Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

On Hate Speech

For anyone who might want to have a side conversation...you're welcome here!
On Hate Speech
Post by DrakBibliophile   » Thu Feb 18, 2021 1:39 pm

DrakBibliophile
Admiral

Posts: 2311
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2009 3:54 pm
Location: East Central Illinois

In the "Baen Bar closed down" Thread (which I'm not going to finish reading), somebody mentioned the "danger of hate speech".

While there is such an animal as "Speech That Shows Hatred" and "Speech That Encourages Hatred", IMO too much "Hate Speech" is stuff that somebody "dislikes" and in order to get the other person to shut up (or be shut up) the person labels it "Hate Speech".

Of course, Politics comes into play when it comes to "Hate Speech".

IE If I express an opinion about "the other side" that shows my hatred of "the other side", then it isn't (in my mind) True Hate Speech. Obviously the same applies to somebody on "the other side". When that person express his hatred toward "my side", then that person likely doesn't consider it True Hate Speech.

I've heard too much screams about "Hate Speech" from people who have expressed hatred toward me and mine. I've even heard talk about killing me and mine and/or about sending me and mine to prison/reeducation camps.

So if "you" are against Hate Speech, perhaps you should consider how you sound toward people who disagree with you.

If "you" want Hate Speech banned by the Government and/or Private Organizations, "you" better worry about "what happens if the other side" gets the power to ban your speech.
*
Paul Howard (Alias Drak Bibliophile)
*
Sometimes The Dragon Wins! [Polite Dragon Smile]
*
Top
Re: On Hate Speech
Post by The E   » Thu Feb 18, 2021 1:57 pm

The E
Admiral

Posts: 2587
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 1:28 pm
Location: Bielefeld, Germany

DrakBibliophile wrote:If "you" want Hate Speech banned by the Government and/or Private Organizations, "you" better worry about "what happens if the other side" gets the power to ban your speech.


Ah, I see the "Total Free Speech everywhere all the time" defender has logged on.

So, in your opinion, does someone who opens a forum like this one have the authority to moderate the discussions happening in it, or is it anathema to exclude someone from it as a result of them posting things the owner of that forum disagrees with?

Yes, that's a trick question. Nice of you to notice. Of course they have that power; this is RFCs house and we're just playing in it at his sufferance.

Next question:
If you come across a forum where you see hate speech directed at you happening (using whatever definition of "true" hate speech you're using), and if you suspect or know that that forum's owner doesn't usually condone that conduct and that, at any rate, that conduct isn't representative of that forum's ideals, would you be comfortable telling that owner about it?
Not, I hasten to add, telling them what they should do or demand that the posters be banned, just telling them that there's something stinky going on that they might want to take a look at.
Is that something you'd do? Or is it something you'd consider to be beyond the pale?
Top
Re: On Hate Speech
Post by DrakBibliophile   » Thu Feb 18, 2021 2:37 pm

DrakBibliophile
Admiral

Posts: 2311
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2009 3:54 pm
Location: East Central Illinois

And how would you feel if your speech is banned?

Sorry, on a private group things like "attacking the person not the post" are valid reasons to moderate a person.

But too often on some private groups, it is a matter of banning people who express "improper opinions" and labeling "improper opinions" as Hate Speech.

And besides matters of "improper opinions", there's also bans for "subjective reasons" not "objective reasons".

Generally speaking, Free Speech must include "allowing speech you dislike". You are always free to disagree with the other person and to tell them that they are wrong/mistaken.

Once you start saying "those beliefs/opinions must be banned" then you're opening the door for Somebody In Power saying that "your own beliefs/opinions must be banned".

Of course, if you really can't stand that person's beliefs/opinions, then you're free to ignore that person.

Now, the Logic Of Banning Hate Speech is "if we don't stop that sort of speech, people will be killed".

But who judges that?

I could say that "Speech Against Religion Will Lead To Religious People Being Killed", but is that actually True?

The owners of a private group have to weigh various matters when it comes to speech/conversations in their group.

The easiest IMO would be "This is a group for knitting so we'll ban talk about card-playing".

What I've found annoying are the groups that "Opening Ban Political Talk" but don't realize that some of the "allowed" talk is very political because "it is the accepted politics for members/owners of the group".

The E wrote:
DrakBibliophile wrote:If "you" want Hate Speech banned by the Government and/or Private Organizations, "you" better worry about "what happens if the other side" gets the power to ban your speech.


Ah, I see the "Total Free Speech everywhere all the time" defender has logged on.

So, in your opinion, does someone who opens a forum like this one have the authority to moderate the discussions happening in it, or is it anathema to exclude someone from it as a result of them posting things the owner of that forum disagrees with?

