The Death of Comments

[Burnt State]

But personal views do represent ideologies and those come into conflict repeatedly in any open environment. You can try to focus on only the substance of a post, but if you are met in return with insult it becomes pretty difficult to maintain a civil discussion. For that sole reason I've seen posters leave the space. Some people just despise conflict.

The other issue is that if your content is ideologically hateful then these issues need to be pointed out in order to allow people to have the freedom to post their own voice. These contrary positions also create conflict. Without a code of ethics within the space that defines what's ok in the community vs. posts that impinge on other people's freedoms then you will have posters that either self censor by walking away from threads or who disappear altogether.

One last point to identify: the culture of an online community can be measured by the number of people that join a space, or by the quality of its discussions. But those are two different spaces.

 

[Randall]

 

[manxman]

But personal views do represent ideologies and those come into conflict repeatedly in any open environment. You can try to focus on only the substance of a post, but if you are met in return with insult it becomes pretty difficult to maintain a civil discussion. For that sole reason I've seen posters leave the space. Some people just despise conflict.

The other issue is that if your content is ideologically hateful then these issues need to be pointed out in order to allow people to have the freedom to post their own voice. These contrary positions also create conflict. Without a code of ethics within the space that defines what's ok in the community vs. posts that impinge on other people's freedoms then you will have posters that either self censor by walking away from threads or who disappear altogether.

One last point to identify: the culture of an online community can be measured by the number of people that join a space, or by the quality of its discussions. But those are two different spaces.

How come no-one ever questions mad mike's borderline hate speeches, you just let him rant on and on, just because this is the internet he gets a free pass, if he preached the same in public, he would go to jail, he advocates a muslim holocaust openly, and its just good old mike having a rant and posting frenzy.

He had the same views on the Palestinians post after post after post about scum getting what they deserved, atleast some people spoke up then.

Charlie Prime is the only one gently trying to get him to state his position clearly about his final solution of the muslim problem, but ofcourse mike just makes 5 or 6 heavily link laiden demonising posts in reply, whilst avoiding direct answer, theres good reasonfor that, he knows we will be appalled.

My prediction 2015, Charlie will go on mikes ignore list before the end of january.

 

[Burnt State]

I agree with zero reply, especially when posters become targets. I know this is a big forum but too often there is a reliance on the victim to report. That's old school philosophy as far as I'm concerned. I report when I see other people attacking other posters as I don't think there should be any tolerance for such attacks, nor do I feel that it's the victim's responsibility to come forward in an online forum environment.

Hatred though requires moderators to step in immediately to identify that you can't advocate hate against any single group. This is where things get tricky as not everyone shares the same values. I don't recall @mike advocating Muslim genocide but I do know he takes out religious believers with equal vim and vigor, no matter who their god is. Is that problematic? What about the statements made here online about those living in poverty? Sexism is a major issue, often, with comments that are ridiculously retro. And then there are suggestions, innuendos and more than once I've seen posters call other people racists openly and without reservation. But no one ever interrupts to set the tone.

During our most recent debacle regarding Palestine and Israel I early on reported to moderators that they needed to intervene before outright hatred exploded. I didn't see anyone come in to set that tone - but then maybe there are private messages that were sent to calm things down. That's stuff we don't see.

I would like to see more open dialogue about what does constitute hatred, how to respond to posts as opposed to taking out the poster. When there is no intervention and ideologies are allowed to flourish, this can invite insult, attack and putting people in their place because other ideologies necessitate responses. Do we need rules and bettere definitions for sensitive areas with clear cut examples - yes please.

 

[pixelsmith]

Send a pm to who you have a problem with. Simple stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Fcseven]

This is actually the most well behaved forum I visit.

 

[Randall]

... I would like to see more open dialogue about what does constitute hatred, how to respond to posts as opposed to taking out the poster. When there is no intervention and ideologies are allowed to flourish, this can invite insult, attack and putting people in their place because other ideologies necessitate responses. Do we need rules and bettere definitions for sensitive areas with clear cut examples - yes please.

