NATION

PASSWORD

[Discussion] Reviewing how NS deals with hate speech

Who needs it, who got it, who hands it out and why.

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Charlia
Post Czar
 
Posts: 45715
Founded: Apr 25, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Charlia » Sun Jul 02, 2017 12:50 pm

Esternial wrote:
Zaporizhian Sich wrote:The First Amendment applies in the constitution here.

No, it doesn't.

First off, this isn't even American soil.
Mhm. To clarify further, this is a website made by an Australian. (If I'm remembering correctly. I'm pretty sure I am.) It wasn't made by an American. It isn't owned by an American. Nor is it run by an American. Therefore, the First Amendment really doesn't apply at all.


From the FAQ:


It's free speech, so I can post whatever I like here, right?

Ahahahaha! Hahaha! Free speech! No, it's not. I run this web site, see, so you have to play by my rules. It's like my own Father Knows Best state.

User avatar
Gandoor
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10272
Founded: Sep 23, 2008
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Gandoor » Sun Jul 02, 2017 1:04 pm

Charlia wrote:
Esternial wrote:No, it doesn't.

First off, this isn't even American soil.
Mhm. To clarify further, this is a website made by an Australian. (If I'm remembering correctly. I'm pretty sure I am.) It wasn't made by an American. It isn't owned by an American. Nor is it run by an American. Therefore, the First Amendment really doesn't apply at all.

Also, even IF the above were true. the First Amendment means that the GOVERNMENT cannot censor you, a private establishment, such as this forum, can still censor you.
OOC - Call me Viola
IC Flag|Gandoor Wiki|Q&A|National Currency Database
Reminder that true left-wing politics are incompatible with imperialism, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, and dictatorship in all forms.
'For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.' - Matthew 12:50 (NRSVUE)
Flag is currently Suletta Mercury and Miorine Rembran from Mobile Suit Gundam: The Witch from Mercury
I'm a transfemme enby (but I don't mind or care if you refer to me as a woman).
She/They
28 years old
Autistic
Christian
OOC Info

User avatar
Salandriagado
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 22831
Founded: Apr 03, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Salandriagado » Sun Jul 02, 2017 2:23 pm

Esternial wrote:
Zaporizhian Sich wrote:The First Amendment applies in the constitution here.

No, it doesn't.

First off, this isn't even American soil.


Also, it's not an organ of the government, so isn't bound by the first amendment. Also, the first amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have your speech hosted by others.
Cosara wrote:
Anachronous Rex wrote:Good thing most a majority of people aren't so small-minded, and frightened of other's sexuality.

Over 40% (including me), are, so I fixed the post for accuracy.

Vilatania wrote:
Salandriagado wrote:
Notice that the link is to the notes from a university course on probability. You clearly have nothing beyond the most absurdly simplistic understanding of the subject.
By choosing 1, you no longer have 0 probability of choosing 1. End of subject.

(read up the quote stack)

Deal. £3000 do?[/quote]

Of course.[/quote]

User avatar
USS Monitor
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 30755
Founded: Jul 01, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby USS Monitor » Sun Jul 02, 2017 2:24 pm

Charlia wrote:
Esternial wrote:No, it doesn't.

First off, this isn't even American soil.
Mhm. To clarify further, this is a website made by an Australian. (If I'm remembering correctly. I'm pretty sure I am.) It wasn't made by an American. It isn't owned by an American. Nor is it run by an American. Therefore, the First Amendment really doesn't apply at all.


From the FAQ:


It's free speech, so I can post whatever I like here, right?

Ahahahaha! Hahaha! Free speech! No, it's not. I run this web site, see, so you have to play by my rules. It's like my own Father Knows Best state.


Yeah, Max is Australian, and it's a privately-owned website. 1st amendment doesn't guarantee the right to post on NS.
Don't take life so serious... it isn't permanent... RIP Dyakovo and Ashmoria
19th century steamships may be harmful or fatal if swallowed. In case of accidental ingestion, please seek immediate medical assistance.
༄༅། །འགྲོ་བ་མི་རིགས་ག་ར་དབང་ཆ་འདྲ་མཉམ་འབད་སྒྱེཝ་ལས་ག་ར་གིས་གཅིག་གིས་གཅིག་ལུ་སྤུན་ཆའི་དམ་ཚིག་བསྟན་དགོས།

User avatar
Yortium Allanstan
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 103
Founded: May 05, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Yortium Allanstan » Mon Jul 03, 2017 7:43 am

Kennlind wrote:
Yortium Allanstan wrote:Why should we be tolerant of Nazis?