Yes, that's a trick question. Nice of you to notice. Of course they have that power; this is RFCs house and we're just playing in it at his sufferance.

Next question:
If you come across a forum where you see hate speech directed at you happening (using whatever definition of "true" hate speech you're using), and if you suspect or know that that forum's owner doesn't usually condone that conduct and that, at any rate, that conduct isn't representative of that forum's ideals, would you be comfortable telling that owner about it?
Not, I hasten to add, telling them what they should do or demand that the posters be banned, just telling them that there's something stinky going on that they might want to take a look at.
Is that something you'd do? Or is it something you'd consider to be beyond the pale?
*
Paul Howard (Alias Drak Bibliophile)
*
Sometimes The Dragon Wins! [Polite Dragon Smile]
*
Top
Re: On Hate Speech
Post by DrakBibliophile   » Thu Feb 18, 2021 2:40 pm

DrakBibliophile
Admiral

Posts: 2311
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2009 3:54 pm
Location: East Central Illinois

By the way, on your second question.

It would be much better to Tell The Owner than to spread talk about the "Hate Speech" elsewhere.

And again, there is still the question of "What Is Hate Speech".

The E wrote:
DrakBibliophile wrote:If "you" want Hate Speech banned by the Government and/or Private Organizations, "you" better worry about "what happens if the other side" gets the power to ban your speech.


Ah, I see the "Total Free Speech everywhere all the time" defender has logged on.

So, in your opinion, does someone who opens a forum like this one have the authority to moderate the discussions happening in it, or is it anathema to exclude someone from it as a result of them posting things the owner of that forum disagrees with?

Yes, that's a trick question. Nice of you to notice. Of course they have that power; this is RFCs house and we're just playing in it at his sufferance.

Next question:
If you come across a forum where you see hate speech directed at you happening (using whatever definition of "true" hate speech you're using), and if you suspect or know that that forum's owner doesn't usually condone that conduct and that, at any rate, that conduct isn't representative of that forum's ideals, would you be comfortable telling that owner about it?
Not, I hasten to add, telling them what they should do or demand that the posters be banned, just telling them that there's something stinky going on that they might want to take a look at.
Is that something you'd do? Or is it something you'd consider to be beyond the pale?
*
Paul Howard (Alias Drak Bibliophile)
*
Sometimes The Dragon Wins! [Polite Dragon Smile]
*
Top
Re: On Hate Speech
Post by Donnachaidh   » Thu Feb 18, 2021 2:58 pm

Donnachaidh
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1007
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:11 pm

Should private entities be forced to host speech?

DrakBibliophile wrote:And how would you feel if your speech is banned?

Sorry, on a private group things like "attacking the person not the post" are valid reasons to moderate a person.

But too often on some private groups, it is a matter of banning people who express "improper opinions" and labeling "improper opinions" as Hate Speech.

And besides matters of "improper opinions", there's also bans for "subjective reasons" not "objective reasons".

Generally speaking, Free Speech must include "allowing speech you dislike". You are always free to disagree with the other person and to tell them that they are wrong/mistaken.

Once you start saying "those beliefs/opinions must be banned" then you're opening the door for Somebody In Power saying that "your own beliefs/opinions must be banned".

Of course, if you really can't stand that person's beliefs/opinions, then you're free to ignore that person.

Now, the Logic Of Banning Hate Speech is "if we don't stop that sort of speech, people will be killed".

But who judges that?

I could say that "Speech Against Religion Will Lead To Religious People Being Killed", but is that actually True?

The owners of a private group have to weigh various matters when it comes to speech/conversations in their group.

The easiest IMO would be "This is a group for knitting so we'll ban talk about card-playing".

What I've found annoying are the groups that "Opening Ban Political Talk" but don't realize that some of the "allowed" talk is very political because "it is the accepted politics for members/owners of the group".
_____________________________________________________
"Sometimes I wonder if the world is run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain
Top
Re: On Hate Speech
Post by DrakBibliophile   » Thu Feb 18, 2021 3:32 pm

DrakBibliophile
Admiral

Posts: 2311
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2009 3:54 pm
Location: East Central Illinois

??????

Obviously, a private entity doesn't have to have a "discussion area".

Equally obvious, a private entity can have a discussion area focused on a narrow area of discussion (ie a discussion area focused on knitting, not on card games).

But if a private entity encourages political discussion in its discussion area, then it should be very very careful about "banning comments".

Of course, it beginning to appear that nobody wants to consider that Their Speech might be the Speech Banned.

In My Opinion, anybody who wants to Ban Political Speech deserves to have Their Political Speech Banned. :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:


Donnachaidh wrote:Should private entities be forced to host speech?

DrakBibliophile wrote:And how would you feel if your speech is banned?

