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

[Jerry]

1) This thread is NOT to discuss whether hate speech rules/laws are appropriate or not.

Isn't it, though?

That sure seems awefully open ended there. Is there anyway to close it up a bit? Because frankly the way this rule is written at least half of the people here at DP could be infracted under the way this is worded. Even the way that it is worded could be construed as a violation of the rule itself. Ex: d) Sexual orientation (including the transgendered).: Transgendered is being "included" as if the writer only added it because they were forced to and considers it a seperate group that doesn't actually have anything to do with sexual orientation.

I'm sure can all agree that Tashah was the master at writing the rules. The structure and wording of the recent change highlights her absence.

Whatever became of her anyway?

In general, making EXTREME attacking comments that fit in any of those categories towards any of those groups would get you an infraction.

Adding that to the new 18 would clarify the mod team's intentions tremendously.

 

[Jerry]

inB4thread-lock :2wave:

 

[Captain Adverse]

What jumped out at me is the fact that of the protected groups, one is something that is entirely voluntary rather than innate.

Having a protected group based upon nothing but religious ideology seems thought out very poorly.

HEY!!!

I'm a Satanist... the Master didn't give me any choice!!! LOL (jk)

 

[windowdressing]

1) This thread is NOT to discuss whether hate speech rules/laws are appropriate or not. If you want to do that, start another thread.
2) The rules, in general, have been lightened, so that more opportunity for CIVIL free speech can occur. We received concerns from members about the restrictiveness of the HS rule, so we addressed it... demonstrating that anyone saying that we do not listen to the membership doesn't know what they are talking about.
3) Listening and agreeing are two different things. Important to remember that.
4) I am not going to field a mess of questions about examples. In general, making EXTREME attacking comments that fit in any of those categories towards any of those groups would get you an infraction. People, the rule has been LIGHTENED. If you never got a HS infraction before, and you continue to post as you do, it is even LESS likely that you will get a HS infraction now.

And as an aside, no example that I have seen posted in this thread would be considered EXTREME.

I have noticed a lightening and commend you ...

 

[Kal'Stang]

Adding that to the new 18 would clarify the mod team's intentions tremendously.

I second this. Could that be put up for discussion among you mods also? With the addition that what is "extreme" be up to Mod discretion of course.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Isn't it, though?

No it isn't. It's not about HS laws and it's not about whether the rule is appropriate. It's about clarifying how the rule would be used. The part of Kal's comment that you highlighted is clear about this.

I'm sure can all agree that Tashah was the master at writing the rules. The structure and wording of the recent change highlights her absence.

Tashah was excellent at writing rules. However, even with that, we have had TONS of questions about the HS rule and it's ambiguity over the years. I believe that Tashah's writing was clear. I also believe that the writing of the new rule is clear. There will always be someone who will perceive some ambiguity.

Whatever became of her anyway?

She just up and left one day.

Adding that to the new 18 would clarify the mod team's intentions tremendously.

Jerry... it's there in every description.

A) The support for or a call for violence.

Violence is extreme.

B) The suggestion of removal of essential civil liberties.

Essential is extreme.

C) Claims of severe dehumanization.

Severe is extreme.

D) Claims of illegal behavior across the entire group.

Illegal is clear and extreme.

IMO, adding a comment about "extreme" at the beginning of the rule will add MORE ambiguity (define extreme). Each indicator is pretty specific. However, I will present your comment to the remainder of the Mod Team.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I second this. Could that be put up for discussion among you mods also? With the addition that what is "extreme" be up to Mod discretion of course.

That will yield a WHOLE new discussion amongst the membership, but I will present the suggestion.

 

[Jerry]

No it isn't.

You seem to be in the minority regarding that opinion.

Violence is extreme.

Essential is extreme.

Severe is extreme.

Illegal is clear and extreme.

J-walking is illegal, therefore according to you j-walking is extreme behavior.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

You seem to be in the minority regarding that opinion.

Yet I'm still right, both based on Kal's OP and where this thread is located. Sometimes one can be in the minority and still be correct, like in this case.

J-walking is illegal, therefore according to you j-walking is extreme behavior.

You want to say that all blacks are jaywalkers? Do you see how silly that sounds, Jerry? You're nitpicking.

 

[Jerry]

Violence is extreme.

When a police officer who is certified in a department-sanctioned combatives program applies a pressure-point technique to compel compliance from a drunken citizen, that police officer is engaging in violence, yet it is not extreme. Beating a citizen to death with his baton is extreme.

Illegal is clear and extreme.

J-walking is illegal, but not extreme. Attempting to cross a 10-lane freeway just before rush hour is extreme.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

When a police officer who is certified in a department-sanctioned combatives program applies a pressure-point technique to compel compliance from a drunken citizen, that police officer is engaging in violence, yet it is not extreme. Beating a citizen to death with his baton is extreme.

Try reading the entire rule and then get back to me about why what you just said has zero to do with the rule.

J-walking is illegal, but not extreme. Attempting to cross a 10-lane freeway just before rush hour is extreme.

Re-read what you are responding to... and the entire rule and then get back to me about why what you said has zero to do with HS.

Jerry... behaviors must be directed at an ENTIRE GROUP or an individual based on their identification with that group. It's in the rule

 

[Jerry]

Try reading the entire rule and then get back to me about why what you just said has zero to do with the rule.

Re-read what you are responding to... and the entire rule and then get back to me about why what you said has zero to do with HS.

This is the feedback and suggestions forum. Some of us are trying to give you constructive feedback on how, exactly, the new rule 18 is unclear. If you want to argue about the rules you should probably open a Binky thread on it.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

This is the feedback and suggestions forum. Some of us are trying to give you constructive feedback on how, exactly, the new rule 18 is unclear. If you want to argue about the rules you should probably open a Binky thread on it.

