Updated rules - Hate Messages [W:27, 43, 103]

[CanadaJohn]

I don't desire to comment on that, but this whole thing only exists because some people lack the nads necessary to deal with other peoples opinions. Yes, some people are assholes and other people are just unpleasant and we have an ignore feature for that.

Clearly, assholes should be a protected group in this rule since there are so many posters proudly members of that group.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Moderator's Warning:

If you want to discuss the rule, feel free. If you want to get uncivil, remove yourself from the thread, or I will.

 

[Henrin]

In your opinion.

Hate speech rules and legislation for that matter is stupid. It's made for the sissies amongst us and instead of telling them to man up we protect them from the world.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Actually it would be included in both as it is about orientation and gender.

No, I'm fairly certain transgenderism is not about sexual orientation. It is just about sex/gender. Transgender people tend to be pretty clear about that.

EDIT: I saw CC's clarification. Kind of makes sense. Not really though. It pretty much perpetuates the myth that transgender issues are about sexual orientation when they are not, but ... whatever, I guess.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Hate speech rules and legislation for that matter is stupid. It's made for the sissies amongst us and instead of telling them to man up we protect them from the world.

In your opinion.

 

[Henrin]

In your opinion.

That is pretty much what it does. :shrug:

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

That is pretty much what it does. :shrug:

In your opinion.

So, do you have anything to actually discuss about the contents of the Hate Speech Rule? I understand that you don't like it existing, but that is not changing, nor is the issue being discussed.

 

[Henrin]

In your opinion.

So, do you have anything to actually discuss about the contents of the Hate Speech Rule? I understand that you don't like it existing, but that is not changing, nor is the issue being discussed.

By saying the entire rule has no reason to exist I'm pretty much discussing the entire hate speech rule. As for the contents of the rule, you guys just threw every baby in the sink even including the newest baby of them all, transgenders.

 

[CanadaJohn]

By saying the entire rule has no reason to exist I'm pretty much discussing the entire hate speech rule. As for the contents of the rule, you guys just threw every baby in the sink even including the newest baby of them all, transgenders.

I believe the intent is that if a member can't find his/herself in at least one protected group, there's something wrong with them. This way, anyone who's losing a debate can feel offended.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

By saying the entire rule has no reason to exist I'm pretty much discussing the entire hate speech rule.

The Hate Speech Rule is not going anywhere, so discussing that is pointless. If THAT was the premise of the thread, I'd just say "this is not changing, question answered, thread closed".

As for the contents of the rule, you guys just threw every baby in the sink even including the newest baby of them all, transgenders.

OK. Thank you for your opinion. Btw... this has not changed at all. The transgendered have been included in the HS rule for quite some time.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I believe the intent is that if a member can't find his/herself in at least one protected group, there's something wrong with them. This way, anyone who's losing a debate can feel offended.

No, you would be wrong about that, quite obviously.

I'll ask you the same question as Henrin... do you have anything constructive that you would like to discuss about the rule? If so feel free. If you just plan on bitching, do make note of the Mod Warning that I placed.

 

[Kal'Stang]

The rule was significantly tightened up and the degree of severity of a post in order to receive a HS infraction was increased. We felt that members believed that HS infractions were levied to easily.

And we are aware that transgendered is not about sexual orientation, but issues around transgenderism are often discussed around sexual orientation. I believe it SHOULD have read "also the transgendered" for that reason, and an error may have been made there.

Ok, what about the "A) The support for or a call for violence." section? Or does A, B, C, D only apply when talking about a, b, c, d, e, f, g? If so perhaps that clairification could be put into the rule?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Ok, what about the "A) The support for or a call for violence." section? Or does A, B, C, D only apply when talking about a, b, c, d, e, f, g? If so perhaps that clairification could be put into the rule?

No need to add it for clarification. It is clearly noted in the first section of the rule:

The Moderator Team defines a hate message as one of the following towards a “protected group”

So yes, as the rule states. A, B, C, and D only apply when aimed at a, b, c, d, e, f, and g.

 

[CanadaJohn]

No, you would be wrong about that, quite obviously.

I'll ask you the same question as Henrin... do you have anything constructive that you would like to discuss about the rule? If so feel free. If you just plan on bitching, do make note of the Mod Warning that I placed.

My comment wasn't directed at you - I responded to another member's post - if you consider that bitching, that's your perogative, or as you like to say - "that's your opinion" - I consider it engaging in discussion.

 

[Kal'Stang]

To those that are discussing that such a rule should not even be in place:

While I agree with you the fact of the matter is that it does. This is not our board and the owner has every right to place such rules if he wishes. We are guests here and I would expect that we treat the rules here the same way we would expect someone to follow our rules if someone were to visit us in our homes. The is not the intent of this thread has nothing to do with your beliefs on what should and shouldn't be allowed so please refrain from derailing this thread.

