PPR Rules 2.0: Hate Speech & Offensive Content

Post Reply New Topic

That is the basis of Canadian law protecting free speech. I am glad you agree with it.

"Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.. and we will do nothing to protect them" seems to be the typical American concept.

The responses do not have a deterrent effect because the responders fail to outwit those they seek to deter.

She's missing my point, I don't want people who hold "offensive" opinions to feel deterred from posting here; I was instead pointing out that the reaction of the forum in general to a controversial topic is to debate it on the merits without any externally imposed judgment concerning opinions. She's built her entire argument upon the premise that the atmosphere in PPR is hostile to certain minorities because we're allowed to debate conventionally taboo subjects without any onus to condemn them; where I'm pointing out that people most likely to find PPR hostile are the ones putting forward the opinions she objects to. I said it before but it deserves to be repeated; I can't recall seeing a member being seriously attacked here due to their race or sex but have seen many, many attacks against people due to their beliefs and opinions, more so if they fall outside the boundaries of mainstream thought.

The current system usually works just fine with the minimal limitations and very limited moderation just not how a relative minority of people think it should. Seeing as that forum opinion and even what I'm hearing from some of the mods seems to support the narrower interpretations of "hate speech" and other prohibited behaviors within PPR, I think I can safely say that's how the final version is going to lean.

So basically the lunatics get to run the asylum.

If personal attacks are made we will indeed step in. Please bear in mind that only a small fraction of threads are read by moderators, so we rely heavily on people reporting personal attacks. One unfortunate tendency I've noticed, particularly in PPR is for posters not to report personal attacks to mods but instead to make personal attacks back themselves. This leads to an escalation and by the time posts are brought to the attention of mods tempers are running high and people cry foul at being warned by a mod.

It almost becomes like a school playground with the kids complaining that someone else started it and someone else said this or implied that. It is much better if personal attacks are nipped in the bud and the aggressor is told that their comments are unacceptable. Mods aren't going to read weeks or months worth of threads to find out the history of who started what and who said what to who. We will act directly on posts brought to our attention that are in clear violation of the WP rules.

Of course people have to tell the mods. The whole point of this thread seems to be that people shouldn't tell the mods.

There is no point telling people that their comments are unacceptable. They know that. That is why they made them.

Depending on the severity of the unacceptable comments and if they have been previously warned, then sanctions may be taken against the poster. It is rare for someone to simply be banned outright for making unacceptable comments without first being warned. Sometimes people just don't read the WP rules or even care that there are rules. A warning from a mod is often all that is needed to make people realise that any further rule breaking will have consequences.

Well, I'd tag this one one as hate speech.

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt140356.html

I have been a victim of bullying, however the words I can take, and dish back to bullies who wish to play the insult game. It's the physical roughhousing that I didn't like, but after the age of 16 I've been stronger than most adults and so that ended people seeking to physically abuse me, even my stepdad. You seem to make a lot of blind assumptions about people for someone who is arguing that racists ought to be silenced. If you were born in Alabama in the 1960's I think you'd make an exceptional racist.



Partially I agree with you, however I would still say that more freedom of speech is better than less.



If you're referring to Hanotaux I think most of his begrudging of such things comes from resentment to the indoctrination methods used by the public school systems in Texas. For some reason the Department of Education thinks that having a Stalin-esque program of programming is going to fare well with Texans... they're wrong.



You'd probably be giving this argument in some form or another, depending upon your personal history and what you view as right. You view the laws of your country as being just and fair, and as such you advocate them. I view the first amendment as an inalienable right and I'm arguing with an alien that this right ought not to be alienated, just as you are arguing with an alien that my rights and the rights of other ought to be alienated on the basis of your domestic laws and opinions.

You seem to be proving Hyperlexian's point that you don't understand much about verbal bullying.

Was that a personal attack?



WP is WP and not the USA, UK, Canada or anywhere else. It is free to have whatever rules it chooses.

That is blatant racism and is most definitely against the site rules. Such posts will not be permitted.

