Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

PPR Rules 2.0: Hate Speech & Offensive Content

Page 3 of 10 [ 153 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 10  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

06 Oct 2010, 8:54 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
If you make a law vague enough, then it can be used as a political weapon for silencing one's opposition.

And at the same, if you don't, then you disallow situation-based discretion.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

06 Oct 2010, 8:58 pm

Hanotaux wrote:
Quote:
You can't argue that "one time" where I said something off-color


Its been way more than one time dude. Besides perhaps myself or JB, you are the last person who should be lecturing us on what the 'boundaries' are.

Quote:
Also, racists are not a gender


Actually, its pretty much always made quite clear around here that the discussion is about specifically white racists. If the discussion is specifically about the Klan, for example, that I think that your arbitrary rules for ethnicity would apply.

Besides, there is definitely a double standard anyway for the amount of reaction given respectively to white racism as opposed to black or mexican racism...........

Hanotaux, my basic point is that you aren't really involving a real issue. My general comments would be acceptable under the rules I proposed in most, if not all, cases. It may be questioned whether the lines I draw are fundamental enough, but that's not your point.

Even further, even if my comments didn't, this wouldn't actually invalidate the rules I proposed as food for thought. Your entire tangent is irrelevant. At *best* it is an ad hominem.

As for your last comment, why don't you point out some non-white racists on WP for me? If you point out some inconsistency in actual behavior on this web forum, then I might see your point. If this is a comment about "society" though, then I am less concerned.



Last edited by Awesomelyglorious on 06 Oct 2010, 9:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

06 Oct 2010, 9:00 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
Does every single member have a veto over posts that they consider, "offensive?"


All it takes is one member who gets offended enough and knows how to manipulate people in charge, at least that is how people lose jobs often enough.

I am not sure that this is ever avoidable, even if precautions are taken. Systems can't really be a LOT better than the people within them. The point of rules is simply for situations more extreme than could be tolerated otherwise, even by informal efforts.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

06 Oct 2010, 9:44 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
If you make a law vague enough, then it can be used as a political weapon for silencing one's opposition.

And at the same, if you don't, then you disallow situation-based discretion.


For situation based discretion, there ought to be general principles and not rigid laws. A general principle and vague laws allowing for ease of equivocation and misapplication with regard to original intent are not the same. In situations where people are getting their feathers ruffled by over-generalizations, there ought to be a recognition of the intent of the person making the over-generalization. Some have malice, others don't. Some just want to talk or vent in general terms, others want to incite to action against the other. Discretion for each individual case is necessary, and there ought to be general principles to help with this but not to the point where it feels like the punishment is death for all who might be called "trespassers".



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

06 Oct 2010, 9:48 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
If you make a law vague enough, then it can be used as a political weapon for silencing one's opposition.

And at the same, if you don't, then you disallow situation-based discretion.


For situation based discretion, there ought to be general principles and not rigid laws. A general principle and vague laws allowing for ease of equivocation and misapplication with regard to original intent are not the same. In situations where people are getting their feathers ruffled by over-generalizations, there ought to be a recognition of the intent of the person making the over-generalization. Some have malice, others don't. Some just want to talk or vent in general terms, others want to incite to action against the other. Discretion for each individual case is necessary, and there ought to be general principles to help with this but not to the point where it feels like the punishment is death for all who might be called "trespassers".

Eh, no matter what way we go, there is the potential for bad outcomes.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

06 Oct 2010, 9:48 pm

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
why don't you point out some non-white racists for me?


Would you like a list of over 50% of my former coworkers and many of the people in my neighborhood? Or do you mean here on WP?



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

06 Oct 2010, 9:52 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Awesomelyglorious wrote:
why don't you point out some non-white racists for me?


Would you like a list of over 50% of my former coworkers and many of the people in my neighborhood? Or do you mean here on WP?

I mean on WP. Hanotaux is talking about how only white racists are being punished. So, I am concerned about inconsistency. I don't think he has a strong case here either. Your misunderstanding is partially my fault, as I had thought I was contextually clear, but my comment about "society" didn't mesh as well as I thought.



Hanotaux
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 9 Aug 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 355

06 Oct 2010, 10:57 pm

AG wrote:

Quote:
As for your last comment, why don't you point out some non-white racists on WP for me? If you point out some inconsistency in actual behavior on this web forum, then I might see your point


Duh.......... white people who are racist against other whites. Alot of posters don't reveal their race anyway so who knows? Mutate? I guess.... As far as recognizeable forum posters go, BigK is the only one who I'm pretty sure is non-white. I'd say white on white racism would definitely count here

Quote:
My general comments would be acceptable under the rules I proposed in most, if not all, cases.