Re-read the edit and the only one arguing now is you.

 

[Jerry]

Jerry... behaviors must be directed at an ENTIRE GROUP or an individual based on their identification with that group. It's in the rule

The fact that you need to keep making posts to clarify rule 18 demonstrates that rule 18 is unclear and could use improvement.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

The fact that you need to keep making posts to clarify rule 18 demonstrates that rule 18 is unclear and could use improvement.

That's one possibility. The other is that one or two members are having difficulty with their perception of the rule's clarity. This is going to happen no matter how well a rule is spelled out.

 

[Jerry]

As I already stated, it is not known if that is a complete list. There are many "protected classes" that are not on that list. A few has already been listed in this thread.

Has Familial relation or Veteran status been mentioned yet? Is there any particular reason those are being left out?

Protected class - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Another example is to oppose SSM in a state where it's already legal, because that's 'suggesting the removal of essential civil liberties' from a 'gender' AND 'sexual orientation'.

Same thing for opposing abortion.

And, of course, supporting and defending abortion involves advocating the very most essential of all civil rights from a group of people who, not among those explicitly-listed “protected groups”, is certainly the most innocent and defenseless, and least deserving of any such denial of their rights.

I have to agree with the OP and others, that this rule about “hate messages” is wide open to all sorts of abuse. But then the concept of “hate speech” and “hate crimes” really exists for no other purpose than to facilitate such abuse, so it should be no surprise that a rule here based on those principles is so obviously subject to such abuse, even in the unlikely event that this openness to abuse is unintentional.

 

[Jerry]

That's one possibility. The other is that one or two members are having difficulty with their perception of the rule's clarity. This is going to happen no matter how well a rule is spelled out.

So DebatePolitics doesn't mind if someone comes to the forum and says something like "all veterans are baby-killers". That's not hate-speech in DP's view, but don't anyone dare utter a pejorative about gays.

That's the sort of difficulty I'm having with my understanding of the rule's clarity.

 

[Jerry]

And, of course, supporting and defending abortion involves advocating the very most essential of all civil rights from a group of people who, not among those explicitly-listed “protected groups”, is certainly the most innocent and defenseless, and least deserving of any such denial of their rights.

I have to agree with the OP and others, that this rule about “hate messages” is wide open to all sorts of abuse. But then the concept of “hate speech” and “hate crimes” really exists for no other purpose than to facilitate such abuse, so it should be no surprise that a rule here based on those principles is so obviously subject to such abuse, even in the unlikely event that this openness to abuse is unintentional.

Personally I don't see why all such hate speech isn't already covered by the DBAJ rule. I understand that individual mods have some degree of discretion in applying the number of infraction points and their duration. Are these new rules actually to give more guidance to them and not the general forum membership?

 

[Jerry]

Regarding all the recent rules changes: has the rule about noting in-thread warnings in the thread title been removed? After noting that this thread's title was not changed to reflect the 2 in-thread warnings I checked the forum rules and I did not see that rule. If it has been removed, thank you, it was kind-of annoying and hardly anyone checked the noted posts anyway.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

II think most people are very concerned that the rules are applied equally across the board.

Which isn't even possible, as the rules are currently written. The existence and application of “protected groups” means that the rules will not and cannot be applied in an equitable manner, because they already start out on the premise that some groups are “more equal than others”.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

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 [sic] classes based upon ideology, however, runs against the entire reason for the hate speech rules.

No, it doesn't. When you understand the true motive behind “hate speech” rules, then it becomes clear that giving an unfair advantage to the “protected classes” is entirely consistent with that motive. The purpose of such rules is always nothing other than to create an excuse to censor and suppress opinions that those who enact and enforce the rules find disagreeable, and to punish those who dare to commit the horrible crime of holding and expressing such opinions. The “protected groups”*are to prevent these rules from being applied in an equal manner to suppress opinions that are favored by those behind these rules.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

So DebatePolitics doesn't mind if someone comes to the forum and says something like "all veterans are baby-killers". That's not hate-speech in DP's view, but don't anyone dare utter a pejorative about gays.

Correct about it not being HS. It would be covered under another rule.

That's the sort of difficulty I'm having with my understanding of the rule's clarity.

Actually, it sounds like you have the rule's clarity pretty good. Glad I could help.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

This is absolutely true - but I would note, when "members" donate to the upkeep of a site they tend to feel a sense of ownership in "the cause" or at least a stake in it. Members voicing contrary opinions, not just parroting the powers that be, is a true sign of the vibrancy of the site and should be encouraged, not dismissed with a backhanded "if you don't like it, you can leave".

Indeed, without the contributions and participation of all the members of this site to the discussion here, what would this site be? It would be nothing of any worth.

The owners of this site certainly aren't required to give us any voice in how it should be run, but I think it is very foolish to dismiss us in the careless manner that the one mod who I have so far seen participating in this thread has repeatedly done. We certainly have a lot more to do with what this site is, and how much worth it has, than the moderators do.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

And, of course, supporting and defending abortion involves advocating the very most essential of all civil rights from a group of people who, not among those explicitly-listed “protected groups”, is certainly the most innocent and defenseless, and least deserving of any such denial of their rights.

I have to agree with the OP and others, that this rule about “hate messages” is wide open to all sorts of abuse. But then the concept of “hate speech” and “hate crimes” really exists for no other purpose than to facilitate such abuse, so it should be no surprise that a rule here based on those principles is so obviously subject to such abuse, even in the unlikely event that this openness to abuse is unintentional.

This discussion is not about whether or not the rule will exist. It will. That is not negotiable nor the scope of this discussion.

Do you have any suggestions of how to make the rule more clear?