[Report] Troll in Hate Speech thread?

[Esternial]

Some people talk about hate speech laws to protect those engaging in sodomy. What happened in Uganda wasn't that bad, it only dealt with those who openly engaged in sodomy and he didn't attack people who realize the wickedness there homo sexual behavior it. makes at least a little bit of sense that they would want to protect different race racial minorities because you can tell somebody is a racial minority. a homosexual is somebody who engages in bad homo homosexual behavior and we must do whatever we can to protect children to protect our people to protect our country from AIDS and other viruses cause by homosexuality and we have an obligation to ensure that no laws passed protecting this behavior from punishment, scrutiny or criticism. Those who practice homosexuality are hurting themselves and others.

Seems like it.

EDIT: Emphasis added. Fairly seriously insulting to the homosexual population of Nationstates.

[Syrixia]

I wouldn't call it trolling; just a conservative lacking evidence.

[American Imperial State]

Not everyone who calls homosexuality bad or says that we need to protect our children and our country from their behavior, bad morals and some of the diseases that are rampant in the homosexual community is a troll.

Criticizing homosexuality from a conservative point of view is not trolling. There are legitimate criticisms of homosexuality out there, especially amongst Christian folks. You shouldn't try to shut down those opinions just because they bother you. I guess you spend a lot of time avoiding religious people. These ideas are not uncommon and probably habitate a good 30% of the population of the U.S.A.

Not just that, i don't believe they break any rules. I didn't say all homosexuals are Y. My intent was not to receive a visceral reaction, but to make a statement that i believe that homosexual behaviour is bad for our society and we shouldn't pass hate speech laws to prosecute people who criticize it. Sexuality is a behavior, race is a trait you cant change.

[American Imperial State]

Some people talk about hate speech laws to protect those engaging in sodomy. What happened in Uganda wasn't that bad, it only dealt with those who openly engaged in sodomy and he didn't attack people who realize the wickedness there homo sexual behavior it. makes at least a little bit of sense that they would want to protect different race racial minorities because you can tell somebody is a racial minority. a homosexual is somebody who engages in bad homo homosexual behavior and we must do whatever we can to protect children to protect our people to protect our country from AIDS and other viruses cause by homosexuality and we have an obligation to ensure that no laws passed protecting this behavior from punishment, scrutiny or criticism. Those who practice homosexuality are hurting themselves and others.

Seems like it.

EDIT: Emphasis added. Fairly seriously insulting to the homosexual population of Nationstates.

If facts insult homosexuals, then there is nothing i can do about that. the facts are that homosexuals are more likely to be infected with AIDs/HIV than heterosexuals. Even Government websites back this up.

https://www.aids.gov/hiv-aids-basics/hiv-aids-101/statistics/

Although MSM represent about 4% of the male population in the United States, in 2010, MSM accounted for 78% of new HIV infections among males and 63% of all new infections. MSM accounted for 54% of all people living with HIV infection in 2011, the most recent year these data are available.

MSM = Men who have Sex with Men. I concede that saying they 'caused it' is a poor choice of words. homosexuals probably did not invent AIDs or HIV, but statistically speaking, they do spread it.



I'm not attacking the homosexuals themselves, merely the behaviour of some of them.

It's pretty sad when you consider facts from a reputable government source as 'trolling', i think that's just a way to shut down opposing points of view, because facts don't agree with the arguments of some homosexuals/supporters of homosexuality.

[Esternial]

*snip*

This isn't a debate thread. Please refrain from starting a debate in Moderation. Whether or not "AIDS and other viruses are caused by homosexuality" = "homosexuals are more likely to be infected with AIDS" is up for the Mods to decide.

[American Imperial State]

*snip*

This isn't a debate thread. Please refrain from starting a debate in Moderation.

I'm not starting a debate. You criticized me for saying that homosexual behaviour helps spread diseases like AIDs/HIV. I'm responding that it is a legitimate criticism backed by facts provided by neutral government sources. Read: Not trolling.

and homosexuality does cause the spread of such diseases, though i concede once more that they did not 'originate' them, i do recall that AIDs was brought to the United States and spread by homosexual men. I also note from the above provided facts, that homosexuals do indeed cause the spread of AIDs/HIV in the United States disproportionately to their population size. The numbers are damning in that regard.

[Farnhamia]

This isn't a debate thread. Please refrain from starting a debate in Moderation.