I wasn't arguing your right to post 'offensive' content. I just thought you were a fine one to talk and get on and spout off your own pompous guidelines for what crosses the line and what doesn't?

Marshall Wrote:
Quote:
It's about keeping the peace. I think there are times for breaking the "PC" protocol, but you have to be prepared for consequences.


By which is meant keeping people from reacting strongly against "change." PC is a social/psychological ploy designed to geld white people and have them accept their own wiping out.

JB:
Quote:
all issues are fair game and no one or no group can be above scrutiny by hiding behind political correctness.


I quite agree.

Quote:
It would also seem that you're making this approximation by using FOX news accounting styles. The loud populus is not equivalent to the majority.


I'd hardly say conservatives have exclusive rights to being the 'loud populous' around these parts. That is not a conservative preserve...... in fact, most of the time, the exact opposite is true..



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

06 Oct 2010, 11:07 pm

Hanotaux wrote:
AG wrote:
Quote:
As for your last comment, why don't you point out some non-white racists on WP for me? If you point out some inconsistency in actual behavior on this web forum, then I might see your point


Duh.......... white people who are racist against other whites.

Care to name a few? And no, disagreeing with your racist stances does not make me (or anyone else) a self-hating white.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


Hanotaux
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 9 Aug 2010
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 355

06 Oct 2010, 11:13 pm

Quote:
Care to name a few? And no, disagreeing with your racist stances does not make me (or anyone else) a self-hating white.


Lol, i never said that ^.

I won't call people out, but I'm talking more about how it is accepted in a general sense.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

06 Oct 2010, 11:47 pm

Hanotaux wrote:
Marshall Wrote:
Quote:
It's about keeping the peace. I think there are times for breaking the "PC" protocol, but you have to be prepared for consequences.


By which is meant keeping people from reacting strongly against "change." PC is a social/psychological ploy designed to geld white people and have them accept their own wiping out.


Can you explain this? I'm genuinely curious.



John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

06 Oct 2010, 11:58 pm

marshall wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
It is a private site, but we are discussing what the rules should be, and I am advocating setting a set of rules similar to if we were in a public park or a street corner so that all issues are fair game and no one or no group can be above scrutiny by hiding behind political correctness.

I agree with you, but I'd also expect possible anger and violent emotional reactions from a lot of people. I don't think you can expect a civil discussion when you attack and denigrate people based on race, gender, sexual-oreintation, etc. People are going to get hurt and angry. They might even express hatred towards you for stating such opinions.

There is a reason why "PC" exists. Contrary to what right-wingers think, it's not about enforcing conformity of opinion. It's about keeping the peace. I think there are times for breaking the "PC" protocol, but you have to be prepared for consequences.

Hating someone for what they have to say is fair game under freedom of speech. However, one is bound by the same rules as the speaker one finds offensive- no making threats of violence and no inciting others to commit violence.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


BigK
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 400

07 Oct 2010, 2:08 am

John_Browning wrote:
marshall wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
It is a private site, but we are discussing what the rules should be, and I am advocating setting a set of rules similar to if we were in a public park or a street corner so that all issues are fair game and no one or no group can be above scrutiny by hiding behind political correctness.

I agree with you, but I'd also expect possible anger and violent emotional reactions from a lot of people. I don't think you can expect a civil discussion when you attack and denigrate people based on race, gender, sexual-oreintation, etc. People are going to get hurt and angry. They might even express hatred towards you for stating such opinions.

There is a reason why "PC" exists. Contrary to what right-wingers think, it's not about enforcing conformity of opinion. It's about keeping the peace. I think there are times for breaking the "PC" protocol, but you have to be prepared for consequences.

Hating someone for what they have to say is fair game under freedom of speech. However, one is bound by the same rules as the speaker one finds offensive- no making threats of violence and no inciting others to commit violence.


I would add "Implying that violence against a certain ethnic, religious etc group is good".

PC is also about creating an environment where the widest number of people (ideally everyone) would feel comfortable.

Debate will be stifled if people with different backgrounds and views do not feel comfortable coming in here.


_________________
"It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out of your door," he used to say. "You step into the Road, and if you don't keep your feet, there is no knowing where you might be swept off to.

"How can it not know what it is?"


