[Discussion] Reviewing how NS deals with hate speech

[Frankland]

Far better for site staff to say someone is "All x is y trolling" than have mods making red text statements that sound as if they could be accusing members of criminal activity. It seems to me having hate speech laws in real life nations makes it more complicated for NS to have a 'hate speech ban' not easier.

[Esternial]

Far better for site staff to say someone is "All x is y trolling" than have mods making red text statements that sound as if they could be accusing members of criminal activity. It seems to me having hate speech laws in real life nations makes it more complicated for NS to have a 'hate speech ban' not easier.

If anything those laws would mean Moderation doesn't need a separate rule. Just ban folks for illegal activity.

Somebody advocating mass-murder of homosexuals could be banned for "illegal activity" rather than "trolling".

[Minoa]

If it is okay, I thought I might point to a CNET article about the brutal reality of hate speech on the internet, entitled "Here's the brutal reality of online hate" by Terry Collins: https://cnet.com/news/the-brutal-reality-of-online-hate/

For the record, it is my personal opinion that hate speech induces fear on those affected, stifling their ability to speak out for their rights and safety without fear of retribution. As a person with Autism, I kinda find it hard to describe the concerns that I am trying to raise, but I try my best.

[Twilight Imperium]

Please just stop.

[USS Monitor]

If it is okay, I thought I might point to a CNET article about the brutal reality of hate speech on the internet, entitled "Here's the brutal reality of online hate" by Terry Collins: https://cnet.com/news/the-brutal-realit ... line-hate/

For the record, it is my personal opinion that hate speech induces fear on those affected, stifling their ability to speak out for their rights and safety without fear of retribution. As a person with Autism, I kinda find it hard to describe the concerns that I am trying to raise, but I try my best.

I don't think you're being unclear. I think there are just some philosophical differences between yourself and the mod team.

Different people have different ideas about what moderators are supposed to do and what's an ideal amount of free speech. This isn't a matter of being objectively right or wrong, just personal preference. Not everyone is going to agree with every aspect of how we handle it on NS, and it sounds like you've found a topic where you don't agree.

You're allowed to have your own opinions about hate speech, but I don't think site policy is likely to change right now. Basically, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Reploid Productions]

Please be aware that we are authorized by [violet] to remove bad faith posts from public view outright and relocate them to the evidence locker:

So I have simply instructed moderators to remove posts from discussion threads that are bad faith.

One post has been deemed to be bad faith, and has thusly been removed per [violet]'s directive.

If you have valid complaints of moderator abuse, please file them via the Getting Help page. Moderators cannot edit, delete, or otherwise alter the contents of your GHR, and mod abuse reports are flagged for immediate admin attention. Be sure to include all relevant links to what you are reporting as well as a clear and concise explanation of what the problem is. I must inform you that the administrators have very little patience for frivolous or outright fraudulent reports, and are liable to dismiss incomplete, unspecific, or wildly generalized complaints outright. (IE: "The mods are corrupt!" absent any evidence attached to the report.)


~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Admin
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

[Ethel mermania]

If it is okay, I thought I might point to a CNET article about the brutal reality of hate speech on the internet, entitled "Here's the brutal reality of online hate" by Terry Collins: https://cnet.com/news/the-brutal-realit ... line-hate/

For the record, it is my personal opinion that hate speech induces fear on those affected, stifling their ability to speak out for their rights and safety without fear of retribution. As a person with Autism, I kinda find it hard to describe the concerns that I am trying to raise, but I try my best.

I 5hink you are very clear and make your points very wel in all of your posts here. It is not your disability that prevents me from understanding you. I understand you, I acknowledge your concerns, I just really disagree with your proposed outcome for reasons that have already been articulated in this thread. It is not a failure on your part we don't undrrstsnd. It is a fundamental disagreement about the role of free speech in society. I like it, you do not.

[Yortium Allanstan]

If it is okay, I thought I might point to a CNET article about the brutal reality of hate speech on the internet, entitled "Here's the brutal reality of online hate" by Terry Collins: https://cnet.com/news/the-brutal-realit ... line-hate/

For the record, it is my personal opinion that hate speech induces fear on those affected, stifling their ability to speak out for their rights and safety without fear of retribution. As a person with Autism, I kinda find it hard to describe the concerns that I am trying to raise, but I try my best.