Was it a personal attack to say that a person who is quick to judge would make an exceptional racist? No. People who are quick to judge others are predisposed to such maladies of thought as racism. In hyperlexian's culture "racism" and "homophobia" and other such things have been culturally taboo for long enough there that she'd inherit the hatred of them by osmosis. However, if hyperlexian were to grow up in an environment of racism where such were not taboo I think, on the basis of her displayed disposition to be quick to judge, that she'd be touting off all the same rhetoric against this group or that group of people on the basis of skin color or national origin or whatever. Predisposition to rapid judgment is also predisposition to such thought crimes as racism.

As for your claim that I don't understand verbal bullying, you're blatantly wrong. I understand it fine. I also understand that those who perform verbal abuse are often more fragile than appearances let on, and as such they can dish more verbal venom than they can take. They only tolerate verbal abuse when it comes out of their own mouths and cannot stand to receive it back. Verbal abusers tend to be extremely fragile people, constantly on the verge of going postal for any minor offense done against them. I have been a victim of verbal abuse for all of my childhood, whether it was from pastor's kids or kids in my neighborhood. After my birthfather died of lung cancer, my stepdad arrived on the scene a few months later and I was a victim of both verbal and physical abuse until the age of 16 when I could fight back and overcome my stepdad physically, however after that I was still a victim of verbal abuse until I was able to move out just a couple years ago.

so, you're trying to argue that i am just a product of my environment? i grew up in a racist environment, and i did not even make the opportunity to speak to an african-canadian person until i was 10 years old. assuming anything at all about me will not take the argument anywhere.

i really don't get your point here, except that you don't seem to think i am capable of independent thought, simply because my opinions differ from yours. clearly your perspective is flawed.


as an example this individual (there are several others) could speak of his own frustration with the educational sytem, if that were truly the source of his racist comments, but he does not. he instead focuses his comments on innocent people of certain racial groups.

it makes about as much sense as me insulting all british people because i did not like that canada is a member of the commonwealth. it makes no sense, and serves no purpose in debate.


so what you're saying is that i do the right thing because you think i was brought up that way in canada. well then... good for me?

we are talking about WP, not our respective governments anyway. the only mention of any governments was when a couple of different people, including myself, introduced the wording of their own government's 'hate speech" definitions.

i'm not advocating anything about canada's laws - it's about the canadian definition of hate speech.

if i were quick to judge, my judgement would not be about whether or not you had ever been verbally abused.

i was stating that people who have been bullied verbally understand the impact of words, which is true. at the time that you were abused, the words had the potential to hurt you, or else the words would not have met the criteria for bullying. just because you overcame the bullying does not mean that others should not be protected.

restated in a way that makes no assumptions about you personally: words have impact, and victims of bullying could not by definition be called victims unless the words impacted them.

At the time the words did have impact upon me, intensely so. But I matured and realized what a load of hot air such verbal bullying is, which perhaps is due to nearly 90% of my life being filled with verbal abuse and threats directed specifically at me. But let's pass laws to protect those people who are still picked upon so that they'll never know what actual verbal abuse is but instead attach the meaning of "abuse" to any offense or slight against them whatsoever: Summary execution for all bullies. I certainly wouldn't have minded having my stepdad executed during the first three years of Hell.

i do get your point, and i disagree. offensive comments can sometimes be composed of hate speech, but not always. and controversial or offensive topics are not even at issue; it s hate speech we are discussing. let me illustrate the difference, in one example that shows my idea:

controversial: "several catholic priests have been accused of sexual abuse, and the pope seems to be covering it up"
offensive: "the institution of chaste preisthood within catholicism has generated a lot of p*dophiles"
hate speech: catholic people are all p*dos and should be segregated from intelligent people

my point is that people who post hate speech comments should, indeed, be deterred from doing so. hate speech is not simply composed of controversial statements.

the 'majority rules' approach reinforces a couple of problems. first of all, the majority is not necessarily always right. second of all, it is the voices of the minority we are seeking to empower. since it is those who are numerically in the minority on WP who are the targets of hate speech on here, it is important to listen to what they have to say. for instance, how many muslims feel comfortable posting here, as opposed to the number of anti-muslim posters? the muslim people have as much right to post in PPR, but some are deterred by the hate speech.

it is interesting that you now support at least a narrow definition of hate speech. you must have changed your mind, because previously you had not supported any moderation in PPR regarding hate speech at all. i'm glad there has been some shifting.