Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 10-02-2017, 01:26 PM   #1
photon
The new goggles also do nothing.
 
photon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default Reply about hate speech

Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree View Post
Considering hate speech is against the law, I’m surprised this is allowed on this forum.
Sorry the team of lawyers that approve every post isn't doing their job very well

You know that we've taken actions in the past with such incidents, so it's obviously not an issue of not caring (or implicitly endorsing a view) just because we don't take the action you want in the timeframe you want it taken in.

So I think this kind of statement is pretty unfair, considering the amount of time and agonizing that goes on among the mods over threads like this.

There's professionals who spend their entire lives working in an entire profession dedicated to evaluating what constitutes hate speech, so it's not something that's always easy to identify.

You have your idea of what crosses the line. Others have different ideas. Who do we go with? You? Them? Any choice we make will make someone upset that we went too far or didn't go too far enough.

Is it hate speech to assemble a set of true facts that without context and perspective give a certain impression? Is it hate speech to quote facts that are untrue but that one believes are true? Should we ban anyone we think is a bigot? If they share their views in a thread relevant to the subject? If they try and spread their views in unrelated threads?

If you have a simple set of criteria that can be applied to every post to determine if it's hate speech in a clear and unambiguous way, please, we'd love to adopt it.

Barring that, that's why we've said repeatedly that threads about religion and politics get more leeway than other threads; if someone holds a view that isn't great or is even hateful, and they share it in a way and try to defend it without being obviously over the line into abuse or trolling or inciting violence or whatever, then should we ban them? Or should we let them say their piece and anyone who wishes can engage them to try and change their minds or at least demonstrate for everyone else how their views are devoid of merit.

We don't have a team of lawyers to tell us if every post crosses some fine line. We can act on the stuff that clearly crosses the line. For the rest we can either let people express their ideas (even if they're objectionable) and trust that others will be able to react in a way that doesn't burn everything down, we could ban anyone with a viewpoint that doesn't conform to our own, or we could simply stop allowing those kinds of discussions.

Because I don't really think banning everyone who says a certain religion has negative aspects to it is the answer. I think there's aspects of Christianity that are fundamentally harmful, and I've said as much, I would have to ban myself.

Or is it just presentation, how the ideas are communicated. Because if so, then it gets back to judgment and trying to figure out where the subjective line is.

Anyway my point is that the mods aren't ignoring or endorsing certain ideas, quite the opposite.
__________________
Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
photon is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Old 10-02-2017, 01:43 PM   #2
Crumpy-Gunt
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: 403
Exp:
Default

"Is it hate speech to assemble a set of true facts?"

Jesus Christ.
Crumpy-Gunt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2017, 01:45 PM   #3
Crumpy-Gunt
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: 403
Exp:
Default

Quote:
1- 18,000 deadly terror attacks committed explicitly in the name of Islam in just the last ten years. (Other religions combined for perhaps a dozen or so)

2- Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, had people killed for insulting him or for criticizing his religion. This included women. Muslims are told to emulate the example of Muhammad.

3- Muhammad said in many places that he has been "ordered by Allah to fight men until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is his messenger." In the last nine years of his life, he ordered no less than 65 military campaigns to do exactly that.
Muhammad inspired his men to war with the basest of motives, using captured loot, sex and a gluttonous paradise as incentives. He beheaded captives, enslaved children and raped women captured in battle. Again, Muslims are told to emulate the example of Muhammad.

4- Muhammad directed Muslims to wage war on other religions and bring them into submission to Islam. Within the first few decades following his death, his Arabian companions invaded and conquered Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist and Zoroastrian lands. A mere 25 years after Muhammad's death, Muslim armies had captured land and people within the modern borders of over 28 countries outside of Saudi Arabia.

5- Muslims continued their Jihad against other religions for 1400 years, checked only by the ability of non-Muslims to defend themselves. To this day, not a week goes by that Islamic fundamentalists do not attempt to kill Christians, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists explicitly in the name of Allah.
None of these other religions are at war with each other.

6- Islam is the only religion that has to retain its membership by formally threatening to kill anyone who leaves. This is according to the example set by Muhammad.

7- Islam teaches that non-Muslims are less than fully human. Muhammad said that Muslims can be put to death for murder, but that a Muslim could never be put to death for killing a non-Muslim.

8- The Quran never once speaks of Allah's love for non-Muslims, but there are hundreds of verses that speak of Allah's cruelty toward and hatred of non-Muslims.

9- "Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar!"
(The last words from the cockpit of Flight 93 and many more terrorists)

10- Islam is the mother-load of bad ideas!
(Sam Harris)
This post by snuff is what you call a set of true facts?
Crumpy-Gunt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2017, 01:47 PM   #4
Crumpy-Gunt
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: 403
Exp:
Default

It reads like you have a dog in this fight. The mods are in fact endorsing certain ideas by ignoring them. This is a forum where people are permanently banned for swearing but not even warned for posting "sets of true facts" from racist websites.
Crumpy-Gunt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2017, 01:47 PM   #5
Minnie
Franchise Player
 
Minnie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: On your last nerve...:D
Exp:
Default

Well this will be just delightful.
Minnie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2017, 01:49 PM   #6
photon
The new goggles also do nothing.
 
photon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpy-Gunt View Post
This post by snuff is what you call a set of true facts?
Obviously I'm asking a hypothetical question, the very next sentence is a different hypothetical.
__________________
Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
photon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2017, 01:52 PM   #7
CorsiHockeyLeague
Franchise Player
 
CorsiHockeyLeague's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Exp:
Default

Most of that is factually accurate, it's just misleading.