Great points. My concern over what constitutes "hate speech" is that simply disagreeing with what some ideology or belief promotes is getting labeled as "hate speech". Hate is a volatile emotion while simply holding another viewpoint for one reason or another is nothing of the sort. IMO those who cry "hate speech" whenever someone doesn't agree with them and their ideology are worse than those who simply question the ideology because adherents to such ideologies sometimes have their own "hate on" for anyone who doesn't fall in line with their way of thinking, and seem to be using the "hate speech card" simply to quell any discontent.

It's like trend against cyberbullying where people who just want their way cry cyberbully whenever someone expresses a viewpoint that is different from theirs or points out some flaw or discrepancy in their version of the facts. This trend is engrained in individuals wherever some ideology has entrenched itself, and isn't limited to religion or politics. I may have mentioned this one before, but one of my favorite quotes about minorities and rights came from a little old white guy named Al Robertson who said, "If you want to see who the real minority is, go stand at a bus stop."

 

[Burnt State]

Hate speech is specifically about directing hate towards an identifiable group of people and I would separate it from the idea of being insulting or bullying towards an individual. However, these can be examples of hate speech if a person is being targeted because of their gender, race, ability, class or sexuality.

This discussion always sparks a debate around freedom of speech. That's a healthy discussion for forum members to talk about what crosses lines and what kinds of behaviors and language is bullying or hateful, and how it should be treated.

Asking people who have been targets of hateful or bullying language to PM their perceived aggressor makes no sense to me at all. If that person is being as seen as not civil publically why engage them further in private? That's just inviting attack on a different level.

Like Fcseven I am also impressed with the overall informed, decent and witty discussion on this forum.

Here's some definitions of hate speech:

Hate speech laws in Canada
In Canada, advocating genocide[19] or inciting hatred[20] against any "identifiable group" is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum prison terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as "any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation". It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990).

Both examples are from : Hate speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

South Africa
In South Africa, hate speech (along with incitement to violence and propaganda for war) is specifically excluded from protection of free speech in the Constitution. The Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, 2000 contains the following clause:

[N]o person may publish, propagate, advocate or communicate words based on one or more of the prohibited grounds, against any person, that could reasonably be construed to demonstrate a clear intention to―

be hurtful;
be harmful or to incite harm;
promote or propagate hatred.[58]
The "prohibited grounds" include race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.

The crime of crimen injuria ("unlawfully, intentionally and seriously impairing the dignity of another")[59] may also be used to prosecute hate speech.[60]

In 2011, a South African court banned "Dubula iBhunu (Shoot the Boer)", a derogatory song degrading Afrikaners, on the basis that it violated a South African law prohibiting speech that demonstrates a clear intention to be hurtful, to incite harm, or to promote hatred.[61]

 

[SheaOlmsford]

Great points. My concern over what constitutes "hate speech" is that simply disagreeing with what some ideology or belief promotes is getting labeled as "hate speech". Hate is a volatile emotion while simply holding another viewpoint for one reason or another is nothing of the sort. IMO those who cry "hate speech" whenever someone doesn't agree with them and their ideology are worse than those who simply question the ideology because adherents to such ideologies sometimes have their own "hate on" for anyone who doesn't fall in line with their way of thinking, and seem to be using the "hate speech card" simply to quell any discontent.

It's like trend against cyberbullying where people who just want their way cry cyberbully whenever someone expresses a viewpoint that is different from theirs or points out some flaw or discrepancy in their version of the facts. This trend is engrained in individuals wherever some ideology has entrenched itself, and isn't limited to religion or politics. I may have mentioned this one before, but one of my favorite quotes about minorities and rights came from a little old white guy named Al Robertson who said, "If you want to see who the real minority is, go stand at a bus stop."

What if the ideology, like Nazism, promotes the wholesale killing of millions of people because their DNA differs from your own? Not all ideologies are equal in terms of their goals and moral value. In my life experience, I have noticed that the people who most often engage in HATE SPEECH, like right wing fundamentalist Christians speaking for the wholesale destruction or repression of gay people, are the first to bellow "Hate Speech" when someone disagrees with them. Maybe you have to have been on the receiving end of such ideologies before you can see the polemic in action. I've found that Christians can call for the most bloody brutal actions against their definition of "other", but then start yelping like greased pigs if they are called on it.

 

[manxman]

Hate speech is defined by the individual, not the law.

The law may have parameters, but intent to offend is the offense.

