NationStates Jolt Archive

Hai!

This is a follow-on from a couple of threads in Moderation so bear with me while I quote from various posters.

Firstly, Friends of Bill has made this claim:
but this only enforces the favoritism for the far-leftist around hereAs this seemed a serious allegation I've asked FOB can you provide some evidence for this comment pleaseOver to you.

FOB also called for the deletion of Labrador for using "hate speech". Specifically for this rant by Labrador:
Actually, for being neither stupid, nor conservative (though in my not so humble opinion, those go hand in hand...right along with greed, selfishness, and mean spiritedness...and unkindness to your fellow men.)

No...it was removed because it is phucking FLAMEBAIT!!

I don't know about other Liberals, I can't speal for them, but, speaking for me...I HAVE JUST ABOUT PHUCKING HAD IT WITH ALL THESE GODDAM CONSERVO-CREEPS WHO SAY IF YOU DO NOT SUPPORT BUSH, THEN YOU ARE UNPATRIOTIC, UN-AMERICAN, AND THAT YOU SUPPORT AL-QAEDA, JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T SUPPORT BUSH...BECAUSE YOU THINK HIS ECONOMIC POLICIES SUCK, AND HIS FOREIGN POLICIES CAUSE MORE PROBLEMS THAN THEY SOLVE!!

GODDAM IT!!

ok, rant over.In particualar FOB felt the following was hate speech and worthy of deletion: At what point do the insults, the general labels like conservo creep and the other crap warrent a deleation? Now it is my contention that the right have been claiming to be persecuted for so long that they no longer are able to recognise the reality of the situation or apply their logic objectively to themselves. So while "conservo creep" is considered an insult and hate speech, accusing those who you politically disagree with of suffering from mental illness apparently is not.Why waste your time sitting thru two hours of Micheal moore hatting America, with redical left-wing nutjobs cheering and spewing their anti-america lies. The vast Right-wing Conspiracy is just the vivid halucination of the poor demented Shrillary ClintonApparently referring to "Shillary Clinton" isn't an insult either. Maybe FOB means it as a term of endearment.

I questioned whether "hate speech" was an applicable term in the first place when applied to political groups.Also a justification of why you used the term "Hate Speech" would be nice. Generally it's a term used for speech against minority groups. I'm afraid Republicans (and for that matter Democrats) don't actually qualify. Can you not see the difference between being black or gay (something you're born as) and following a specific political viewpoint (something you choose to do)?Tygaland disagrees with this definationReally? I thought a post with derogatory and inciteful remarks about a section of the community would classify as "hate speech" regardless of the size of the community targeted. Couple of points on this. Firstly considering that the darling of the Right, Margaret Thatcher said "there is no such thing as community" it strikes me as somewhat hypocritical for the right to then call claim to community values when it feels it would be advantageous. That aside, to me "hate speech" is something that can only be meaningful when it might be mirroring the wider problems of society. Derogatory remarks are simply that. And inciteful remarks would to me directly suggest an incitement to violence. I can't see any in the post we're talking about. This use of "hate speech" strikes me as agenda driven. That agenda being to reverse the gains of the black, gay and feminist movements of the sixties and seventies by claiming that it's actually white wealthy heterosexual males who are now the oppressed group. This is simply not true, as any look at the boardroom of a major company shows us.Reading the actual post being referred to in the "Labrador?" thread I think it was not unjustified to describe it as "hate speech". Maybe a bit of an over-reaction but hardly something you would think needed to be clarified.Can you explain why? There were a couple of insults (and the right on here are just as prone to chucking those about) but the vast majority of the rant was taken up with an attack on those who claim that non Bush supporters are pro-terrorist. Out of interest, by your defination, do the quotes I've posted by Friends of Bill qualify as "hate speech"?

FOB is a typical rightwing hypocrite--they want everyone else to live up to standards that they dont even keep themselves

This is simply not true, as any look at the boardroom of a major company shows us.
Alternatively, a look at the Freshman class at the University of Michigan... :?

This is simply not true, as any look at the boardroom of a major company shows us.
Alternatively, a look at the Freshman class at the University of Michigan... :?