I don't think you're being unclear. I think there are just some philosophical differences between yourself and the mod team.

Different people have different ideas about what moderators are supposed to do and what's an ideal amount of free speech. This isn't a matter of being objectively right or wrong, just personal preference. Not everyone is going to agree with every aspect of how we handle it on NS, and it sounds like you've found a topic where you don't agree.

You're allowed to have your own opinions about hate speech, but I don't think site policy is likely to change right now. Basically, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Why don't you want to change the policy?

[USS Monitor]

I don't think you're being unclear. I think there are just some philosophical differences between yourself and the mod team.

Different people have different ideas about what moderators are supposed to do and what's an ideal amount of free speech. This isn't a matter of being objectively right or wrong, just personal preference. Not everyone is going to agree with every aspect of how we handle it on NS, and it sounds like you've found a topic where you don't agree.

You're allowed to have your own opinions about hate speech, but I don't think site policy is likely to change right now. Basically, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Why don't you want to change the policy?

It would stifle debate. If people don't like what multiculturalism is doing to their country, stopping them from airing their views will not make those views go away. Often it just drives it underground and pushes people into hate groups, which are echo-chambers that will only radicalize people further. A lot of people who end up in hate groups are only mildly racist by nature, but they just get frustrated by being constantly shouted down and guilt-tripped about it.

When I came back to the US in 2007, I was somewhat tempted by the idea of getting involved with white nationalism -- not because I think other races are inherently bad, but because I was just angry at the unreasonable standards of political correctness that I came home to. In China, unapologetic ethnic nationalism is normal and socially acceptable. Reverse culture shock coming back to the US and dealing with SJWs was bad, especially since a lot of their assumptions about my experience as a white person were now inaccurate. People would say, "Well, you're white so you don't know what it's like to be marginalized and discriminated against," without even bothering to ask about my experiences.

People need to be able to talk about stuff like this out in the open, not just underground in hate groups, because it's harder to get past it if you keep it bottled up. Having a racist idea doesn't always mean someone was born an evil racist and is irredeemable. Sometimes it's just a person who has a wrong-headed idea they need to hash out so they can see why it's wrong.

[Yortium Allanstan]

Why don't you want to change the policy?

It would stifle debate. If people don't like what multiculturalism is doing to their country, stopping them from airing their views will not make those views go away.

Telling people to spew racist bullshit elsewhere is not stifling them

Often it just drives it underground and pushes people into hate groups, which are echo-chambers that will only radicalize people further. A lot of people who end up in hate groups are only mildly racist by nature, but they just get frustrated by being constantly shouted down and guilt-tripped about it.

So...don't point out that a racist is wrong lets they join the Klan?

When I came back to the US in 2007, I was somewhat tempted by the idea of getting involved with white nationalism -- not because I think other races are inherently bad, but because I was just angry at the unreasonable standards of political correctness that I came home to.

So people told you to be nice to minorities and you nearly joined up white white supremacists (none of this 'nationalist' doublethink) because of it? If so then that is largely on you not 'Political Correctness'

In China, unapologetic ethnic nationalism is normal and socially acceptable. Reverse culture shock coming back to the US and dealing with SJWs was bad, especially since a lot of their assumptions about my experience as a white person were now inaccurate. People would say, "Well, you're white so you don't know what it's like to be marginalized and discriminated against," without even bothering to ask about my experiences.

And instead of correcting them you sulked off to your skinhead buddies.

People need to be able to talk about stuff like this out in the open, not just underground in hate groups, because it's harder to get past it if you keep it bottled up. Having a racist idea doesn't always mean someone was born an evil racist and is irredeemable. Sometimes it's just a person who has a wrong-headed idea they need to hash out so they can see why it's wrong.

Yeah, I'd rather not have white supremacists calling for minorities to be killed on my political discussion forums...I'm weird like that.

[Ethel mermania]

It would stifle debate. If people don't like what multiculturalism is doing to their country, stopping them from airing their views will not make those views go away.

Telling people to spew racist bullshit elsewhere is not stifling them

Often it just drives it underground and pushes people into hate groups, which are echo-chambers that will only radicalize people further. A lot of people who end up in hate groups are only mildly racist by nature, but they just get frustrated by being constantly shouted down and guilt-tripped about it.

So...don't point out that a racist is wrong lets they join the Klan?