I'm not starting a debate. You criticized me for saying that homosexual behaviour helps spread diseases like AIDs/HIV. I'm responding that it is a legitimate criticism backed by facts provided by neutral government sources. Read: Not trolling.

and homosexuality does cause the spread of such diseases, though i concede once more that they did not 'originate' them, i do recall that AIDs was brought to the United States and spread by homosexual men. I also note from the above provided facts, that homosexuals do indeed cause the spread of AIDs/HIV in the United States disproportionately to their population size. The numbers are damning in that regard.

I'm warning you for trolling and here's why. Had you posted only the numbers and a neutrally worded explanation in the actual thread, I might have let it go. You didn't do that, though.

Some people talk about hate speech laws to protect those engaging in sodomy. What happened in Uganda wasn't that bad, it only dealt with those who openly engaged in sodomy and he didn't attack people who realize the wickedness there homo sexual behavior it. makes at least a little bit of sense that they would want to protect different race racial minorities because you can tell somebody is a racial minority. a homosexual is somebody who engages in bad homo homosexual behavior and we must do whatever we can to protect children to protect our people to protect our country from AIDS and other viruses cause by homosexuality and we have an obligation to ensure that no laws passed protecting this behavior from punishment, scrutiny or criticism. Those who practice homosexuality are hurting themselves and others.

What you did was post slander and lies about homosexuals, that they deserve punishment (as in Uganda), that they are wicked, that homosexuals caused the HIV virus, and by implication that homosexuals do not deserve the protection of their civil rights. You're entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to express that opinion in a manner that evokes angry responses from others here.

[American Imperial State]

I'm not starting a debate. You criticized me for saying that homosexual behaviour helps spread diseases like AIDs/HIV. I'm responding that it is a legitimate criticism backed by facts provided by neutral government sources. Read: Not trolling.

and homosexuality does cause the spread of such diseases, though i concede once more that they did not 'originate' them, i do recall that AIDs was brought to the United States and spread by homosexual men. I also note from the above provided facts, that homosexuals do indeed cause the spread of AIDs/HIV in the United States disproportionately to their population size. The numbers are damning in that regard.

I'm warning you for trolling and here's why. Had you posted only the numbers and a neutrally worded explanation in the actual thread, I might have let it go. You didn't do that, though.

Some people talk about hate speech laws to protect those engaging in sodomy. What happened in Uganda wasn't that bad, it only dealt with those who openly engaged in sodomy and he didn't attack people who realize the wickedness there homo sexual behavior it. makes at least a little bit of sense that they would want to protect different race racial minorities because you can tell somebody is a racial minority. a homosexual is somebody who engages in bad homo homosexual behavior and we must do whatever we can to protect children to protect our people to protect our country from AIDS and other viruses cause by homosexuality and we have an obligation to ensure that no laws passed protecting this behavior from punishment, scrutiny or criticism. Those who practice homosexuality are hurting themselves and others.

What you did was post slander and lies about homosexuals, that they deserve punishment (as in Uganda), that they are wicked, that homosexuals caused the HIV virus, and by implication that homosexuals do not deserve the protection of their civil rights. You're entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to express that opinion in a manner that evokes angry responses from others here.

What you did was post slander and lies about homosexuals, that they deserve punishment (as in Uganda), that they are wicked

,

I pretty much said I disagreed with the death penalty thing. I was just defending the right to criticize homosexuality. As for that section of your statement, thats pretty much the church doctrine of two major western and one major eastern religions(Christianity, Catholicism and Islam).
Can those three religious groups that perhaps make up a large portion of the nationstates population not oppose things they find wicked and immoral religiously?

Code: Select all

that homosexuals caused the HIV virus, and by implication that homosexuals do not deserve the protection of their civil rights.

That's just twisting words now. I plainly corrected myself later saying that I did not believe homosexuality caused HIV/AIDS, only spread it. Yes, I could have said that plainly with just numbers, but I did not feel it was necessary because the AIDS/HIV virus epidemic in the gay community is common knowledge. What you're suggesting I do is more people with numbers and graphs to avoid coming to any logical conclusion or opinions based on those facts. I didn't go so much into detail there because that was not the subject at hand.

I never said homosexuals couldn't have basic civil rights. I mean, even car jackers and bank robbers have civil rights. And I honestly had no idea about the death penalty thing until someone said that's what happened, I just assumed he was pro marriage.

Speaking of marriage, I don't see it as a "civil right". Myself, millions of Americans and many nationstates users no doubt, see it as a compact between a man, a woman and God and I separate that from the government definition.

I disagree with homosexuals behavior but I'm not calling for judicial punishment, just moral and social condemnation and criticism.