Why should we be tolerant of people who want to crack down on free speech? One minute it's "hate speech", the next it's all forms of dissent. Once you start, you can't stop.


Slippery slope fallacy. Banning people from calling for genocide is not on the same level as banning all disagreeable speech.

Yortium Allanstan wrote:Not allowing neo Nazis a platform to spread their noxious views is as bad as advocating genocide?

Because the only thing the Nazis did was genocide, very smart!


Never said that. Although it was a rather significant part of their platform.

Yortium Allanstan wrote:And clearly those definitions need to be expanded.

No they really do not.


So you think people should be able to call for mass murder of ethnic groups they feel are 'inferior'?

Yortium Allanstan wrote:I can't tell if you're really this obtuse or if your just trolling. Minoa is clearly arguing for the rules to be amended to include hate speech.

I have mild dyslexia so calling me obtuse would fall under hate speech.


I have dyslexia too. It isn't an excuse for making fallacious arguments.

Yortium Allanstan wrote:You want to incite hatred against minorities? :eyebrow:

yeah vro thats exactly it you got me


Well it's funny people like you only care about freeze peach when it's neo nazis that are affected.
Yortium Allanstan wrote:Can you not fucking read? They want to ban HATE SPEECH not disagreement.

Once they ban hate speech, they'll begin trying to ban all forms of political opposition.


Not letting edgelords post racist shit on forums will lead to Stalin-esque purges?

Yortium Allanstan wrote:Translation: I want to be able to shitpost with impunity.

You know nothing about me yet here you are making claims like this.


That was in response to your 'translation' of Minoa's post. Can't take shit, don't fling it.

User avatar
Phydios
Minister
 
Posts: 2603
Founded: Dec 06, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Phydios » Mon Jul 03, 2017 9:24 am

Yortium Allanstan wrote:Slippery slope fallacy. Banning people from calling for genocide is not on the same level as banning all disagreeable speech.

Calling for genocide is already prohibited by NS rules, so that's not a problem. Report it and it will be dealt with.

Also, it is equally fallacious to assume that a slippery slope will not occur. If we start banning speech just because some people consider it hateful, where do we end? Everyone will be offended by something. The logical end of such a policy is banning all speech that offends the people in power. And since Max Barry wants stupid and extremist views to be brought into the open where they can be publicly ripped to shreds, rather than stay unharmed in the shadows, I don't think that NS will be prohibiting the nebulous category of "hate speech" anytime soon.
If you claim to be religious but don’t control your tongue, you are fooling yourself, and your religion is worthless. Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you. | Not everyone who calls out to me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter. On judgment day many will say to me, ‘Lord! Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name.’ But I will reply, ‘I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God’s laws.’
James 1:26-27, Matthew 7:21-23

User avatar
Soyouso
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1526
Founded: May 14, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby Soyouso » Mon Jul 03, 2017 9:41 am

Um, guys? There's a number of Nazis and white nationalists on here who didn't get banned for being 'offensive'. NationStates hasn't gone on a purge of their accounts. They're allowed on here if they don't try to argue for genocide or break the other rules in a debate. Communists can have their views if they aren't advocating genocide as well, they're not being favored on here. Same goes for literally all other beliefs - if it's not calling for genocide or other harm or breaking other rules, you're allowed to debate for it. NationStates is actually being really fair to Nazis compared to many other sites.

User avatar
Yortium Allanstan
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 103
Founded: May 05, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Yortium Allanstan » Mon Jul 03, 2017 11:50 am

Phydios wrote:
Yortium Allanstan wrote:Slippery slope fallacy. Banning people from calling for genocide is not on the same level as banning all disagreeable speech.


Calling for genocide is already prohibited by NS rules, so that's not a problem. Report it and it will be dealt with.


Audioslavia disagrees.

Also, it is equally fallacious to assume that a slippery slope will not occur. If we start banning speech just because some people consider it hateful, where do we end? Everyone will be offended by something.