I don't understand. What is significant about the Freshman class at the U of Michigan? How is it related with the "over-representation" of Caucasian males sitting on the Board in most major corperations?

This is simply not true, as any look at the boardroom of a major company shows us.
Alternatively, a look at the Freshman class at the University of Michigan... :?

I don't understand. What is significant about the Freshman class at the U of Michigan? How is it related with the "over-representation" of Caucasian males sitting on the Board in most major corperations?
The University of Michigan was where the last legal case came from about Affirmative Action.

Tygaland disagrees with this definationReally? I thought a post with derogatory and inciteful remarks about a section of the community would classify as "hate speech" regardless of the size of the community targeted. Couple of points on this. Firstly considering that the darling of the Right, Margaret Thatcher said "there is no such thing as community" it strikes me as somewhat hypocritical for the right to then call claim to community values when it feels it would be advantageous. That aside, to me "hate speech" is something that can only be meaningful when it might be mirroring the wider problems of society. Derogatory remarks are simply that. And inciteful remarks would to me directly suggest an incitement to violence. I can't see any in the post we're talking about. This use of "hate speech" strikes me as agenda driven. That agenda being to reverse the gains of the black, gay and feminist movements of the sixties and seventies by claiming that it's actually white wealthy heterosexual males who are now the oppressed group. This is simply not true, as any look at the boardroom of a major company shows us.Reading the actual post being referred to in the "Labrador?" thread I think it was not unjustified to describe it as "hate speech". Maybe a bit of an over-reaction but hardly something you would think needed to be clarified.Can you explain why? There were a couple of insults (and the right on here are just as prone to chucking those about) but the vast majority of the rant was taken up with an attack on those who claim that non Bush supporters are pro-terrorist. Out of interest, by your defination, do the quotes I've posted by Friends of Bill qualify as "hate speech"?

Firstly, I am a centrist not right wing.

Secondly, here is the definition of "hate speech":

hate speech
n.
Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group.
(Source: www.dictionary.com)

It does not say only towards minorities. That is a twist you have taken on the phrase, not its actual definition.

As such, I said FOB's comments were possibly an over-reaction but I did not think his claims were that obscure as to require it being clarified. I was commenting on the interpretation on "hate speech". The Holy Word then explained their interpretation of the phrase which I do not agree with. I did not say FOB was right in his request for Labrador to be deleted as I have no background on either person involved. I was debating the interpretation of the phrase "hate speech".

Since successfully begging the question of liberal media, the conservatives have cried wolf at every turn. Anytime anything goes against them for any reason, it is a result of some sort of liberal bias. They have even turned the notion of being liberal into such a dirty word democratic candidates in the primaries hemmed and hawed to avoid that classification in their own debates.

Fortunately it's having the fabled effect, people are no longer buying the ruse. The more often the right cries 'bias' the less often the villagers come running.

Tygaland disagrees with this defination[quote=Tygaland]Really? I thought a post with derogatory and inciteful remarks about a section of the community would classify as "hate speech" regardless of the size of the community targeted. Couple of points on this. Firstly considering that the darling of the Right, Margaret Thatcher said "there is no such thing as community" it strikes me as somewhat hypocritical for the right to then call claim to community values when it feels it would be advantageous. That aside, to me "hate speech" is something that can only be meaningful when it might be mirroring the wider problems of society. Derogatory remarks are simply that. And inciteful remarks would to me directly suggest an incitement to violence. I can't see any in the post we're talking about. This use of "hate speech" strikes me as agenda driven. That agenda being to reverse the gains of the black, gay and feminist movements of the sixties and seventies by claiming that it's actually white wealthy heterosexual males who are now the oppressed group. This is simply not true, as any look at the boardroom of a major company shows us.Reading the actual post being referred to in the "Labrador?" thread I think it was not unjustified to describe it as "hate speech". Maybe a bit of an over-reaction but hardly something you would think needed to be clarified.Can you explain why? There were a couple of insults (and the right on here are just as prone to chucking those about) but the vast majority of the rant was taken up with an attack on those who claim that non Bush supporters are pro-terrorist. Out of interest, by your defination, do the quotes I've posted by Friends of Bill qualify as "hate speech"?

