Hate speech on Ratz. Should we tolerate it?

[FBM]

XC, that's one issue that did cross my mind. There is a legal definition of hate speech, and the intensity and regularity with which some of the ideas that are expressed could fit that definition. I dunno. I'm not a lawyer/barrister or whatever.

Again, I'm not wedded to either side of the question. Restrictions on behavior should be minimal, IMO, but protecting the minority's right to be free of harassment is also necessary.

Here's a question: If the word used consistently in a derogatory manner were "nigger", would we have a different reaction?

Actually, that is a far better comparison than it would have been 20 years ago. Back then, there was a clear difference between "Jew" which describes a people of a specific ancestry and which is used by them to describe themselves and "Nigger", which was a slang term for anyone of dark skin colour and vaguely African origin and was only ever used by others as a term of abuse. These days, "Nigger" is used extensively by those of african descent in the western hemisphere - possibly more so than it is used by racists as a term of abuse now!

Even some non-black comedians are working up the nerve to use the word these days. It's becoming increasingly acceptable when the context makes it clear that the intent is not hateful. In the same way, you can use the word "Jew" either way. How would we respond to someone repeatedly attacking "niggers"? Should we respond differently when "Jews" are used in the same vein?

Again, I'm just asking the question. I don't have a favored answer.

Ultimately though - they are both just words. I have never been in favour of banning words - I am even tolerant of others speaking of "bacon"!

Oh, the magnanimity.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Ultimately though - they are both just words. I have never been in favour of banning words - I am even tolerant of others speaking of "bacon"!

Oh, the magnanimity.

I haz tolerantz!

[Gawd]

Even some non-black comedians are working up the nerve to use the word these days. It's becoming increasingly acceptable when the context makes it clear that the intent is not hateful. In the same way, you can use the word "Jew" either way. How would we respond to someone repeatedly attacking "niggers"? Should we respond differently when "Jews" are used in the same vein?

I never knew "Jew" was a derogatory term. I will stop using it.

[FBM]

Ultimately though - they are both just words. I have never been in favour of banning words - I am even tolerant of others speaking of "bacon"!

Oh, the magnanimity.

I haz tolerantz!

I made a conscious, though difficult, decision a while back to allow 'you people' to continue uncontested discussing... that...other stuff. We cool.

[FBM]

Even some non-black comedians are working up the nerve to use the word these days. It's becoming increasingly acceptable when the context makes it clear that the intent is not hateful. In the same way, you can use the word "Jew" either way. How would we respond to someone repeatedly attacking "niggers"? Should we respond differently when "Jews" are used in the same vein?

I never knew "Jew" was a derogatory term. I will stop using it.

It's only derogatory if you create the context that makes it so.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Even some non-black comedians are working up the nerve to use the word these days. It's becoming increasingly acceptable when the context makes it clear that the intent is not hateful. In the same way, you can use the word "Jew" either way. How would we respond to someone repeatedly attacking "niggers"? Should we respond differently when "Jews" are used in the same vein?

I never knew "Jew" was a derogatory term. I will stop using it.

Actually, it is a term that is laden with ambiguity. It can mean those following the judaic religion, the 'race' (not a term I personally recognise when it comes to arbitrary divisions of the human race based on physical characteristics or (often dubious) heredity), or the inhabitants of Israel.

This leads to the ridiculous notions of jewish muslims, christian jews, American Jews, black jews, etc.

Using it as a shorthand for whatever you intend it to mean at the time is rather unhelpful. By all means, drop the usage and replace it with an accurate description of who you are specifically criticising. Thanks!

[Rum]

Funny hats should be against the rules.

Ban cunts I say!

[JimC]

Even some non-black comedians are working up the nerve to use the word these days. It's becoming increasingly acceptable when the context makes it clear that the intent is not hateful. In the same way, you can use the word "Jew" either way. How would we respond to someone repeatedly attacking "niggers"? Should we respond differently when "Jews" are used in the same vein?

I never knew "Jew" was a derogatory term. I will stop using it.

I have said before, Gawd, that you should use the term "zionist", or in certain contexts, the Israeli government. Then people may respond to the parts of your posts which are legitimate criticisms of unfair policies, without an automatic dismissal of you as purely anti-semitic...

And it would also help if you occasionally acknowledged the atrocities and terrorist acts of Hamas and the rest towards purely civilian targets...

[Trolldor]

It's derrogatory because, Gawd, there are only Jews and self-hating Jews in your uneducated and uninspired world view.

[Thinking Aloud]

On the OP, and not with specific reference to any particular subject or member's posts, I don't think any subject should be actively suppressed (laws notwithstanding). What I would have concerns about is how visible subjects that could be interpreted in this way are to the outside world. If a casual (non-member) viewer (or search engine) was faced with a page of anti-Martian threads, it might easily be assumed that Rationalia was a hot-bed of anti-Martian sentiment, especially if the ridiculing and parody was not equally visible.

[charlou]

The "not it isn't, yes it is" subforum is guest and bot free. Members also have the opt in/out option via their UCP.

[charlou]

This forum is hosted in the UK and is subject to the laws of that country. In particular, it is subject to the laws regarding incitement to racial hatred - this from Wikipedia...

Under the Law of the United Kingdom, "incitement to racial hatred" was established as an offence by the provisions of §§ 17-29 of the Public Order Act 1986. It was first established as a criminal offence in the Race Relations Act 1976. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 made publication of material that incited racial hatred an arrestable offence.
This offence refers to:

• deliberately provoking hatred of a racial group
• distributing racist material to the public
• making inflammatory public speeches
• creating racist websites on the Internet
• inciting inflammatory rumours about an individual or an ethnic group, for the purpose of spreading racial discontent.

Holocaust denial is not covered under this legislation, but laws against incitement to hatred against religions were later established under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement ... ial_hatred

[Pappa]

The "not it isn't, yes it is" subforum is guest and bot free. Members also have the opt in/out option via their UCP.

Yar. But a lot of the parodies end up in the Pub (I think).

[charlou]

Michael Leunig, by the way, has come up with his own way of dealing with all forms of contentious issues .. with poignant humour and irony.

[charlou]

The "not it isn't, yes it is" subforum is guest and bot free. Members also have the opt in/out option via their UCP.

Yar. But a lot of the parodies end up in the Pub (I think).

That's guest and bot free too ... Are the parodies bothering people?