Again, banning calls for genocide and avocation of Nazism will not lead to mass censorship. You're being absurd.

The logical end of such a policy is banning all speech that offends the people in power.


Bullshit.

And since Max Barry wants stupid and extremist views to be brought into the open where they can be publicly ripped to shreds, rather than stay unharmed in the shadows, I don't think that NS will be prohibiting the nebulous category of "hate speech" anytime soon.


So you condone Nazis then?

User avatar
Phydios
Minister
 
Posts: 2603
Founded: Dec 06, 2014
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Phydios » Mon Jul 03, 2017 12:28 pm

Yortium Allanstan wrote:
Phydios wrote:Calling for genocide is already prohibited by NS rules, so that's not a problem. Report it and it will be dealt with.


Audioslavia disagrees.

While finding sources from moderators to support my claim that advocating genocide is actionable, I found this thread, which jogged my memory of you. The replies to your thread still hold true. Here are two different moderators saying that advocating genocide is actionable:
viewtopic.php?p=31891903#p31891903
viewtopic.php?p=31892574#p31892574

As for your accusations that Audioslavia believes genocide to be okay and that I support Nazism, those won't be getting any further response. As Monitor said in the linked thread, there is a distinction between allowing and promoting. And as NERVUN said, "Discussion threads are to bring up topics for, well, discussion. They are not platforms for players to try and re-argue a ruling which they disagreed with. Let's make sure we stick to generalities, not specific rulings."
Last edited by Phydios on Mon Jul 03, 2017 12:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
If you claim to be religious but don’t control your tongue, you are fooling yourself, and your religion is worthless. Pure and genuine religion in the sight of God the Father means caring for orphans and widows in their distress and refusing to let the world corrupt you. | Not everyone who calls out to me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter. On judgment day many will say to me, ‘Lord! Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name.’ But I will reply, ‘I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God’s laws.’
James 1:26-27, Matthew 7:21-23

User avatar
Twilight Imperium
Minister
 
Posts: 2887
Founded: May 19, 2013
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Twilight Imperium » Mon Jul 03, 2017 12:33 pm

Yortium Allanstan wrote:So you condone Nazis then?


Yup, you caught us. By allowing people to speak more freely, we're just like the Nazis.

User avatar
USS Monitor
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 30755
Founded: Jul 01, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby USS Monitor » Mon Jul 03, 2017 12:35 pm

Yortium Allanstan wrote:
Phydios wrote:
Calling for genocide is already prohibited by NS rules, so that's not a problem. Report it and it will be dealt with.


Audioslavia disagrees.


This is referring to a specific ruling. The purpose of discussion threads is not to rehash individual rulings.
Don't take life so serious... it isn't permanent... RIP Dyakovo and Ashmoria
19th century steamships may be harmful or fatal if swallowed. In case of accidental ingestion, please seek immediate medical assistance.
༄༅། །འགྲོ་བ་མི་རིགས་ག་ར་དབང་ཆ་འདྲ་མཉམ་འབད་སྒྱེཝ་ལས་ག་ར་གིས་གཅིག་གིས་གཅིག་ལུ་སྤུན་ཆའི་དམ་ཚིག་བསྟན་དགོས།

User avatar
Kennlind
Diplomat
 
Posts: 882
Founded: Jun 14, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Kennlind » Mon Jul 03, 2017 3:29 pm

Yortium Allanstan wrote:Slippery slope fallacy. Banning people from calling for genocide is not on the same level as banning all disagreeable speech.

And calling for genocide is on a whole other level than "hate speech."

Yortium Allanstan wrote:So you think people should be able to call for mass murder of ethnic groups they feel are 'inferior'?

Call for it all they want. It's freedom of speech, let them hold views like that. We live in the 21st century, they'd be lucky to make it into elected office.

Yortium Allanstan wrote:I have dyslexia too. It isn't an excuse for making fallacious arguments.

If you can't make a point without saying something uncivil, don't even bother trying to make your point?

Yortium Allanstan wrote:Well it's funny people like you only care about freeze peach when it's neo nazis that are affected.

Really sad how much you take free speech for granted. I support free speech for EVERYONE. If you're trying to insinuate I'm a neo-nazi or sympathize with them, I REALLY recommend you read my signature.