 

[Henrin]

I believe the intent is that if a member can't find his/herself in at least one protected group, there's something wrong with them. This way, anyone who's losing a debate can feel offended.

We want to be equal, but protect us from any sort of hateful speech. :lamo

I think someone missed the point of the entire fight. Anyway, I was told to stop.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

My comment wasn't directed at you - I responded to another member's post - if you consider that bitching, that's your perogative, or as you like to say - "that's your opinion" - I consider it engaging in discussion.

Your comment had nothing to do with the topic at hand. I also corrected your perception of what actually occurs.

So, tell me... what do you think could be done to make the rule more clear?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Moderator's Warning:

OK. One gone. Kal presented concerns about potential ambiguity of the HS rule. That's the focus here. Either stay on topic, or you will be removed from the thread. This is not a place to bitch about he existence of the rule. It's not going anywhere.

 

[Kal'Stang]

No need to add it for clarification. It is clearly noted in the first section of the rule:

So yes, as the rule states. A, B, C, and D only apply when aimed at a, b, c, d, e, f, and g.

If it was so clear then why would I have asked the question? IE just because it is clear to you does not mean that it is clear to everyone. The reason that it is clear to you is that you are already thinking of those specific things when you and the other Mods wrote the rule. For those coming in without having had the benefit of the discussion you Mods had when forming the rule it appears that it could/should also include any other "protected" group and that your list is not complete. After all, citizens owning guns is a protected group under the 2nd Amendment which is why Jerry brought it up.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Your comment had nothing to do with the topic at hand. I also corrected your perception of what actually occurs.

So, tell me... what do you think could be done to make the rule more clear?

No thanks - you've placed a mod warning on the thread and you've also made a point of drawing my attention to that warning as additional intimidation, therefore, I choose not to give you an opportunity to "infract" me for giving you an honest answer. After all, the honest are not a protected group.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Hate speech rules and legislation for that matter is stupid. It's made for the sissies amongst us and instead of telling them to man up we protect them from the world.

Nah, such rules and legislation tend to protect people who have historically been treated poorly, were ignored and are now being acknowledged. I'm also fairly certain that groups for which such rules were primarily created are not filled with "sissies". I'm also certain that they aren't filled with people who could possibly be "protected from the world." These groups tend to be filled with people who deal with a lot **** over their lifetimes simply because of their race, gender, sexuality, et al..

EDIT: I just saw the last warning. I hope this is within the scope of the convo. If not, oops.

I guess I'll add that while I initially had a problem with the ambiguity, it hasn't seemed to affect how the board runs so whatever.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Nah, such rules and legislation tend to protect people who have historically been treated poorly, were ignored and are now being acknowledged. I'm fairly certain that groups for which such rules were primarily created are not filled with "sissies". I'm also certain that they aren't filled with people who could possibly be "protected from the world." These groups tend to be filled with people who deal with a lot **** over their lifetimes simply because of their race, gender, sexuality, et al..

EDIT: I just saw the last warning. I hope this is within the scope of the convo. If not, oops.

I guess I'll add that while I initially had a problem with the ambiguity, it hasn't seemed to affect how the board runs so whatever.

If hate speech rules and legislation in America are anything like they are here in Canada, they are used by the left as weapons against their political opponents on the right and in power. They are so poorly written, so open to abuse, that they make a mockery of attempts to stop truly, intentionally, hateful speech and actions.

 

[Gardener]

I think hate speech rules are quite necessary. If people are being attacked en masse for something beyond their control, in order to be fair, you either allow the person in the group thus attacked to fire back, or you do not allow the hate speech. Since those in the targeted group cannot fire back in a similar fashion without it being considered a personal attack, it is necessary to address the hate speech.

Having proted classes based upon ideology, however, runs against the entire reason for the hate speech rules.

 

[Jerry]

We felt that members believed that HS infractions were levied to easily.

As someone who was suspended for making fun of Hitler (of all people), I have to agree. Hopefully this is an improvement, but today I don't see how.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

If it was so clear then why would I have asked the question? IE just because it is clear to you does not mean that it is clear to everyone. The reason that it is clear to you is that you are already thinking of those specific things when you and the other Mods wrote the rule. For those coming in without having had the benefit of the discussion you Mods had when forming the rule it appears that it could/should also include any other "protected" group and that your list is not complete. After all, citizens owning guns is a protected group under the 2nd Amendment which is why Jerry brought it up.

Meh, it's clear to me. It was pretty obvious to me that the list entitled "protected groups are" was the list specifying what DP consider's to be protected groups. Also, I'm pretty sure the protected group in Jerry's example was "Americans" who are in the national origin protected group not gun owners.