Hate speech on Ratz. Should we tolerate it?

[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).

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

doh! Sorry. No I don't think so. I haven't seen anyone raise any concerns about them. Though a new member might be temporarily quite confused.

[JimC]

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?

doh! Sorry. No I don't think so. I haven't seen anyone raise any concerns about them. Though a new member might be temporarily quite confused.

This is the traditional effect of first entering Ratz...

It slowly subsides...

Very slowly...

[Robert_S]

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?

doh! Sorry. No I don't think so. I haven't seen anyone raise any concerns about them. Though a new member might be temporarily quite confused.

I raised that concern here, but I'd like to hear from people who joined more recently.

I'm revising my opinion on rule changes. there is "hate speech" which is a crappy term I think. I'd rather say that racial, regional and cultural stereotyping ought to be subject to requests to stop, warnings and worse if the person on the receiving end of it does not see the humour in it.

There might be very harsh speech, tinged with the emotion of hatred, that is emotionally draining to read; but to lump that in with outright calls for the final solution to, say, the cheese/bacon question isn't the way to go IMO.

[Pappa]

I'm revising my opinion on rule changes. there is "hate speech" which is a crappy term I think. I'd rather say that racial, regional and cultural stereotyping ought to be subject to requests to stop, warnings and worse if the person on the receiving end of it does not see the humour in it.

We do that already. It came up a long time ago in relation to the use of the word "mick" in jest. A member didn't like it being used about them so it was clearly no longer mutual humour, the person using it was given a gentle reminder not to do it again.

This fits perfectly withing the current staff policy.

[Rum]

This thread is an excellent example of reasoned discussion and shows Ratz at its best I think. It is reasoned to the point where I feel comfortably able to change my mind on the basis of reading and thinking about the arguments.

I think some of the posts of late - let's not mince words - by Gawd - are close to being unacceptable. I think they are offensive and if I was Jewish I am sure I would be deeply offended by their crude ignorance and mean narrow spirit, however banning is probably not the best way of dealing with him and that sort of content.

Nor incidentally , in this case, is ridicule. He either has a very thick skin or else doesn't give a fuck. Ignoring him is a better tactic in my view.

On balance I agree that the only things that should be banned are those that are actually illegal.

I do however reserve the right to get myself suspended by personally attacking Gawd at some point.

[Pappa]

I'm surprised Gawd still posts here really, it is a bit odd that he keeps posting regardless of the disinterest and ridicule.

[Thinking Aloud]

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.

Yes - I was being generic rather than specific to the examples others have listed. Personally I'd be more concerned if similar kinds of posts (the type that could be interpreted as "hate speech" or give the impression Rats is a soap box for radical views) were to occur in, say, Atheism & Religion or General Serious Discussion, where if things got out of hand on either side, it would all be visible to the outside world.

[Bella Fortuna]

I'm surprised Gawd still posts here really, it is a bit odd that he keeps posting regardless of the disinterest and ridicule.

Yes. Just goes to show that derision and shunning alone aren't as effective as some would purport...

[devogue]

Who decides what hate speech is? Those who are offended?

Those are crucial questions, and the clearest, most rational answer is that no one has a right to decide or be offended.

However, perhaps there are some clear historical precedents that show that hate speech can have an extremely negative impact. For instance, I would argue that Der Sturmer, the Nazi newspaper published between 1923 and 1945, was a prime example of "hate speech". Certain ethnic groups, especially the Jews, were villified week in and week out, As Albert Forster, the gauleiter of Danzig wrote in the 1930s:

With pleasure I say that the Stürmer, more than any other daily or weekly newspaper, has made clear to the people in simple ways the danger of Jewry.

An entire race was negatively stereotyped for years, the end result being catastrophic beyond belief. Was it enough to laugh it off? Was it enough to ignore the propaganda, to ridicule it, to sweep it under the carpet of one's sensibilities? Clearly not.

On this forum we have given Gawd free reign to do and say as he pleases. We have made light of his approach, joked about his fascination with Israel, put him in a little box in a quiet corner of the forum, sighed with exasperation at his never-ending gripes about Israel, but always (and quite rightly IMO) allowed him the freedom to post whatever he wants and debate to the full his hatred of the Israeli state and its actions. Until yesterday I felt that he did a good job of separating the actions of the Israeli state from the Jewish people as an ethnic group, and then he posted the following thread title:

"Greedy & Corrupt Jews Control the IDF"

http://www.rationalia.com/forum/viewtop ... 79#p552262

This was my response in that thread:

I think Gawd has finally gone too far. By definition the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) is Jewish, so why not title the thread "IDF Controlled by greedy and corrupt personnel"?

Further, there is nothing within the article to suggest that anyone is being greedy, or even corrupt - at the moment it's a question of privacy, and whether that privacy is legal or not.

Why not title the thread "Israeli authorities in wrangle with IDF personnel department"?

It is clear that there are several ways in which Gawd could have approached this thread but he chose not to do so, instead using an inflammatory, unnecessary and disgusting thread title that Julius Streicher would have been proud of.

Let's be honest here - there are going to be individual Jews who are greedy and corrupt - but there are also greedy and corrupt Irishmen, Frenchmen, Kalahari Bushmen... but there has been no more incendiary and controversial ethnic stereotype, especially over the last century, than the "greedy and corrupt Jew" - it is a sterotype that has created untold and unimaginable horror and misery.

It has now been used on this forum, not buried away in a thread, but used as the actual thread title for an article in which there is no actual evidence for greed or corruption - it could just as easily be argued that the issue is one of privacy, or that two branches of Israeli bereaucracy are at loggerheads with each other, one calling for transparency and the other trying to block it - the use of the term "Greedy and Corrupt Jews" is completely uncalled for and crosses a line that I think should be drawn in the sand here.

If that line is not drawn then there can be no complaints, no shock and no outrage if someone new comes along and a thread title appears along the lines of "Filthy Nigger Seduces White Girls" - our only recourse will be to start threads saying how terrible it is and/or to ridicule them, even when their next thread is titled "Dumb Niggers Stupider Than Whites" and on and on and on ... we will be destroyed by the stubborness of our own rational conclusions: we will lose some of our best friends as the well of our community is poisoned by those who will use our hospitality to push their own agendas.

That's all I have to say about it. We should think very, very carefully about our next move - the mods should be given plenty of time to consider all of this - especially the fact that the rainbow bright exuberance, good-naturedness and fun of Rationalia is stained with a thread slamming "greedy and corrupt Jews" without a shred of evidence...

[Svartalf]

Gawd is bashing the Jews all he can, and he's not yet banned is he?

Methinks the OP is moot.

[Rum]

Oh fuck. And I thought I had made up my mind.

Its the way he tells them you know.

[FBM]

Gawd is bashing the Jews all he can, and he's not yet banned is he?

Methinks the OP is moot.

Issues arise in time. Ratz's initial rules have been amended before due to unforeseen pressures. We're discussing this to see if there is justification for doing it again. The OP would be moot, if the rules and policies were set in stone, but they're not.

[Pappa]

Gawd is bashing the Jews all he can, and he's not yet banned is he?

Methinks the OP is moot.

FBM's asking if the members think we should change the rules to ban hate speech though.

Edit: I see he beat me to it... ^^^

[Rum]

How about a changeable poll?

[Pappa]

How about a changeable poll?

Oh dear.... the dreaded poll options decision.