Yortium Allanstan wrote:That was in response to your 'translation' of Minoa's post. Can't take shit, don't fling it.

If you perceived it as shitposting then accept my apology.
don't use anymore // Eglaecia

User avatar
Yortium Allanstan
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 103
Founded: May 05, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Yortium Allanstan » Mon Jul 03, 2017 3:31 pm

Phydios wrote:
Yortium Allanstan wrote:
Audioslavia disagrees.

While finding sources from moderators to support my claim that advocating genocide is actionable, I found this thread, which jogged my memory of you. The replies to your thread still hold true. Here are two different moderators saying that advocating genocide is actionable:
viewtopic.php?p=31891903#p31891903
viewtopic.php?p=31892574#p31892574

And yet they would not warn or reprimand Aelex for calling for the deliberate targeting of civilians..

As for your accusations that Audioslavia believes genocide to be okay and that I support Nazism, those won't be getting any further response.


If you don't then just say you don't. Unless of course...

As Monitor said in the linked thread, there is a distinction between allowing and promoting. And as NERVUN said, "Discussion threads are to bring up topics for, well, discussion. They are not platforms for players to try and re-argue a ruling which they disagreed with. Let's make sure we stick to generalities, not specific rulings."


Don't worry, I wont be question the Mods authority after this post. They already know I'm a heretic anyway. :)

User avatar
Yortium Allanstan
Spokesperson
 
Posts: 103
Founded: May 05, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Yortium Allanstan » Mon Jul 03, 2017 3:41 pm

Kennlind wrote:
Yortium Allanstan wrote:Slippery slope fallacy. Banning people from calling for genocide is not on the same level as banning all disagreeable speech.

And calling for genocide is on a whole other level than "hate speech."


Hence why it shouldn't be allowed on NS
Yortium Allanstan wrote:So you think people should be able to call for mass murder of ethnic groups they feel are 'inferior'?

Call for it all they want. It's freedom of speech, let them hold views like that. We live in the 21st century, they'd be lucky to make it into elected office.


The way things are going right now I wouldn't be so sure about that.

Yortium Allanstan wrote:I have dyslexia too. It isn't an excuse for making fallacious arguments.

If you can't make a point without saying something uncivil, don't even bother trying to make your point?


Calling an argument fallacious is uncivil?

Yortium Allanstan wrote:Well it's funny people like you only care about freeze peach when it's neo nazis that are affected.

Really sad how much you take free speech for granted. I support free speech for EVERYONE. If you're trying to insinuate I'm a neo-nazi or sympathize with them, I REALLY recommend you read my signature.


I just find it odd that you types only seem to defend alt right trolls and shitposters. Where were you freeze peach warriors when Kathy Griffin was attacked or when Trump attacked the Ceaser play?
Yortium Allanstan wrote:That was in response to your 'translation' of Minoa's post. Can't take shit, don't fling it.

If you perceived it as shitposting then accept my apology.


I must admit. I was not expecting an apology. In spite of everything else, you get kudos from me for that.

User avatar
The Lone Alliance
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10026
Founded: May 25, 2005
Left-Leaning College State

Postby The Lone Alliance » Mon Jul 03, 2017 6:58 pm

Yortium Allanstan wrote:
Don't worry, I wont be question the Mods authority after this post. They already know I'm a heretic anyway. :)

No you're just someone who can't tell the difference between War and genocide.
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." -Herman Goering
--------------
War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; -William Tecumseh Sherman

User avatar
Frisbeeteria
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 28043
Founded: Dec 16, 2003
Capitalizt

Postby Frisbeeteria » Mon Jul 03, 2017 7:21 pm

We're going around in circles at this point, and I don't think I've seen any new arguments in a page or two.

If anyone has anything NEW to add to this (not a rebuttal of previously-rebutted posts), you've got a day to post. We'll post something modly and lock the thread at that time.

User avatar
USS Monitor
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 30755
Founded: Jul 01, 2015
Ex-Nation

Postby USS Monitor » Mon Jul 03, 2017 8:07 pm

Yortium Allanstan wrote:I just find it odd that you types only seem to defend alt right trolls and shitposters. Where were you freeze peach warriors when Kathy Griffin was attacked or when Trump attacked the Ceaser play?


