[DISCUSSION] "All X Are Y"

[Page]

I would like to have some clarification regarding the "all x are why" rule.

It is clear that such statements are prohibited when they begin with "all women", "all Mexicans", "all Christians", "all Republicans" but I would like to ask if this protection applies to more specific groups, especially groups that are not defined by who people are but what they think and what they do.

Is one allowed to categorically insult the intelligence of flat earthers? Sandy Hook truthers? Anti-vaxxers? Holocaust deniers? Is every fringe belief worthy of protection?

And what about sweeping perjoratives in regards to people's actions? Can one say that everyone who joins ISIS is scum? All those who deliberately misgender trans people are jerks? All people who declaw their cats are abusers?

If not an answer to each example question, I would at least like to have some guidelines to how this rule applies to groups with specific beliefs and specific actions.

[Satuga]

I would like to have some clarification regarding the "all x are why" rule.

It is clear that such statements are prohibited when they begin with "all women", "all Mexicans", "all Christians", "all Republicans" but I would like to ask if this protection applies to more specific groups, especially groups that are not defined by who people are but what they think and what they do.

Is one allowed to categorically insult the intelligence of flat earthers? Sandy Hook truthers? Anti-vaxxers? Holocaust deniers? Is every fringe belief worthy of protection?

And what about sweeping perjoratives in regards to people's actions? Can one say that everyone who joins ISIS is scum? All those who deliberately misgender trans people are jerks? All people who declaw their cats are abusers?

If not an answer to each example question, I would at least like to have some guidelines to how this rule applies to groups with specific beliefs and specific actions.

I think when it comes to linking someones action to a comment it's allowed. Like for instance Animal abusers are scum of the earth. It's not similar to saying "all whites are racist" because you're talking about people who have performed an action rather than an opinion. Though it does need to come with certain regulations like saying "Everyone who voted Bernie are communists" This is not okay because its putting a layer over a group of people who have done nothing but vote for their opinion. Sorry if it's a little confusing, but I'm sure the mods get the basis of what I'm trying to get at.

[Telconi]

I would like to have some clarification regarding the "all x are why" rule.

It is clear that such statements are prohibited when they begin with "all women", "all Mexicans", "all Christians", "all Republicans" but I would like to ask if this protection applies to more specific groups, especially groups that are not defined by who people are but what they think and what they do.

Is one allowed to categorically insult the intelligence of flat earthers? Sandy Hook truthers? Anti-vaxxers? Holocaust deniers? Is every fringe belief worthy of protection?

And what about sweeping perjoratives in regards to people's actions? Can one say that everyone who joins ISIS is scum? All those who deliberately misgender trans people are jerks? All people who declaw their cats are abusers?

If not an answer to each example question, I would at least like to have some guidelines to how this rule applies to groups with specific beliefs and specific actions.

I think when it comes to linking someones action to a comment it's allowed. Like for instance Animal abusers are scum of the earth. It's not similar to saying "all whites are racist" because you're talking about people who have performed an action rather than an opinion. Though it does need to come with certain regulations like saying "Everyone who voted Bernie are communists" This is not okay because its putting a layer over a group of people who have done nothing but vote for their opinion. Sorry if it's a little confusing, but I'm sure the mods get the basis of what I'm trying to get at.

It seems odd to justify categorical condemnation of animal abusers on the basis that "They did an action" and then state that other actions shouldn't be categorically condemned.

[Dumb Ideologies]

It's a minefield. Only the most committed moral relativist would accept that there aren't some views that are stupid or abhorrent to the point that holding them inherently make the person very foolish, a danger to society, a bigot, or whatever. But at the same time, different people with different political views have different windows of acceptable discourse. We all instinctively "know" some stuff is out of range and it's hard to imagine that others will assess that line differently. The idea that some groups are allowed to be insulted as a whole and others are not creates problems of consistency and fairness - different mods may have different opinions, they'll receive complaints of mod bias, and those disadvantaged by any such assessment will be embittered by their treatment and probably stir up shit on and offsite.