You are not entitled to express that opinion in a manner that evokes angry responses from others here

How was I supposed to know that was going to be the response? It's not like I tread any new ground in my statements. I don't believe I am entitled to jack shit here, but I want to use the tools the moderators have left me to see if there is any glimmer of hope for even handedness on this matter. I understand this place has a lot of LGBT people, but why sit here with a pretense to impartiality while declaring my opinions "slander and lies"? You're entitled to your opinion but It's nothing to do with the facts and a whole lot to do with wanting to protect the feelings of LGBT people here. I made quite the effort to qualify my opinion, trolls say things just to piss people off without bothering to qualify it and though my opinion is controversial, it was not designed to anger, merely provide my point of view. it's not that my opposing homosexual behavior in an emotional way is "trolling", it's that the LGBT community here needs to move away from the victimhood complex and grow a pair of balls instead of just crying "Troll!" everytime someone criticizes their behavior. It must be pretty nice coming to a political forum and knowing that if anyone supports traditional sexual relations or criticizes your lifestyle that the mods will shoot him/her down in a flaming wreck of political correctness.

Why ban this opinion? Just because others find it offensive? Because that's pretty much what you said.

[Farnhamia]

I'm warning you for trolling and here's why. Had you posted only the numbers and a neutrally worded explanation in the actual thread, I might have let it go. You didn't do that, though.

What you did was post slander and lies about homosexuals, that they deserve punishment (as in Uganda), that they are wicked, that homosexuals caused the HIV virus, and by implication that homosexuals do not deserve the protection of their civil rights. You're entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to express that opinion in a manner that evokes angry responses from others here.

What you did was post slander and lies about homosexuals, that they deserve punishment (as in Uganda), that they are wicked

,

I pretty much said I disagreed with the death penalty thing. I was just defending the right to criticize homosexuality. As for that section of your statement, thats pretty much the church doctrine of two major western and one major eastern religions(Christianity, Catholicism and Islam).
Can those three religious groups that perhaps make up a large portion of the nationstates population not oppose things they find wicked and immoral religiously?

Code: Select all

that homosexuals caused the HIV virus, and by implication that homosexuals do not deserve the protection of their civil rights.

That's just twisting words now. I plainly corrected myself later saying that I did not believe homosexuality caused HIV/AIDS, only spread it. Yes, I could have said that plainly with just numbers, but I did not feel it was necessary because the AIDS/HIV virus epidemic in the gay community is common knowledge. What you're suggesting I do is more people with numbers and graphs to avoid coming to any logical conclusion or opinions based on those facts. I didn't go so much into detail there because that was not the subject at hand.

I never said homosexuals couldn't have basic civil rights. I mean, even car jackers and bank robbers have civil rights. And I honestly had no idea about the death penalty thing until someone said that's what happened, I just assumed he was pro marriage.

Speaking of marriage, I don't see it as a "civil right". Myself, millions of Americans and many nationstates users no doubt, see it as a compact between a man, a woman and God and I separate that from the government definition.

I disagree with homosexuals behavior but I'm not calling for judicial punishment, just moral and social condemnation and criticism.

You are not entitled to express that opinion in a manner that evokes angry responses from others here

How was I supposed to know that was going to be the response? It's not like I tread any new ground in my statements. I don't believe I am entitled to jack shit here, but I want to use the tools the moderators have left me to see if there is any glimmer of hope for even handedness on this matter. I understand this place has a lot of LGBT people, but why sit here with a pretense to impartiality while declaring my opinions "slander and lies"? You're entitled to your opinion but It's nothing to do with the facts and a whole lot to do with wanting to protect the feelings of LGBT people here. I made quite the effort to qualify my opinion, trolls say things just to piss people off without bothering to qualify it and though my opinion is controversial, it was not designed to anger, merely provide my point of view. it's not that my opposing homosexual behavior in an emotional way is "trolling", it's that the LGBT community here needs to move away from the victimhood complex and grow a pair of balls instead of just crying "Troll!" everytime someone criticizes their behavior. It must be pretty nice coming to a political forum and knowing that if anyone supports traditional sexual relations or criticizes your lifestyle that the mods will shoot him/her down in a flaming wreck of political correctness.

Why ban this opinion? Just because others find it offensive? Because that's pretty much what you said.

We're not warning you for your opinion. The warning is for the way you expressed it. Are you asking for a second opinion?