Those things didn't happen on NationStates, so they aren't relevant to our moderation policies. If it came up in NSG, I imagine some people would defend Kathy Griffin or the people who made the Caesar play.
Don't take life so serious... it isn't permanent... RIP Dyakovo and Ashmoria
19th century steamships may be harmful or fatal if swallowed. In case of accidental ingestion, please seek immediate medical assistance.
༄༅། །འགྲོ་བ་མི་རིགས་ག་ར་དབང་ཆ་འདྲ་མཉམ་འབད་སྒྱེཝ་ལས་ག་ར་གིས་གཅིག་གིས་གཅིག་ལུ་སྤུན་ཆའི་དམ་ཚིག་བསྟན་དགོས།

User avatar
Minoa
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6154
Founded: Oct 05, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Minoa » Mon Jul 03, 2017 9:43 pm

Frisbeeteria wrote:We're going around in circles at this point, and I don't think I've seen any new arguments in a page or two.

If anyone has anything NEW to add to this (not a rebuttal of previously-rebutted posts), you've got a day to post. We'll post something modly and lock the thread at that time.

In my opinion, the most likely reasonable outcome in my opinion would be a clarification on hate speech by name in the OSRS. Other than that I accept that my original ideas were not suitable for the forum at this time despite good intentions. However, I am not impressed that some have taken to see it as a referendum on my beliefs on the forum, despite the fact that quite a lot of us in the UK see hate speech differently than the US.
Last edited by Minoa on Mon Jul 03, 2017 9:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mme A. d'Oiseau, B.A. (State of Minoa)

User avatar
Frisbeeteria
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 28043
Founded: Dec 16, 2003
Capitalizt

Postby Frisbeeteria » Mon Jul 03, 2017 9:54 pm

Minoa wrote:the most likely reasonable outcome in my opinion would be a clarification on hate speech in the OSRS.

I must have missed the outcry for clarification. It seems to me that the majority of respondents thought things were adequately clear as they are currently written. In fact, I just reviewed the thread, and you are the only one making that case. The majority of responses said things are fine as they are, with a vocal minority complaining about side issues like Nazis and old rulings.

At this point I'm not seeing a compelling case to even mention the phrase "hate speech" in the OSRS. Our rules already cover the egregious versions, and we're mostly in agreement that we don't want to suppress what's left.

User avatar
Varayusha
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 17
Founded: Dec 30, 2009
Democratic Socialists

Postby Varayusha » Mon Jul 03, 2017 10:22 pm

I'm still waiting for Yortium Allanstan -- or, indeed, anyone -- to respond to my request for fixed goalposts that can actually be debated. And at the rate this thread is going, the lock will come in first.

User avatar
Minoa
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6154
Founded: Oct 05, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Minoa » Mon Jul 03, 2017 10:37 pm

Frisbeeteria wrote:
Minoa wrote:the most likely reasonable outcome in my opinion would be a clarification on hate speech in the OSRS.

I must have missed the outcry for clarification. It seems to me that the majority of respondents thought things were adequately clear as they are currently written. In fact, I just reviewed the thread, and you are the only one making that case. The majority of responses said things are fine as they are, with a vocal minority complaining about side issues like Nazis and old rulings.

At this point I'm not seeing a compelling case to even mention the phrase "hate speech" in the OSRS. Our rules already cover the egregious versions, and we're mostly in agreement that we don't want to suppress what's left.

Hi, I think I can wrap up the discussion now, which was highlighted by the phrase "my original ideas were not suitable for the forum at this time despite good understandable intentions" in response to recent incidents regarding hate speech on the internet in general. ;)

I take it that existing rules should be sufficient for dealing with hate speech at this time, and the consensus is that the forum rules are sufficient to deal with hate speech at this time, through other rules regarding trolling, flaming, etc.

-- Minoa.
Last edited by Minoa on Mon Jul 03, 2017 10:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mme A. d'Oiseau, B.A. (State of Minoa)

User avatar
Ethel mermania
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 132716
Founded: Aug 20, 2010
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Ethel mermania » Tue Jul 04, 2017 7:32 am

Frisbeeteria wrote:
Minoa wrote:the most likely reasonable outcome in my opinion would be a clarification on hate speech in the OSRS.