Sorry, on a private group things like "attacking the person not the post" are valid reasons to moderate a person.

But too often on some private groups, it is a matter of banning people who express "improper opinions" and labeling "improper opinions" as Hate Speech.

And besides matters of "improper opinions", there's also bans for "subjective reasons" not "objective reasons".

Generally speaking, Free Speech must include "allowing speech you dislike". You are always free to disagree with the other person and to tell them that they are wrong/mistaken.

Once you start saying "those beliefs/opinions must be banned" then you're opening the door for Somebody In Power saying that "your own beliefs/opinions must be banned".

Of course, if you really can't stand that person's beliefs/opinions, then you're free to ignore that person.

Now, the Logic Of Banning Hate Speech is "if we don't stop that sort of speech, people will be killed".

But who judges that?

I could say that "Speech Against Religion Will Lead To Religious People Being Killed", but is that actually True?

The owners of a private group have to weigh various matters when it comes to speech/conversations in their group.

The easiest IMO would be "This is a group for knitting so we'll ban talk about card-playing".

What I've found annoying are the groups that "Opening Ban Political Talk" but don't realize that some of the "allowed" talk is very political because "it is the accepted politics for members/owners of the group".
*
Paul Howard (Alias Drak Bibliophile)
*
Sometimes The Dragon Wins! [Polite Dragon Smile]
*
Top
Re: On Hate Speech
Post by The E   » Thu Feb 18, 2021 3:33 pm

The E
Admiral

Posts: 2587
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 1:28 pm
Location: Bielefeld, Germany

DrakBibliophile wrote:And how would you feel if your speech is banned?


If I am banned from a place like this or reddit or the bar?
Nothing much.

Sorry, on a private group things like "attacking the person not the post" are valid reasons to moderate a person.

But too often on some private groups, it is a matter of banning people who express "improper opinions" and labeling "improper opinions" as Hate Speech.


What's an improper opinion?

Is "we need to kill all the <insert religious minority here>" "improper"?
According to "attacking the person, not the post" rules, no, it's not.
However, according to my personal rule of "bigots can fuck off and die", it is, and so I decide that on the forums I moderate, I will ban people for expressing that opinion.

How evil am I?

Generally speaking, Free Speech must include "allowing speech you dislike". You are always free to disagree with the other person and to tell them that they are wrong/mistaken.


I can, will, and have told people who act like bigots that they need to leave and never come back.

How evil am I?

Once you start saying "those beliefs/opinions must be banned" then you're opening the door for Somebody In Power saying that "your own beliefs/opinions must be banned".


Paradox of Tolerance, my guy. It's an important concept.
As is the very german (and forgive me, for I am german) concept of "streitbare Demokratie", which I subscribe to.

The thing is, I am not at all concerned with that hypothetical when it comes to private fora. Either I am capable and willing to follow the rules that community has established for itself, or I am not. If I am not, then the chances of me wishing to join it in the first place are low, and if the place changes such that I am no longer welcome, why would I stay?
And if I somehow breach the rules and get a rebuke from a moderator, so what? Either I change or decide to leave. No big deal.

The situation is obviously different when we're talking about governments making certain speech illegal or criminal. That's a much thornier issue where a lot more restrictions apply and where I would be incredibly wary of any government that introduces such laws regardless of target or intent (that said, I see no reason to decriminalize holocaust denial).

Now, the Logic Of Banning Hate Speech is "if we don't stop that sort of speech, people will be killed".

But who judges that?


See, that's the thing here, we know that speech like that can lead to murders. We know that radicalization happens like that.
Top
Re: On Hate Speech
Post by DrakBibliophile   » Thu Feb 18, 2021 3:41 pm

DrakBibliophile
Admiral

Posts: 2311
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2009 3:54 pm
Location: East Central Illinois

On the Paradox of Tolerance idea, there are plenty of people that I wish Would Shut UP.

There are plenty of people who I wish would go away and not come back.

I am just not arrogant enough to Think That I Am The Proper Person To Make Them Shut UP.

As far as I'm concerned people who support Banning So-Called Hate Speech (by Government or private groups) Deserve to Be Permanently Banned Because Of Their Supreme Arrogance.

Because They Believe That Their Opinion of "What is Hate Speech" is Fact not Opinion.


The E wrote:
DrakBibliophile wrote:And how would you feel if your speech is banned?


If I am banned from a place like this or reddit or the bar?
Nothing much.

Sorry, on a private group things like "attacking the person not the post" are valid reasons to moderate a person.

But too often on some private groups, it is a matter of banning people who express "improper opinions" and labeling "improper opinions" as Hate Speech.


What's an improper opinion?