[American Imperial State]

,

I pretty much said I disagreed with the death penalty thing. I was just defending the right to criticize homosexuality. As for that section of your statement, thats pretty much the church doctrine of two major western and one major eastern religions(Christianity, Catholicism and Islam).
Can those three religious groups that perhaps make up a large portion of the nationstates population not oppose things they find wicked and immoral religiously?

Code: Select all

that homosexuals caused the HIV virus, and by implication that homosexuals do not deserve the protection of their civil rights.

That's just twisting words now. I plainly corrected myself later saying that I did not believe homosexuality caused HIV/AIDS, only spread it. Yes, I could have said that plainly with just numbers, but I did not feel it was necessary because the AIDS/HIV virus epidemic in the gay community is common knowledge. What you're suggesting I do is more people with numbers and graphs to avoid coming to any logical conclusion or opinions based on those facts. I didn't go so much into detail there because that was not the subject at hand.

I never said homosexuals couldn't have basic civil rights. I mean, even car jackers and bank robbers have civil rights. And I honestly had no idea about the death penalty thing until someone said that's what happened, I just assumed he was pro marriage.

Speaking of marriage, I don't see it as a "civil right". Myself, millions of Americans and many nationstates users no doubt, see it as a compact between a man, a woman and God and I separate that from the government definition.

I disagree with homosexuals behavior but I'm not calling for judicial punishment, just moral and social condemnation and criticism.


How was I supposed to know that was going to be the response? It's not like I tread any new ground in my statements. I don't believe I am entitled to jack shit here, but I want to use the tools the moderators have left me to see if there is any glimmer of hope for even handedness on this matter. I understand this place has a lot of LGBT people, but why sit here with a pretense to impartiality while declaring my opinions "slander and lies"? You're entitled to your opinion but It's nothing to do with the facts and a whole lot to do with wanting to protect the feelings of LGBT people here. I made quite the effort to qualify my opinion, trolls say things just to piss people off without bothering to qualify it and though my opinion is controversial, it was not designed to anger, merely provide my point of view. it's not that my opposing homosexual behavior in an emotional way is "trolling", it's that the LGBT community here needs to move away from the victimhood complex and grow a pair of balls instead of just crying "Troll!" everytime someone criticizes their behavior. It must be pretty nice coming to a political forum and knowing that if anyone supports traditional sexual relations or criticizes your lifestyle that the mods will shoot him/her down in a flaming wreck of political correctness.

Why ban this opinion? Just because others find it offensive? Because that's pretty much what you said.

We're not warning you for your opinion. The warning is for the way you expressed it. Are you asking for a second opinion?

Yes, please.

[Farnhamia]

Second opinion flag raised. Please be patient.

[The Archregimancy]

The second opinion:

Individually, there are elements in the reported post where a downgrading to an informal warning for the first offence upon further clarification might have been warranted; this would then have been accompanied by an admonition 'you should be much more careful about phrasing, please'.

However, following discussion within the Moderation team, we believe that the totality of the post crosses a line.

We would perhaps be willing to write off the 'AIDS and other viruses cause by homosexuality' in isolation. It's a factually inaccurate statement - as subsequently noted by all parties - but it's possible to prove correlation here, even if it's a classic case of correlation not demonstrating causation (sexually speaking, HIV is spread by unprotected sexual intercourse, not by homosexuality).

But the approval of the treatment of homosexuality in Uganda - a topic that no one had previously brought up in that thread - tips the totality of the post into actionable territory. The core of the issue is decontextualised approval of 'What happened in Uganda wasn't that bad, it only dealt with those who openly engaged in sodomy and he didn't attack people who realize the wickedness there homo sexual behavior [sic]'; this is a country where people have been murdered after being outed as gay (note that the newspaper doing the outing openly called for the execution of the individuals concerned), and where between 2009 and 2014 homosexual sex carried the death penalty under a law widely known as the 'kill the gays bill' (see here and here); a bill that some in Uganda have been seeking to reintroduce.

Given that attacks on gay Ugandans can consist of a form of socially sanctioned murder that led the US State Department to impose sanctions on Uganda for the grotesque violation of basic human rights encouraged by the 2009 anti-homosexuality act, we very much doubt that anyone familiar with the situation in Uganda can read a statement that 'he didn't attack people who realize the wickedness there homo sexual behavior' as anything other than a statement of approval for violent attacks on LGBT individuals. Compared to that opening salvo, arguing over what American Imperial State meant about AIDS is, frankly, fiddling while Rome burns.

In sum, the moderation team backs Farnhamia's warning on the basis of the reference to Uganda, and the manner in which that reference was put across; we believe that this indicates clear intent for the totality of the post.

Summed up:

Appeal denied.