When I came back to the US in 2007, I was somewhat tempted by the idea of getting involved with white nationalism -- not because I think other races are inherently bad, but because I was just angry at the unreasonable standards of political correctness that I came home to.

So people told you to be nice to minorities and you nearly joined up white white supremacists (none of this 'nationalist' doublethink) because of it? If so then that is largely on you not 'Political Correctness'

In China, unapologetic ethnic nationalism is normal and socially acceptable. Reverse culture shock coming back to the US and dealing with SJWs was bad, especially since a lot of their assumptions about my experience as a white person were now inaccurate. People would say, "Well, you're white so you don't know what it's like to be marginalized and discriminated against," without even bothering to ask about my experiences.

And instead of correcting them you sulked off to your skinhead buddies.

People need to be able to talk about stuff like this out in the open, not just underground in hate groups, because it's harder to get past it if you keep it bottled up. Having a racist idea doesn't always mean someone was born an evil racist and is irredeemable. Sometimes it's just a person who has a wrong-headed idea they need to hash out so they can see why it's wrong.

Yeah, I'd rather not have white supremacists calling for minorities to be killed on my political discussion forums...I'm weird like that.

There is a difference between. "Niggers are icky", and "let's kill some niggers, meet me at 39th and vine". While currently in the untied states both are hate speech, the latter is incitement if not conspiracy to commit murder, the former is not. Incitement is a reasonable place to draw the line. You need to be able to prove the hate speech wrong.

[Soyouso]

It would stifle debate. If people don't like what multiculturalism is doing to their country, stopping them from airing their views will not make those views go away.

Telling people to spew racist bullshit elsewhere is not stifling them

Often it just drives it underground and pushes people into hate groups, which are echo-chambers that will only radicalize people further. A lot of people who end up in hate groups are only mildly racist by nature, but they just get frustrated by being constantly shouted down and guilt-tripped about it.

So...don't point out that a racist is wrong lets they join the Klan?

When I came back to the US in 2007, I was somewhat tempted by the idea of getting involved with white nationalism -- not because I think other races are inherently bad, but because I was just angry at the unreasonable standards of political correctness that I came home to.

So people told you to be nice to minorities and you nearly joined up white white supremacists (none of this 'nationalist' doublethink) because of it? If so then that is largely on you not 'Political Correctness'

In China, unapologetic ethnic nationalism is normal and socially acceptable. Reverse culture shock coming back to the US and dealing with SJWs was bad, especially since a lot of their assumptions about my experience as a white person were now inaccurate. People would say, "Well, you're white so you don't know what it's like to be marginalized and discriminated against," without even bothering to ask about my experiences.

And instead of correcting them you sulked off to your skinhead buddies.

People need to be able to talk about stuff like this out in the open, not just underground in hate groups, because it's harder to get past it if you keep it bottled up. Having a racist idea doesn't always mean someone was born an evil racist and is irredeemable. Sometimes it's just a person who has a wrong-headed idea they need to hash out so they can see why it's wrong.

Yeah, I'd rather not have white supremacists calling for minorities to be killed on my political discussion forums...I'm weird like that.

To (not word-for-word) quote Emcee ProphIt, bigots are just people who see the world differently from others. When someone hates a certain group, they probably had some sort of upbringing or bad personal experience that made them think that way. They probably feel threatened by said group, I don't think the majority of people who discriminate sit in a circle tapping their fingers together menacingly saying "How can we bully the [group]s today?" and laughing evilly. (Don't credit me for that comparison, TJ Kirk's joke.) If you push them away for their views, that will eventually cause them to grow bitter and find a group of only people who agree, therefore keeping them in that mindset. Basically their version of a safe space, and all political safe spaces do is prevent views from being challenged so they don't have to question them.

If you try to talk to them in a civil conversation, they may open up to new ideas and possibly even change. But you have to be civil, or they'll take it as you attacking their point of view and shut it out.

Thus censoring offensive opinions will solve nothing. Unless they're trying to hurt someone, they should be allowed to speak and debate here.

[Minoa]

I thought I would table this idea if anyone is interested, although I do not know how much resources we have: I was wondering if NSG could have mentors, like roleplay mentors, to help people understand politics or society more, and positively encourage those with views of racial hatred to change through dialogue?