AngelRho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,366
Location: The Landmass between N.O. and Mobile

07 Oct 2010, 2:14 am

BigK wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
marshall wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
It is a private site, but we are discussing what the rules should be, and I am advocating setting a set of rules similar to if we were in a public park or a street corner so that all issues are fair game and no one or no group can be above scrutiny by hiding behind political correctness.

I agree with you, but I'd also expect possible anger and violent emotional reactions from a lot of people. I don't think you can expect a civil discussion when you attack and denigrate people based on race, gender, sexual-oreintation, etc. People are going to get hurt and angry. They might even express hatred towards you for stating such opinions.

There is a reason why "PC" exists. Contrary to what right-wingers think, it's not about enforcing conformity of opinion. It's about keeping the peace. I think there are times for breaking the "PC" protocol, but you have to be prepared for consequences.

Hating someone for what they have to say is fair game under freedom of speech. However, one is bound by the same rules as the speaker one finds offensive- no making threats of violence and no inciting others to commit violence.


I would add "Implying that violence against a certain ethnic, religious etc group is good".


What about against a certain criminal group?



John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

07 Oct 2010, 3:31 am

AngelRho wrote:
BigK wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
marshall wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
It is a private site, but we are discussing what the rules should be, and I am advocating setting a set of rules similar to if we were in a public park or a street corner so that all issues are fair game and no one or no group can be above scrutiny by hiding behind political correctness.

I agree with you, but I'd also expect possible anger and violent emotional reactions from a lot of people. I don't think you can expect a civil discussion when you attack and denigrate people based on race, gender, sexual-oreintation, etc. People are going to get hurt and angry. They might even express hatred towards you for stating such opinions.

There is a reason why "PC" exists. Contrary to what right-wingers think, it's not about enforcing conformity of opinion. It's about keeping the peace. I think there are times for breaking the "PC" protocol, but you have to be prepared for consequences.

Hating someone for what they have to say is fair game under freedom of speech. However, one is bound by the same rules as the speaker one finds offensive- no making threats of violence and no inciting others to commit violence.


I would add "Implying that violence against a certain ethnic, religious etc group is good".


What about against a certain criminal group?

1) Accusing someone of implying violence against a group is a slippery slope because some people like to put words in other people's mouths and then make a straw-man argument against it.

2) What "certain criminal group" do you have in mind?


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


BigK
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 13 Jan 2008
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 400

07 Oct 2010, 4:59 am

John_Browning wrote:
AngelRho wrote:
BigK wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
marshall wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
It is a private site, but we are discussing what the rules should be, and I am advocating setting a set of rules similar to if we were in a public park or a street corner so that all issues are fair game and no one or no group can be above scrutiny by hiding behind political correctness.

I agree with you, but I'd also expect possible anger and violent emotional reactions from a lot of people. I don't think you can expect a civil discussion when you attack and denigrate people based on race, gender, sexual-oreintation, etc. People are going to get hurt and angry. They might even express hatred towards you for stating such opinions.

There is a reason why "PC" exists. Contrary to what right-wingers think, it's not about enforcing conformity of opinion. It's about keeping the peace. I think there are times for breaking the "PC" protocol, but you have to be prepared for consequences.

Hating someone for what they have to say is fair game under freedom of speech. However, one is bound by the same rules as the speaker one finds offensive- no making threats of violence and no inciting others to commit violence.


I would add "Implying that violence against a certain ethnic, religious etc group is good".


What about against a certain criminal group?

1) Accusing someone of implying violence against a group is a slippery slope because some people like to put words in other people's mouths and then make a straw-man argument against it.


Whatever rules you come up with you will have to rely on a moderator to enforce them.

Counting only threats or incitement is pretty much a waste of time as that is so easy to get around. You may as well have no rules at all.

AngelRho wrote:
What about against a certain criminal group?


Like who terrorists?
If you say "kill all terrorists" you might not get much reaction. Though how careful would you be to ensure that all your victims are really terrorists?
If you were to say "kill all Irish" then I think most people would take that to be out of order.
How about kill all Sinn Fein?
Or kill everyone who voted Sinn Fein?
That is less likely since the ceasefire but I guess you get my point.

Can you say all thieves should have a hand cut off?

Usually people are talking about racial, religious, sexist, homophobic discrimination. Attacking people because of who they are not what they have done.

IMO all this discussion is only about guidelines. It doesn't remove anyone's right to complain to the mods or for the mods to take action.

For all your guidelines any disciplinary action will be a judgment call by a mod.


_________________
"It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out of your door," he used to say. "You step into the Road, and if you don't keep your feet, there is no knowing where you might be swept off to.

"How can it not know what it is?"