Is "we need to kill all the <insert religious minority here>" "improper"?
According to "attacking the person, not the post" rules, no, it's not.
However, according to my personal rule of "bigots can fuck off and die", it is, and so I decide that on the forums I moderate, I will ban people for expressing that opinion.

How evil am I?

Generally speaking, Free Speech must include "allowing speech you dislike". You are always free to disagree with the other person and to tell them that they are wrong/mistaken.


I can, will, and have told people who act like bigots that they need to leave and never come back.

How evil am I?

Once you start saying "those beliefs/opinions must be banned" then you're opening the door for Somebody In Power saying that "your own beliefs/opinions must be banned".


Paradox of Tolerance, my guy. It's an important concept.
As is the very german (and forgive me, for I am german) concept of "streitbare Demokratie", which I subscribe to.

The thing is, I am not at all concerned with that hypothetical when it comes to private fora. Either I am capable and willing to follow the rules that community has established for itself, or I am not. If I am not, then the chances of me wishing to join it in the first place are low, and if the place changes such that I am no longer welcome, why would I stay?
And if I somehow breach the rules and get a rebuke from a moderator, so what? Either I change or decide to leave. No big deal.

The situation is obviously different when we're talking about governments making certain speech illegal or criminal. That's a much thornier issue where a lot more restrictions apply and where I would be incredibly wary of any government that introduces such laws regardless of target or intent (that said, I see no reason to decriminalize holocaust denial).

Now, the Logic Of Banning Hate Speech is "if we don't stop that sort of speech, people will be killed".

But who judges that?


See, that's the thing here, we know that speech like that can lead to murders. We know that radicalization happens like that.
*
Paul Howard (Alias Drak Bibliophile)
*
Sometimes The Dragon Wins! [Polite Dragon Smile]
*
Top
Re: On Hate Speech
Post by The E   » Thu Feb 18, 2021 4:12 pm

The E
Admiral

Posts: 2587
Joined: Tue May 07, 2013 1:28 pm
Location: Bielefeld, Germany

DrakBibliophile wrote:On the Paradox of Tolerance idea, there are plenty of people that I wish Would Shut UP.

There are plenty of people who I wish would go away and not come back.

I am just not arrogant enough to Think That I Am The Proper Person To Make Them Shut UP.


Until I resigned from that position, I was a moderator in a moderately large forum. I was and still am trusted enough by that community to be one of those "proper persons".

So, you know. That is coloring my thoughts on this matter to an extent.

Being a moderator, being trusted to be a moderator, has nothing to do with arrogance, but with long work at building up a reputation for impartiality and good judgment in the service of the community. It's not something anyone can or should just claim for themselves, it's a learned skill.

The Paradox of Tolerance is one of the guiding principles I took to heart as I was learning the skills required. Managing a community means that, on occasion, the decision needs to be made to cut someone out of it. Never lightly, never at the first offence, but some people who are determined enough to make asses of themselves do need to be shown the door eventually.

As far as I'm concerned people who support Banning So-Called Hate Speech (by Government or private groups) Deserve to Be Permanently Banned Because Of Their Supreme Arrogance.

Because They Believe That Their Opinion of "What is Hate Speech" is Fact not Opinion.


What is and isn't bannable speech isn't something that can be determined objectively. For some fora, no speech is bannable, and those tend to become infested with fascists sooner or later. For others, anything but the most innocuous of phrasings is considered harmful, and they're just as toxic and uninhabitable by actual humans; What the correct middle ground between those poles is is something that a community has to work out over time.

Do I believe that my definition of bannable speech is a "fact"? Hell no. It's an expression of my personal values. That's why well-run forums have more than one moderator on hand to decide things and feedback mechanisms so that the community and moderation team are in dialogue, not in conflict.
Top
Re: On Hate Speech
Post by Donnachaidh   » Thu Feb 18, 2021 4:41 pm

Donnachaidh
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1007
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 3:11 pm

So your argument is that if a private entity allows any political speech is should not be allowed to put a limit on it? Does that mean it should be forced to allow people to advocate for laws that restrict or limit the rights of people based on immutable characteristics (e.g. ethnicity or sex)?

DrakBibliophile wrote:??????

Obviously, a private entity doesn't have to have a "discussion area".

Equally obvious, a private entity can have a discussion area focused on a narrow area of discussion (ie a discussion area focused on knitting, not on card games).

But if a private entity encourages political discussion in its discussion area, then it should be very very careful about "banning comments".

Of course, it beginning to appear that nobody wants to consider that Their Speech might be the Speech Banned.

In My Opinion, anybody who wants to Ban Political Speech deserves to have Their Political Speech Banned. :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:


Donnachaidh wrote:Should private entities be forced to host speech?
_____________________________________________________
"Sometimes I wonder if the world is run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain
Top

Return to Free-Range Topics...