Anything we say that we know will hurt, is hate speech, as well as hands free incitement, demonisation is hate speech, when the intent is to hate on the demonised.
Even on the internet, to make one two three etc etc, sometimes 10/15 postings in a row demonising one religion is hate speech, its a hate rant, and when they become so regular they account for more that 50% of the persons postings, its becomes hate speech full stop.

Now offending someone without intent, thats a different matter.

 

[SheaOlmsford]

This says it all. Click on the cartoon to see all of it.

 

[Randall]

What if the ideology, like Nazism, promotes the wholesale killing of millions of people because their DNA differs from your own? Not all ideologies are equal in terms of their goals and moral value. In my life experience, I have noticed that the people who most often engage in HATE SPEECH, like right wing fundamentalist Christians speaking for the wholesale destruction or repression of gay people, are the first to bellow "Hate Speech" when someone disagrees with them. Maybe you have to have been on the receiving end of such ideologies before you can see the polemic in action. I've found that Christians can call for the most bloody brutal actions against their definition of "other", but then start yelping like greased pigs if they are called on it.

It's important to maintain context. What I said was, "My concern over what constitutes "hate speech" is that simply disagreeing with what some ideology or belief promotes is getting labeled as "hate speech". So with the Nazi example, if I were to respond by saying that I disagree with your characterization of Nazism, without being given the benefit of providing any reasons, and the post was suddenly branded as "hate speech", then that's the kind of thing I'd have a problem with. Hypothetically there could even be a discussion in which the various facets of Nazism are debated, and in such a discussion, the participant tasked with illustrating how Nazism has been incorrectly labeled as hate speech shouldn't be seen as a Nazi sympathizer or a purveyor of hate speech. We need the intellectual freedom to openly discuss issues without being shackled by laws that would prohibit such discussion.

 

[pixelsmith]

[QUOTE="ufology, post: 212036, member: 2682"]It's like trend against cyberbullying where people who just want their way cry cyberbully whenever someone expresses a viewpoint that is different from theirs or points out some flaw or discrepancy in their version of the facts. This trend is engrained in individuals wherever some ideology has entrenched itself, and isn't limited to religion or politics. I may have mentioned this one before, but one of my favorite quotes about minorities and rights came from a little old white guy named Al Robertson who said, "If you want to see who the real minority is, go stand at a bus stop." [/QUOTE]
We have a few people here that resemble that remark, it is pathetic they can't handle it themselves via PM. Burnt seems to think that will invite more problems but I disagree. Angelo and I have total disagreements on the forum but we are good friends via PM. Try it Burnt you will find I am a pretty nice guy.

 

[Burnt State]

We have a few people here that resemble that remark, it is pathetic they can't handle it themselves via PM. Burnt seems to think that will invite more problems but I disagree. Angelo and I have total disagreements on the forum but we are good friends via PM. Try it Burnt you will find I am a pretty nice guy.

I go by what I read and what I read tells me all I need to know. If I ever find
any questions that you might actually answer I will send them your way.

 

[pixelsmith]

I read the bible three times. The first time it told me all I needed to know. The second time I realized that parts of it I was told to believe didn't seem right. The third time I realized the intent seemed good but it was all bullshit.
CAGW is all bull$hit.

 

[manxman]

Have you got any proof.

Edit.
Please dont reply it was a joke.

 

[Burnt State]

I read the bible three times. The first time it told me all I needed to know. The second time I realized that parts of it I was told to believe didn't seem right. The third time I realized the intent seemed good but it was all bullshit.
CAGW is all bull$hit.

Jeezus, I thought you were about to make a confession there for a moment.

 

[manxman]

Can i ask you a question bs.

Here it is, have you ever come across an 'ism' that doesnt offend you deeply ?.

Oops apart from multiculturalism

 

[Burnt State]

Skepticism. Altruism. Shamanism. Eroticism.

Those all work for me. Probably more but those popped in first.

 

[manxman]

But the beauty of an ism tho, is it can be applied virtually any sentence.


''Mummy said Jonny had to go to the gym, and daisy to cookery lesson.''

Facebook liberal lesbian
''thats sexism, the bitch shouldnt be allowed to raise kids, yeah yeah make sure little daisy can get hubbies tea ready, bet she doesnt even realise she is doing it, ignorant woman''




.