[DISCUSSION] "All X Are Y"

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

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.

What I'm trying to do is attempt to see what the policy is on that 10% of cases. Trolling and extremist beliefs are two different things, and it is hard to tell the difference between them sometimes. One is actively against the rules, the other simply frowned upon.

[United Republic Empire]

cough

Click the spoiler

In Legalese
BY USING THIS SITE, YOU SIGNIFY YOUR ACCEPTANCE TO THESE TERMS OF USE. If you do not agree to these terms and conditions, do not use this site.

You may submit content to NationStates.net so long as it is not obscene, illegal, threatening, malicious, or defamatory, does not invade the privacy or infringe the intellectual property of a third party, and does not constitute "spam." You may not use a false e-mail address, impersonate any person or entity, attempt to "hack" the site or another player's account, nor otherwise mislead as to the origin of information.

You agree to abide by all posted site rules, a fuller accounting of which may be found in the FAQ and The One Stop Rules Shop forum thread.

You are aware that the site Privacy Policy forms a part of these Terms & Conditions.

Should you breach these terms and conditions you agree to indemnify NationStates, Max Barry, and any and all employees, agents, administrators, moderators, volunteers, and affiliates associated with NationStates.net from and against any and all third party claims, demands, liabilities, costs or expenses, including reasonable legal fees.

You understand that this site is open to the general public, and agree that while using it you may encounter content posted by other users that you consider objectionable. You understand that while reasonable efforts will be exerted to ensure the site remains free from offensive and illegal content, the site administrator(s) and/or moderator(s) cannot control what other people upload. All responsibility whatsoever is expressly disclaimed for content posted by the general public.

You understand that this web site contains satiric content, and presents views and opinions exaggerated for the purposes of parody.

Where your country of access imposes laws regulating this web site, you agree to use your best efforts to comply with them.

All content, services, and software on this web site are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either express or implied. You assume total responsibility and risk for your use of the web site.

When you submit content to NationStates.net, you grant the site and its administrator(s) a non-exclusive, royalty-free, worldwide, perpetual license to reproduce, distribute, transmit, and publicly display such content.

By entering the NationStates forum you assert that you are at least 13 years of age.

The portion of site content that has not been submitted by users is copyright under international law (c) Max Barry 2002-2015.

Any claim relating to this web site shall be governed by the laws of the State of Victoria, Australia without regard to its conflict of law provisions.

These terms may be revised at any time without notice and it is your responsibility to stay up-to-date with them. This document contains a "Last Modified" date at the top

[Jebslund]

What I'm trying to do is attempt to see what the policy is on that 10% of cases. Trolling and extremist beliefs are two different things, and it is hard to tell the difference between them sometimes. One is actively against the rules, the other simply frowned upon.

The policy is that, if it is an extreme view that otherwise passes the reasonable person test without regard to any of those irrelevant factors you mentioned, it is permitted. You are right in that there is no rule against holding morally indefensible opinions, and even against expressing them, provided you do so in an acceptable manner. What you fail to understand is that the simple standard of a reasonable person works even in the less than 10%, as, if a reasonable person, regardless of culture, would find the connotation negative, it is verboten, even if having a specific cultural take would render it non-negative, and if a reasonable person would find it non-negative, it is permitted, even if having a specific culture would render it negative.

EG:
Exhibit A: "All communists are sociopaths!" A reasonable person would find this statement to be a negative generalisation, even if an ultra-conservative capitalist would think it true and correct.

Exhibit B: "All gay men are beauty queens!" A reasonable person would not find this statement to be a negative generalisation, even if a non-camp gay man might think it a harmful and/or offensive stereotype.

Exhibit A is trolling. Clear cut, no ifs, ands, or asses. It is trolling. Even if it is a sincerely held belief, it is still considered trolling.

Exhibit B, in the absence of any indications that it was expressed maliciously, is not trolling, even though many SJWs would consider it offensive (perpetuating a stereotype).

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

What I'm trying to do is attempt to see what the policy is on that 10% of cases. Trolling and extremist beliefs are two different things, and it is hard to tell the difference between them sometimes. One is actively against the rules, the other simply frowned upon.

The policy is that, if it is an extreme view that otherwise passes the reasonable person test without regard to any of those irrelevant factors you mentioned, it is permitted. You are right in that there is no rule against holding morally indefensible opinions, and even against expressing them, provided you do so in an acceptable manner. What you fail to understand is that the simple standard of a reasonable person works even in the less than 10%, as, if a reasonable person, regardless of culture, would find the connotation negative, it is verboten, even if having a specific cultural take would render it non-negative, and if a reasonable person would find it non-negative, it is permitted, even if having a specific culture would render it negative.

EG:
Exhibit A: "All communists are sociopaths!" A reasonable person would find this statement to be a negative generalisation, even if an ultra-conservative capitalist would think it true and correct.

Exhibit B: "All gay men are beauty queens!" A reasonable person would not find this statement to be a negative generalisation, even if a non-camp gay man might think it a harmful and/or offensive stereotype.

Exhibit A is trolling. Clear cut, no ifs, ands, or asses. It is trolling. Even if it is a sincerely held belief, it is still considered trolling.

Exhibit B, in the absence of any indications that it was expressed maliciously, is not trolling, even though many SJWs would consider it offensive (perpetuating a stereotype).

So we're assuming general acceptability, with this reasonable person acting not as the actions of the average person, but rather the average action of all people?

[Jebslund]

So we're assuming general acceptability, with this reasonable person acting not as the actions of the average person, but rather the average action of all people?

Actions of the average person is still correct. The average person can be of any culture, faith, sexuality, etc. That is all irrelevant, as, at the core, concepts of what is and is not demeaning are largely shared between all. In point of fact, both are one and the same, as the average person, of any culture, is an average of how all persons in that culture would act. There is no such thing, in reality, as an average person, only an averaging of everyone data has been gathered from.

In no culture is calling someone a paedophile, for example, considered neutral or complimentary. The average person, regardless of culture, would see that as an insult. No matter what side of the homosexuality/transgender debate you are on, it is an insult to say "all gays/trans people are paedophiles". You cannot say, "Well, it's acceptable to a Christian Fundamentalist to say that!", because the acceptability of the viewpoint is not what is being weighed here. The fact of the matter is that calling, for example, all gay men child molesters is intended to demean gay men. It does not matter if the speaker believes it to be true or not. It does not matter if several cultures believe that to be true. It does not matter who, if anyone, would consider it an acceptable thing to say. It is still, at its core, "All X are Y" in which "Y" is something a reasonable person would consider vile. This is considered trolling.

It is the same for all "All X Are Y" statements. The acceptability of the belief does not factor in. The acceptability of expressing the belief is not what is being measured. All that matters is if a reasonable person would consider "Y" to be a negative (otherwise termed "vile") trait.

[Frisbeeteria]

What I'm trying to do is attempt to see what the policy is on that 10% of cases.

The reason you're not getting an exact answer from any staff member is that those always, always, ALWAYS get abused. You'll never see a list of specific forbidden actions, phrases, or words for one simple reason - it can never be complete. There's always something new that comes along that's not on The List, and the trolls will use it and then bitch "well, it's not on The List so you can't punish me".

They're mod judgement calls. Every one of them. That's not going to be changing.