A more laissez-faire attitude towards these things may not necessarily have results you'll be pleased with. Many moons ago there was a very big kerfuffle about a poster who said that all trans people were disgusting and shouldn't be allowed out in public places, and the conservative-minded mod who first reviewed the thread didn't see the point as "out there" enough to deserve action, and then no-one else was online for a while to look at it and give a second opinion. In the meantime a lot of bad feeling built up. And to a lot of people, particularly in the US, communism and socialism are anathema to their way of life, worldview, and sense of identity, to the point where some very vicious "all x are Ys" seem - to them - reasonable. If the rules are simplistic there is less capacity for out-of-step judgements that don't sit well with the base.

[Frisbeeteria]

I'm always reminded of the phrase, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”. ISIS and Al-Queda wouldn't have grown to be a threat to Westerners if they didn't have supporters. I don't think it's the mods' job to say "we support only Western values; therefore you are trolling". Most "All X is Y" rulings have to be evaluated using the same contextual cues. There's usually not a simple answer.

Is one allowed to categorically insult the intelligence of flat earthers? Sandy Hook truthers? Anti-vaxxers? Holocaust deniers?

No. You need to find a way to express yourself without breaking site rules. There's a subtle difference between "All flat earthers are idiots" and "I think all flat earthers are idiots - here's why". I can't speak for any other moderator, but I would warn for the first but not the second.

Is every fringe belief worthy of protection?

The site rules are worthy of protection. They allow us to have civil discussions. There is almost always a way to say what you think without breaking them.

[Jebslund]

I think when it comes to linking someones action to a comment it's allowed. Like for instance Animal abusers are scum of the earth. It's not similar to saying "all whites are racist" because you're talking about people who have performed an action rather than an opinion. Though it does need to come with certain regulations like saying "Everyone who voted Bernie are communists" This is not okay because its putting a layer over a group of people who have done nothing but vote for their opinion. Sorry if it's a little confusing, but I'm sure the mods get the basis of what I'm trying to get at.

It seems odd to justify categorical condemnation of animal abusers on the basis that "They did an action" and then state that other actions shouldn't be categorically condemned.

It does seem odd to justify categorical condemnation of willfully causing harm to another being for no reason other than amusement and then state that expressing a belief shouldn't be categorically condemned. It's almost as if the former is a person choosing to cause undue harm while the latter is someone expressing a belief, and therefore it isn't the same thing.

[Katganistan]

Pretty simple: All $Group are $Something Vile is the metric.

All women are whores -- NOPE.
All men are rapists --NOPE.

All sheep are mammals -- Yeah, we'd allow that. It's not vile.

[The New California Republic]

Pretty simple: All $Group are $Something Vile is the metric.

All women are whores -- NOPE.
All men are rapists --NOPE.

All sheep are mammals -- Yeah, we'd allow that. It's not vile.

And one would assume that "all sheep smell like shit" isn't actionable either.

[Leutria]

Pretty simple: All $Group are $Something Vile is the metric.

All women are whores -- NOPE.
All men are rapists --NOPE.

All sheep are mammals -- Yeah, we'd allow that. It's not vile.

And one would assume that "all sheep smell like shit" isn't actionable either.

Now why would you say something like that about Blaat D:

For the record, the rule as enforced as always seemed fair to me.

[Cekoviu]

Pretty simple: All $Group are $Something Vile is the metric.

All women are whores -- NOPE.
All men are rapists --NOPE.

Here's the thing - whether something is vile is a subjective call. I could certainly find men/women who think being a rapist/whore is a good thing and therefore consider the statement there a compliment or at minimum neutral. One could find a member of a group who wouldn't consider even the most egregious and seemingly objectively terrible noun descriptors to be "vile," perhaps with a few exceptions for the most detailed insults.
I'm guessing your response to this will be that those things are generally considered to be negative qualities, but the general public and probably the population on NS also consider all Nazis to be racists. The way I see it, at least to maintain a modicum of consistency, you can require all "[all] X are Y"-format statements to be strictly factual:

All sheep are mammals.

Or you can allow "[all] X are Y"-format statements almost uniformly.

[The New California Republic]

And one would assume that "all sheep smell like shit" isn't actionable either.