[Reploid Productions]

Yeah, I'd rather not have white supremacists calling for minorities to be killed on my political discussion forums...I'm weird like that.

Funny thing is, that's already against the site rules, as has been outlined at least once in this thread already. From the FAQ, which the One Stop Rules Shop is derived from:

>What can't I post?

Any content that is:

obscene
illegal
threatening
malicious
defamatory
spam

"<group> should be killed!" and related derivatives already fall quite neatly afoul of the illegal, threatening, and malicious categories. If you see posts where a user is advocating genocide/violence against particular groups, we have an entire forum right here where you can report it so that it can be dealt with. Your continued bad faith efforts to score points and pointlessly keep railing on this ficticious "mods support <x opinion>" narrative you keep attempting to push have grown quite tiresome.

I thought I would table this idea if anyone is interested, although I do not know how much resources we have: I was wondering if NSG could have mentors, like roleplay mentors, to help people understand politics or society more, and positively encourage those with views of racial hatred to change through dialogue?

Not really sure how much traction the idea would get within the NSG community, to be honest. NSG has an enormously diverse range of subject matter, posting styles, and even methods of debate; coming up with good criteria for a sort of NSG mentor role would be a herculean task, even if the community supports the idea. Probably a topic worth its own discussion though.


~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

[USS Monitor]

It would stifle debate. If people don't like what multiculturalism is doing to their country, stopping them from airing their views will not make those views go away.

Telling people to spew racist bullshit elsewhere is not stifling them

Often it just drives it underground and pushes people into hate groups, which are echo-chambers that will only radicalize people further. A lot of people who end up in hate groups are only mildly racist by nature, but they just get frustrated by being constantly shouted down and guilt-tripped about it.

So...don't point out that a racist is wrong lets they join the Klan?

You can point out they're wrong. You just don't get to use the authority of Moderation to shut them up.

When I came back to the US in 2007, I was somewhat tempted by the idea of getting involved with white nationalism -- not because I think other races are inherently bad, but because I was just angry at the unreasonable standards of political correctness that I came home to.

So people told you to be nice to minorities and you nearly joined up white white supremacists (none of this 'nationalist' doublethink) because of it? If so then that is largely on you not 'Political Correctness'

That's not at all what it was about. People told me to treat minorities like a precious specimen of an endangered species when I wanted to just treat them like people. And people expected me to be interested in learning about and protecting their cultures while denying that mine had any interest or value.

And no, I was not considering becoming a white supremacist. If I had ever pursued it, I would have looked for the most non-violent and non-hateful white-pride group or white-oriented civil rights group I could find. Never did like the violence and down-talking that you get among neo-Nazis or KKK.

Your insistence on reading that in the worst possible light is your problem, not mine.

In China, unapologetic ethnic nationalism is normal and socially acceptable. Reverse culture shock coming back to the US and dealing with SJWs was bad, especially since a lot of their assumptions about my experience as a white person were now inaccurate. People would say, "Well, you're white so you don't know what it's like to be marginalized and discriminated against," without even bothering to ask about my experiences.

And instead of correcting them you sulked off to your skinhead buddies.

No. I corrected them, but they ignored everything I said and persisted in repeating their same talking points. Such things get very tiresome after a while when you've had the same conversation again and again. When you find that simply explaining your point of view as an individual is not effective, it's natural to look for other people you might join forces with to get your message heard.

I ultimately wound up not getting involved with any white identity groups, though, so I don't have skinhead buddies.

People need to be able to talk about stuff like this out in the open, not just underground in hate groups, because it's harder to get past it if you keep it bottled up. Having a racist idea doesn't always mean someone was born an evil racist and is irredeemable. Sometimes it's just a person who has a wrong-headed idea they need to hash out so they can see why it's wrong.

Yeah, I'd rather not have white supremacists calling for minorities to be killed on my political discussion forums...I'm weird like that.

Calling for minorities to be killed is actionable as trolling.

[USS Monitor]

There is a difference between. "Niggers are icky", and "let's kill some niggers, meet me at 39th and vine". While currently in the untied states both are hate speech, the latter is incitement if not conspiracy to commit murder, the former is not. Incitement is a reasonable place to draw the line. You need to be able to prove the hate speech wrong.

"Niggers are icky" is actionable in its own right if you say it with such a lack of nuance.