Contrary to Pepsifree's statement, absolutely nothing in that post contravenes Canada's hate speech laws.
__________________
"The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
CorsiHockeyLeague is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Old 10-02-2017, 01:54 PM   #8
photon
The new goggles also do nothing.
 
photon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpy-Gunt View Post
It reads like you have a dog in this fight. The mods are in fact endorsing certain ideas by ignoring them. This is a forum where people are permanently banned for swearing but not even warned for posting "sets of true facts" from racist websites.
Of course I have a dog in this fight, I'm trying to thread the needle between allowing people to discuss their views even if they are terrible views and just not allowing differing opinions at all in an area where everyone has wildly different ideas as to what should be allowed.

If it was just me deciding based on my personal morals it would be easy.

Is it your expectation that the moderators go through every questionable post and research if a website is considered racist, who it's considered racist by, etc? Spend hours researching one post?

Or do we just see that 3 people reported it and ban the user because 3 people reported it?
__________________
Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
photon is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Old 10-02-2017, 01:54 PM   #9
White Out 403
Franchise Player
 
White Out 403's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Cape Breton Island
Exp:
Default

That list certainly highlights Muhammad a lot. The guy lived a long time ago and I can see why people would take issue with using it as an example of why Islam is "bad". I doubt any religion centuries ago would pass a morality test.

But if we can't have an open and honest discussion whats the point of a forum? Shouting people down as bigots is dumb, and lazy. Have better ideas and present your data. Pretty simple.
White Out 403 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2017, 01:59 PM   #10
PepsiFree
Participant
Participant
 
PepsiFree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Exp:
Default

Thanks photon, I appreciate the response. I struggle with what to report and what not to report, and I think I’ve tried to learn that not every thing that goes against what I believe to be morally acceptable is worthy of action.

For me, there is a lot said that crosses the line, but I think a bit part of it is how that line is crossed. The poster that I’ve reported for hate speech isn’t always saying things in a bubble, others share his opinions. The biggest issue for me is spreading content from actual hate-sites and hate-platforms. It’s not something I’ve decided is hate, it’s that he’s spreading content from actual white nationalist, and anti-Muslim hate groups.

To me, it’s not necessarily what is said, but spreading content from those sources. I know that I feel like “don’t repost stuff from hate groups” seems like an acceptable line to draw in order to maintain free speech.

I appreciate that you guys have a hard enough time as it is, but allowing hate-propaganda seems over the top to me. It’s content designed by hate groups to promote hate, fear, and violence against other human beings. Not everything clearly falls into that, but some of what i’ve reported very clearly does. That’s just the way I feel, and I can’t-not feel that way.

Thanks for replying and letting me understand where you guys fall on it though, I respect that at least. I’ll keep reporting it, and you all are free to make whatever decision you feel is best for the board without me publically questioning it.

I’m all for freedom to criticise religion, and I’m trying to be better at accepting that people have different ways of expressing that criticism, but i’ll Just never accept the spread of hate propaganda.
PepsiFree is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2017, 02:00 PM   #11
PepsiFree
Participant
Participant
 
PepsiFree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague View Post
Most of that is factually accurate, it's just misleading.

Contrary to Pepsifree's statement, absolutely nothing in that post contravenes Canada's hate speech laws.
I never said it did, but previous content by the poster has. This isn’t the first instance.
PepsiFree is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2017, 02:05 PM   #12
Crumpy-Gunt
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: 403
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague View Post
Most of that is factually accurate, it's just misleading.

Contrary to Pepsifree's statement, absolutely nothing in that post contravenes Canada's hate speech laws.
With so many experts on Islam these days, it must be hard to get a job in your field?
Crumpy-Gunt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2017, 02:08 PM   #13
Jeff Lebowski
#1 Goaltender
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Resurrection View Post
That list certainly highlights Muhammad a lot. The guy lived a long time ago and I can see why people would take issue with using it as an example of why Islam is "bad". I doubt any religion centuries ago would pass a morality test.

But if we can't have an open and honest discussion whats the point of a forum? Shouting people down as bigots is dumb, and lazy. Have better ideas and present your data. Pretty simple.
This coming from the guy who thanks a post that says "that pesky religion of peace again'.

Associating all members of a religion to a terrorist's action. That's lazy.
Jeff Lebowski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2017, 02:09 PM   #14
Matata
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Exp:
Default

I find Canada's hate speech laws to be a bit of an embarrassment, the amount of free speech we enjoy in our society is an oddity within human history and one of the greatest achievements of western civilization. I don't like seeing people trying to muzzle it.

