An Official Banning Policy?

Based on the context, I might consider that one hate speech. Certainly it's not an opinion that encourages friendly conversation. Then again, it's one of those things where you can't just shut out the fact that some people feel that way. I would apply some judgement — is the guy just trying to rile you up or is he trying to conduct an honest debate?

edited 20th Dec '11 2:51:49 PM by Fighteer

@"Fighteer": Actually, I think it would be good for you to list out the ways of "being a jerk," as I never saw Anne be anything other than polite.

Where is the line drawn between a sexist view and hate speech? How is telling women that they are inferior beings created for baby making and men's pleasure civil, and what does it add to a discussion?

And don't bother checking my edit or posting history for credentials, who I am does not matter at all compared to what I say.

Tell you what, why don't you look at the rules post (it's in this subforum, even) and tell me what parts of it are vaguely defined. I did add a note about hate speech a while back, by the way.

If that was the sole content of the post, I'd find it very offensive and likely thump it as trolling. I should also add that taking a more nuanced post and strawmanning it as that kind of view in order to dismiss it out of hand is also extremely rude.

edited 20th Dec '11 2:54:58 PM by Fighteer

Of course, the problem with that is that you run the risk of alienating the people who are made uncomfortable by such posts. A forum can stop feeling like a safe, accepting place to chat about fiction very quickly if it's inhabited by people who state their sincere belief that you should not exist.

After a point, you have to consider who you are more willing to defend on balance - the marginalised, or the marginalisers.

This is a really offensive standard though— someone's religion and their hobbies are a personal matter and don't hurt anyone else. It's pretty screwed-up to say that things like arguing that women are inherently inferior to men, rape apologism, minimizing statutory rape, and racism/imperialism don't count as "being a dick."

I'm a feminist. When someone makes the claim— as I've seen a lot on this site —that feminists are all manhaters, or that a fifth of all rape cases are just lies made by stuck-up women, or that rape victims bear partial responsibility for being raped —these are insulting viewpoints that I would view as extremely dickish. Sexism, racism, and other forms of bigotry are morally wrong not just personal choices.

edited 20th Dec '11 2:55:19 PM by lazerface

So, what kind of context makes hate speech palatable and pertinent to a civil discussion?

Edit:

As Fighteer explained there is a (frankly offensive in my view) opinion held by some that uncovered women, women who act promiscuously, are asking to be raped or deserve to be raped. Now as highly offensive as this view may be, saying that women who seek attention from men put themselves at risk of rape and uncovered women deserve to be raped are two completely different ways of sharing the same opinion.

Just explain something to me, if I may ask. If there is something that you find objectionable, why then do you need to take part in the discussion? Is it not much better to ignore it and move on, or highlight it for the staff if you believe said discussion warrants it? Would you not much rather be reading up on the funny, awesome moments of your favorite work than getting down in the mud with someone spouting views that get to you?

edited 20th Dec '11 2:59:54 PM by tsstevens

Because if that sort of thing keeps popping up in a place you frequent, it can become impossible to ignore, and really sour your experience there. That, and it seems somewhat unfair for the onus to be on marginalised people to ignore and accept their marginalisation.

edited 20th Dec '11 2:59:10 PM by Iaculus

Okay, these hypotheticals aren't helping anymore. We aren't going to hand out a litmus test for acceptable social/political opinions before people can post on the forums.

If an On-Topic Conversations post is about something like gay rights, people with socially conservative views may well post in it. That's a risk you take by participating. If someone with socially conservative views goes into your... I don't know, your LGBT forum RP, and starts calling you names, they get banned.

You can't shut out the world and ignore the fact that there are people with objectionable opinions out there. Life doesn't work that way.

edited 20th Dec '11 2:59:00 PM by Fighteer

Isn't that kind of attitude the reason people consider entire subforums to be a hellholes that it's best to stay out of?

I'm sorry, I'm just trying to orient myself. So, basically, the only difference between what TV Tropes deems hate speech and noxious opinions in general is the legality of what is said?