Now why would you say something like that about Blaat D:

For the record, the rule as enforced as always seemed fair to me.

Blame Kat for luring me into that.

[Katganistan]

Pretty simple: All $Group are $Something Vile is the metric.

All women are whores -- NOPE.
All men are rapists --NOPE.

Here's the thing - whether something is vile is a subjective call. I could certainly find men/women who think being a rapist/whore is a good thing and therefore consider the statement there a compliment or at minimum neutral. One could find a member of a group who wouldn't consider even the most egregious and seemingly objectively terrible noun descriptors to be "vile," perhaps with a few exceptions for the most detailed insults.
I'm guessing your response to this will be that those things are generally considered to be negative qualities, but the general public and probably the population on NS also consider all Nazis to be racists. The way I see it, at least to maintain a modicum of consistency, you can require all "[all] X are Y"-format statements to be strictly factual:

All sheep are mammals.

Or you can allow "[all] X are Y"-format statements almost uniformly.

Yes, well, what a reasonable person would think is vile.

If there are folks who are unreasonably offended by not being able to troll people for their ethnicity, skin color, gender, religion or lack thereof, etc, they're just going to have to deal with it.

[Cekoviu]

Here's the thing - whether something is vile is a subjective call. I could certainly find men/women who think being a rapist/whore is a good thing and therefore consider the statement there a compliment or at minimum neutral. One could find a member of a group who wouldn't consider even the most egregious and seemingly objectively terrible noun descriptors to be "vile," perhaps with a few exceptions for the most detailed insults.
I'm guessing your response to this will be that those things are generally considered to be negative qualities, but the general public and probably the population on NS also consider all Nazis to be racists. The way I see it, at least to maintain a modicum of consistency, you can require all "[all] X are Y"-format statements to be strictly factual:

Or you can allow "[all] X are Y"-format statements almost uniformly.

Yes, well, what a reasonable person would think is vile.

Yet again an extremely subjective judgment. What characterizes a reasonable person? And why can their opinion on what constitutes a pejorative be considered when their opinion that a group is entirely associated with some negative quality will be rejected?

If there are folks who are unreasonably offended by not being able to troll people for their ethnicity, skin color, gender, religion or lack thereof, etc, they're just going to have to deal with it.

It's fully within your rights as site administrators to not care and rule with ambiguity, but doesn't the inconsistency bother you just a little bit?

[Lamoni]

Yet again an extremely subjective judgment. What characterizes a reasonable person? And why can their opinion on what constitutes a pejorative be considered when their opinion that a group is entirely associated with some negative quality will be rejected?

A reasonable person is a reasonable person. I could quote you the dictionary definition of the terms "reasonable," and "person," but I suspect that you already know what those words mean. The reason why that standard is applied, should be obvious.

It's fully within your rights as site administrators to not care and rule with ambiguity, but doesn't the inconsistency bother you just a little bit?

Actually, we are all just fine. No bothers given, especially since we are not going to have a list for all possible contingencies, as that is not possible.

Further:

[Phydios]

If it helps, Cekoviu, the "reasonable person" standard is not at all unique to NS. It's a common legal term (less technical article). NS just applies it as best they can.

[The Blaatschapen]

Pretty simple: All $Group are $Something Vile is the metric.

All women are whores -- NOPE.
All men are rapists --NOPE.

All sheep are mammals -- Yeah, we'd allow that. It's not vile.

And one would assume that "all sheep smell like shit" isn't actionable either.

Can I report this?

[Katganistan]

And one would assume that "all sheep smell like shit" isn't actionable either.

Can I report this?

*hugs* We know you smell like grassy meadows on a sunny day, dear Blaat.

[Mackjaracotavon]

"All [Insert group here] are [insert insult here]" comments aren't even remotely a part of a civil discussion, and that's the end of discussion right there. As argued by Fris earlier in the thread, you can do something like "I think all X are Y, and this is why" and theoretically get away with it so long as you remain civil about the comment. If the only reason you're here is to be as insulting as possible with trollish comments, flaming, etc, then NS isn't really the best place for you.