[USS Monitor]

Telling people to spew racist bullshit elsewhere is not stifling them



So...don't point out that a racist is wrong lets they join the Klan?



So people told you to be nice to minorities and you nearly joined up white white supremacists (none of this 'nationalist' doublethink) because of it? If so then that is largely on you not 'Political Correctness'




And instead of correcting them you sulked off to your skinhead buddies.



Yeah, I'd rather not have white supremacists calling for minorities to be killed on my political discussion forums...I'm weird like that.

To (not word-for-word) quote Emcee ProphIt, bigots are just people who see the world differently from others. When someone hates a certain group, they probably had some sort of upbringing or bad personal experience that made them think that way. They probably feel threatened by said group, I don't think the majority of people who discriminate sit in a circle tapping their fingers together menacingly saying "How can we bully the [group]s today?" and laughing evilly. (Don't credit me for that comparison, TJ Kirk's joke.) If you push them away for their views, that will eventually cause them to grow bitter and find a group of only people who agree, therefore keeping them in that mindset. Basically their version of a safe space, and all political safe spaces do is prevent views from being challenged so they don't have to question them.

If you try to talk to them in a civil conversation, they may open up to new ideas and possibly even change. But you have to be civil, or they'll take it as you attacking their point of view and shut it out.

Thus censoring offensive opinions will solve nothing. Unless they're trying to hurt someone, they should be allowed to speak and debate here.

Yes. This is the idea I was getting at.

I thought I would table this idea if anyone is interested, although I do not know how much resources we have: I was wondering if NSG could have mentors, like roleplay mentors, to help people understand politics or society more, and positively encourage those with views of racial hatred to change through dialogue?

The idea of debate mentors has been suggested before. I'm not opposed to the idea of having mentors, but I disagree with giving them an ideological agenda such as encouraging people with racist views to change their mind. Helping people clean up their language and argue more coherently so it's easier for them to engage with the community would be a mentor thing, but actually convincing them to change their views should be up to the community.

[Kostov]

To be honest, i think that NS deals with hate speech, but it depends on what is said, and how it said, as i read from Reploid in this post, threatening posts are not allowed, and as what Monitor said: Posts like "Niggers are icky" is actionable for the mods

[Ethel mermania]

There is a difference between. "Niggers are icky", and "let's kill some niggers, meet me at 39th and vine". While currently in the untied states both are hate speech, the latter is incitement if not conspiracy to commit murder, the former is not. Incitement is a reasonable place to draw the line. You need to be able to prove the hate speech wrong.

"Niggers are icky" is actionable in its own right if you say it with such a lack of nuance.

Dahlgrens or not, I would appeal that.

[Yortium Allanstan]

Yeah, I'd rather not have white supremacists calling for minorities to be killed on my political discussion forums...I'm weird like that.

Funny thing is, that's already against the site rules, as has been outlined at least once in this thread already. From the FAQ, which the One Stop Rules Shop is derived from:

>What can't I post?

Any content that is:

obscene
illegal
threatening
malicious
defamatory
spam

"<group> should be killed!" and related derivatives already fall quite neatly afoul of the illegal, threatening, and malicious categories. If you see posts where a user is advocating genocide/violence against particular groups, we have an entire forum right here where you can report it so that it can be dealt with. Your continued bad faith efforts to score points and pointlessly keep railing on this fictitious "mods support <x opinion>" narrative you keep attempting to push have grown quite tiresome.

Asking someone to explain their position is 'bad faith'?

[USS Monitor]

Asking for explanation is fine if it sounds like you're actually interested in understanding the other person's point of view. When you're just trying to score points against them, no.

Bad faith post removed. Since it was a reply to one of my posts, could the next mod in here please review it and make sure I'm not being unfair.

[Yortium Allanstan]

Asking for explanation is fine if it sounds like you're actually interested in understanding the other person's point of view. When you're just trying to score points against them, no.

Bad faith post removed. Since it was a reply to one of my posts, could the next mod in here please review it and make sure I'm not being unfair.

You are.

[Luna Amore]

Asking for explanation is fine if it sounds like you're actually interested in understanding the other person's point of view. When you're just trying to score points against them, no.

Bad faith post removed. Since it was a reply to one of my posts, could the next mod in here please review it and make sure I'm not being unfair.

You are.

I disagree.

I think this thread has run its course. iLock.