Nothing kills a bad idea like honest discussion and criticism. If people can't let their bad ideas out, they stay in and fester, I've benefited numerous times where I've tested out a half-baked idea only have to crumble under the scrutiny of the board.
Matata is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Matata For This Useful Post:
Old 10-02-2017, 02:15 PM   #15
Crumpy-Gunt
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: 403
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by photon View Post
Of course I have a dog in this fight, I'm trying to thread the needle between allowing people to discuss their views even if they are terrible views and just not allowing differing opinions at all in an area where everyone has wildly different ideas as to what should be allowed.

If it was just me deciding based on my personal morals it would be easy.

Is it your expectation that the moderators go through every questionable post and research if a website is considered racist, who it's considered racist by, etc? Spend hours researching one post?

Or do we just see that 3 people reported it and ban the user because 3 people reported it?
Thats a false dichotomy. Its not just 2 options, allowing people to discuss "terrible views" vs not allowing any discussion on polarizing topics.

Maybe someone can put your logic to the test? Post clips and articles from KKK websites or stormfront.

Its NOT that everyone has wildly different opinions on what should be allowed. Its that everyone has different opinions on what qualifies as bigotry. I've received warnings on this forum for much less.

Draw a bloodly line. What is allowed and what isnt?

Miss me with this BS about you threading a needle between allowing hate speech and shutting down discussions.

It isnt that complicated.

We cant post NSFW, we cant post entire articles, we cant name call, we cant be abusive - but we CAN post 'misleading sets of facts without context'.

So holocaust denial is kosher now?

Will people be allowed to post other things from racist websites like 10 reasons why the filthy jews were responsible for the world wars? How to deal with the worlds jew problem? Would that be a misleading set of facts without context?

I've seen similar posts and threads on Islam.

Just draw a line Mr.Mod

Dont perma ban people for swearing and defend peoples right to be bigoted idiots who share articles from racist websites.
Crumpy-Gunt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2017, 02:28 PM   #16
Wormius
Franchise Player
 
Wormius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Somewhere down the crazy river.
Exp:
Default

Maybe it would be helpful to just list a few posts or statements as examples of what you would consider having crossed the line into hate speech that were reported but not deleted.
Wormius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2017, 02:36 PM   #17
photon
The new goggles also do nothing.
 
photon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

People don't get permabanned for an incidence of swearing (it would have to be incredibly egregious or be a pattern of disregard).

It's not a false dichotomy in the context that I'm trying to discuss, we don't have the luxury of infinite resources or desire. I would love to be able to take the time for each individual post and dig into it and make a thoughtful and well supported judgment as to whether the post has any merit or not. But I don't.

So yes I would love to make the line more clear, that's why I asked PepsiFree and anyone else if they have a simple set of criteria that can be applied to every post to determine if it's hate speech in a clear and unambiguous way.

Identifying a NSFW post, a post that violates copyright, calling someone a name, are all easily identified thus easy to action. Identifying when something crosses the line from honestly held criticisms of an idea to hate isn't as easy (don't overfocus on one single example, I'm talking about the whole process of evaluating all posts on such threads).

And incidentally your way of discussing this is itself inflammatory. Calling me "Mr.Mod", etc, if you can't discuss in an impartial way trying to understand where I'm coming from, then please don't post in the thread.
__________________
Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
photon is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Old 10-02-2017, 02:51 PM   #18
ResAlien
Lifetime In Suspension
 
ResAlien's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Exp:
Default

Curious, how many of these offending posts are actually reported as hate speech to the mods? It feels like many get up in arms about certain posts they believe break the rules but no one wants to report a post.

Edit: crumpy you’re pretty fired up about this, you’re aware that the mods are unpaid volunteers right? “Do your job”? Lol cmon bud.

Last edited by ResAlien; 10-02-2017 at 02:58 PM.
ResAlien is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2017, 02:52 PM   #19
Crumpy-Gunt
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: 403
Exp:
Default

You starting this thread with "sorry our team of lawyers that approves every post isnt doing their job very well" isnt inflammatory? Especially when a section of the forum has a legitimate concern?

Dont talk about inflammatory. The tone of your thread is patronizing and belittling. Surely if people can get away with posting racist articles - I can call you Mr.Mod, isnt that correct Mr.Mod?

I will post in this thread if I want to. I dont understand where you are coming from. You arent discussing in an impartial way either.

Nobody asked you for infinite resources or desire. Just do your job. Be consistent. Warn people for posting 'inflammatory' material from racist websites. Also dont come across as a rude passive aggressive baby. You want to start the thread with a jab at people who are upset about what is allowed to be posted on the site and then cry about how its inflammatory when I call you Mr.Mod.

How rich and ironic for you to use that word - but then play the fiddle while people are posting very inflammatory things on this forum.

Inflammatory

(especially of speech or writing) arousing or intended to arouse angry or violent feelings.
Crumpy-Gunt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-2017, 02:57 PM   #20
photon
The new goggles also do nothing.
 
photon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ResAlien View Post
Curious, how many of these offending posts are actually reported as hate speech to the mods? It feels like many get up in arms about certain posts they believe break the rules but no one wants to report a post.
The ones you would expect usually do.
__________________
Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
photon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:27 PM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021