I must have missed the outcry for clarification. It seems to me that the majority of respondents thought things were adequately clear as they are currently written. In fact, I just reviewed the thread, and you are the only one making that case. The majority of responses said things are fine as they are, with a vocal minority complaining about side issues like Nazis and old rulings.

At this point I'm not seeing a compelling case to even mention the phrase "hate speech" in the OSRS. Our rules already cover the egregious versions, and we're mostly in agreement that we don't want to suppress what's left.


Good, thanKS.
https://www.hvst.com/posts/the-clash-of ... s-wl2TQBpY

The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion … but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.
--S. Huntington

The most fundamental problem of politics is not the control of wickedness but the limitation of righteousness. 

--H. Kissenger

User avatar
Ethel mermania
Post Overlord
 
Posts: 132716
Founded: Aug 20, 2010
Corrupt Dictatorship

Postby Ethel mermania » Tue Jul 04, 2017 8:00 am

Minoa wrote:
Frisbeeteria wrote:I must have missed the outcry for clarification. It seems to me that the majority of respondents thought things were adequately clear as they are currently written. In fact, I just reviewed the thread, and you are the only one making that case. The majority of responses said things are fine as they are, with a vocal minority complaining about side issues like Nazis and old rulings.

At this point I'm not seeing a compelling case to even mention the phrase "hate speech" in the OSRS. Our rules already cover the egregious versions, and we're mostly in agreement that we don't want to suppress what's left.

Hi, I think I can wrap up the discussion now, which was highlighted by the phrase "my original ideas were not suitable for the forum at this time despite good understandable intentions" in response to recent incidents regarding hate speech on the internet in general. ;)

I take it that existing rules should be sufficient for dealing with hate speech at this time, and the consensus is that the forum rules are sufficient to deal with hate speech at this time, through other rules regarding trolling, flaming, etc.

-- Minoa.


Hopefully that is not the understanding. We are fine as it is, is the understanding. No additional rules or different interpretations are require on this site at this time.
https://www.hvst.com/posts/the-clash-of ... s-wl2TQBpY

The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion … but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.
--S. Huntington

The most fundamental problem of politics is not the control of wickedness but the limitation of righteousness. 

--H. Kissenger

User avatar
Minoa
Negotiator
 
Posts: 6154
Founded: Oct 05, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Minoa » Tue Jul 04, 2017 8:28 am

Ethel mermania wrote:
Minoa wrote:Hi, I think I can wrap up the discussion now, which was highlighted by the phrase "my original ideas were not suitable for the forum at this time despite good understandable intentions" in response to recent incidents regarding hate speech on the internet in general. ;)

I take it that existing rules should be sufficient for dealing with hate speech at this time, and the consensus is that the forum rules are sufficient to deal with hate speech at this time, through other rules regarding trolling, flaming, etc.

-- Minoa.


Hopefully that is not the understanding. We are fine as it is, is the understanding. No additional rules or different interpretations are require on this site at this time.

I had to write it in my own words to avoid plagiarising, but what you said is one way of saying what I am also trying to say. ;)
Last edited by Minoa on Tue Jul 04, 2017 8:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mme A. d'Oiseau, B.A. (State of Minoa)

User avatar
Kennlind
Diplomat
 
Posts: 882
Founded: Jun 14, 2017
Ex-Nation

Postby Kennlind » Tue Jul 04, 2017 9:16 am

Yortium Allanstan wrote:Hence why it shouldn't be allowed on NS

I didn't say it should be...

Yortium Allanstan wrote:The way things are going right now I wouldn't be so sure about that.

Golden Dawn are the most relevant fascist party in Europe and they received just 7% of the vote and 17/300 seats in the Hellenic Parliament.

Yortium Allanstan wrote:Calling an argument fallacious is uncivil?

I was referring to you calling me obtuse and referring to what I said as shitposting.

Yortium Allanstan wrote:I just find it odd that you types only seem to defend alt right trolls and shitposters. Where were you freeze peach warriors when Kathy Griffin was attacked or when Trump attacked the Ceaser play?

They both had the rights to do what they did??
don't use anymore // Eglaecia

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Moderation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Atarashi Hanabi, Femboy Republics, New Stonkopolis, Sylvastan, Vastiuq

Advertisement

Remove ads