Yeah, and in the civilized world, the people with awful opinions are marginalized and ostracized for being awful people.

Blatant sexism/racism/homophobia/pedophilia = Not Being A Jerk

Calling a sexist/racist/homopobe/pedophile a sexist/racist/homopobe/pedophile = Being A Jerk

Thanks for clearing that up.

Well, say you're on a Star Wars forum and suddenly the discussion goes to atheism. Not even atheism in the films, discussion and critique on Dawkins and Hitchens. What? Why would the discussion go from the comparing Palpatine and Bush to atheism?

By going to a forum on a specific topic you are fairly safe that the discussion will be on that topic. If someone goes 'lol rape' on a Buffy board for example then they'll quickly be dealt with, as you have specifically set out to avoid the 'lol rape' forum to read Buffy.

I really don't get it. The only thing someone needs to do to pass under your radar is call upon the umbrella of conservatism, as though that, in itself, were a reason. That is not a justification. Treat opinions on their own merit, not based on who has voiced them. Isn't that the whole point behind enforcing civility here?

But if we had that policy, certain tropers like Major Tom and Rottweiter would be banned within like 5 minutes.

You can't shut out the world and ignore the fact that there are people with objectionable opinions out there. Life doesn't work that way.

That only applies if you believe that the solution to the rudeness/bigotry imbalance is to come down on bigotry as harshly as you do upon rudeness - to place the responsibility on the mods to weed it out wherever it is found. An alternative is to relax the guidelines a little, to allow a bit of calling-out here and there. Allow forumites a bit more self-regulation, in short. Now, that has its own pros and cons, of course, but my point is that 'shut out everything we don't like and let the mods wrap us in cotton wool' is not the sole option here.

edited 20th Dec '11 3:12:45 PM by Iaculus

The way I see it say someone were to put forward the idea that women asked to be raped in a respectful manner (as respectful as such a view can be made). Those who wish to take part in the discussion, and that's a key word here, you choose to take part in the discussion rather than ignore it or flag it for the mods, can. And they can set about tearing apart said opinion beginning with women's rights and ending with the law and what happens to rapists in prison.

Saying something along the lines of 'I enjoy rape and you should feel bad for supporting laws against rape', well you can count the seconds before they are bounced.

There is no respectful way to say something like that. You can dress it up in polite words and calm syntax, but the gist of it is that you believe women provoke men to commit a violent crime upon their bodies and then proceed to prosecute them for it. An opinion that embedded in sexism is no more polite than complimenting someone on, say, being very intelligent for a black person. It's underhanded. It's loaded. It comes from a history or violence and oppression. Why should it be tolerated because the poster did not say bitch, whore, and fuck?

@Fighteer: "You can't shut out the world and ignore the fact that there are people with objectionable opinions out there. Life doesn't work that way."

Except this is a private web-forum, and you can establish basic standards about what is acceptable behavior or not, beyond vague and easy to abuse rules like "don't be a dick."

And what a lot of people are saying is that it is less dickish to ban people who more or less engage in rape apologia (as an example) then it is to ban people who criticize them for it, and call them out on it.

For one we have freedom of speech that is only limited here by what the staff deems inappropriate (and such a thread I think would quickly be deleted). For another we have the option of taking the high road and ignoring such a thread rather than getting into the mud with them. Third, such a thread is likely a troll thread regardless of how it is worded. Fourth, there is always the option of notifying the mods. And fifth, this is a really extreme example, one that even if it may have been said to be acceptable before I cannot imagine such a controversial topic being allowed or open for long.

Have you been to OTC. Even ignoring that whole subforum, there is a thread for a pederast child-fucker anime on here and the hentai and fetishes threads frequently have people saying how much they love child porn. This is not an extreme example and while the admins continue to sit around with their thumbs up their asses, it never will just be an extreme example but a real and present truth.

There's a hentai thread?

What the staff delimits as appropriate is the entire point of this thread. As for the rape apologia, as Anthony 29 mentioned, you can find various active, long-running threads in several of the subforums if you need evidence that they aren't shut down promptly.