather than calling him out.)

I think this is the crossfire that Hyperlexian was actually caught in, and not a misunderstanding of the rules that apply in PPR.

I don't think that this factor makes dismissing her concerns any less of an issue, in my view it makes it more of an issue.

The solution, it seems to me, would be to allow objections to threads just as openly as opinions are allowed to be expressed in threads. That is, to the extent that neither should violate the existing rules -- the written rules, not the nebulous unspoken ones.

How is someone being "dismissed"? Has that person been exiled from PPR? Flamed? Ostracized? Disagreeing with their judgment call is none of those things.

YES. my concerns were dismissed, and i was flamed and ostracized in the moderator thread