[WayNeacTia]

"All [Insert group here] are [insert insult here]" comments aren't even remotely a part of a civil discussion, and that's the end of discussion right there. As argued by Fris earlier in the thread, you can do something like "I think all X are Y, and this is why" and theoretically get away with it so long as you remain civil about the comment. If the only reason you're here is to be as insulting as possible with trollish comments, flaming, etc, then NS isn't really the best place for you.

I'm sorry. You were made a mod, when?

[Shazbotdom]

And one would assume that "all sheep smell like shit" isn't actionable either.

Can I report this?

I smell roses whenever you enter the room, blaat. He's just a hater.

[Lamoni]

"All [Insert group here] are [insert insult here]" comments aren't even remotely a part of a civil discussion, and that's the end of discussion right there. As argued by Fris earlier in the thread, you can do something like "I think all X are Y, and this is why" and theoretically get away with it so long as you remain civil about the comment. If the only reason you're here is to be as insulting as possible with trollish comments, flaming, etc, then NS isn't really the best place for you.

I'm sorry. You were made a mod, when?

They were not. Doesn't make their opinion any less valid.

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

Yet again an extremely subjective judgment. What characterizes a reasonable person? And why can their opinion on what constitutes a pejorative be considered when their opinion that a group is entirely associated with some negative quality will be rejected?

A reasonable person is a reasonable person. I could quote you the dictionary definition of the terms "reasonable," and "person," but I suspect that you already know what those words mean. The reason why that standard is applied, should be obvious.

It's fully within your rights as site administrators to not care and rule with ambiguity, but doesn't the inconsistency bother you just a little bit?

Actually, we are all just fine. No bothers given, especially since we are not going to have a list for all possible contingencies, as that is not possible.

Further:

What viewpoint does this "reasonable person" have? What culture do they have? Where are they from?

An Afghanistani wahhabist will not have the same viewpoint about Christians as a Polish neo-Nazi nor will an Iraqi socialist have the same viewpoint about oil CEOs as an American neocon with stocks in oil.

For politics, we could assume them to be in the centre, sure. But what about culturally? Religiously? Ethnically?

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

If it helps, Cekoviu, the "reasonable person" standard is not at all unique to NS. It's a common legal term (less technical article). NS just applies it as best they can.

In a given country or region, one could state the reasonable person to be following the cultural norms of the region or the majority religion, sure, but what about when dealing with people across the world? What is, then, a "reasonable person"?

[Shazbotdom]

If it helps, Cekoviu, the "reasonable person" standard is not at all unique to NS. It's a common legal term (less technical article). NS just applies it as best they can.

In a given country or region, one could state the reasonable person to be following the cultural norms of the region or the majority religion, sure, but what about when dealing with people across the world? What is, then, a "reasonable person"?

Nation-states doesn't go by, "well, this is the cultural norm in this area so it's allowed". We go by the standard Western philosophy of a reasonable person.

Basically, the the entirety of the ruleset boils down to "don't be a dick". And if people can't abide by that, then moderation deals with it as they see fit. The process has worked since the game started back in 2002 (if I'm remembering the date correctly) and there is really no reason to change it for whatever standard is a wild bull in whichever other country there is.

[Jebslund]

What viewpoint does this "reasonable person" have? What culture do they have? Where are they from?

An Afghanistani wahhabist will not have the same viewpoint about Christians as a Polish neo-Nazi nor will an Iraqi socialist have the same viewpoint about oil CEOs as an American neocon with stocks in oil.

For politics, we could assume them to be in the centre, sure. But what about culturally? Religiously? Ethnically?

None of that really matters in better than 90% of cases, as viewpoints and culture have little bearing on "is this supposed to be a negative generalisation or not?". No amount of culture or viewpoints can shift "All women are idiots" into the territory of a positive or even neutral generalisation, as "idiots" has negative connotations no matter what culture you are. One can't even argue it as neutral, as a reasonable person would not see "idiot" as anything but an insult.

Granted, this explanation is predicated on you actually trying to make a point, rather than, say, you merely attempting to complicate a rather simple standard for the sake of knocking over a strawman and "proving" that All X Are Y needn't be considered trolling.