Firstly, I am a centrist not right wing.Fair enough. You are a righty from where I'm standing. But then so is Nader. 8)

Secondly, here is the definition of "hate speech":

hate speech
n.
Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group.
(Source: www.dictionary.com)

It does not say only towards minorities. That is a twist you have taken on the phrase, not its actual definition.Even if not towards minorities, I'd question strongly whether political insults can be considered either a)bigoted (www.dictonary.com:
n.
Obstinately and blindly attached to some creed, opinion practice, or ritual; unreasonably devoted to a system or party, and illiberal toward the opinions of others.

By this defination either every politican fits the defination or no-one does. "Unreasonably devoted" is merely a matter of perspective.

or b) directed towards a social group. I don't believe political parties qualify.

As such, I said FOB's comments were possibly an over-reaction but I did not think his claims were that obscure as to require it being clarified. I was commenting on the interpretation on "hate speech". The Holy Word then explained their interpretation of the phrase which I do not agree with. I did not say FOB was right in his request for Labrador to be deleted as I have no background on either person involved. I was debating the interpretation of the phrase "hate speech".I'm still unsure if you believe that Labrador's post was hate speech or not. Or for that matter FOBs. (For the record, I don't believe FOB's post was hate speech. Just rank hypocrisy.)

FOB makes no secret of his Bias and is a puppet. The term hate speech as applied to politics has been cooked up by republican conservatives (Political Hatespeech) to try to keep the myth alive in thier own ranks that they are, for want of a better word, discriminated against.

Its just a term they use to deflect criticism. Its up there with "Anti-Americanism"

FOB is a typical rightwing hypocrite--they want everyone else to live up to standards that they dont even keep themselves

No.

He's not.

I work with a Conservative, and even though Im a liberal, we actually get along great.

FOB is a troll.

and mostly....a jerk.

Secondly, here is the definition of "hate speech":

hate speech
n.
Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group.
(Source: www.dictionary.com)

It does not say only towards minorities. That is a twist you have taken on the phrase, not its actual definition.

It would be quite a stretch to claim a political inclination as a social or ethnic group. By your own definition, I don't see Labradors rant qualifying as hate speech.

Even if not towards minorities, I'd question strongly whether political insults can be considered either a)bigoted (www.dictonary.com:
n.
Obstinately and blindly attached to some creed, opinion practice, or ritual; unreasonably devoted to a system or party, and illiberal toward the opinions of others.

By this defination either every politican fits the defination or no-one does. "Unreasonably devoted" is merely a matter of perspective.

or b) directed towards a social group. I don't believe political parties qualify.

Thats the problem with such a broad term as "hate speech". Basically anyone can deem criticism as "hate speech" by this definition because it is open to interpretation.


I'm still unsure if you believe that Labrador's post was hate speech or not. Or for that matter FOBs. (For the record, I don't believe FOB's post was hate speech. Just rank hypocrisy.)

Of course I do not think that what Labrador said or what FOB said was hate speech. I think what both of them said was pointless. But under the definition FOB could say that it was "hate speech". Hence, I said I felt it was an over-reaction. That said, you did not really need to have him point out what he was referring to as hate speech. Whether you agree with his description of the post as hate speech is beyond the point.

It would be quite a stretch to claim a political inclination as a social or ethnic group. By your own definition, I don't see Labradors rant qualifying as hate speech.

Thats your interpretation, further proving my point that the term "hate speech" is a ridiculously broad term. I have also said that I do not think Labrador's post was "hate speech", I was just explaining that FOB may have interpreted it that way. Rightly or wrongly. Therefore a request to him/her to explain his use of the term was not really necessary.

Me too. I reckon the whole concpt of hate speech is illconceived

FOB is a typical rightwing hypocrite--they want everyone else to live up to standards that they dont even keep themselves

No.

He's not.

I work with a Conservative, and even though Im a liberal, we actually get along great.

FOB is a troll.

and mostly....a jerk.That is the exact crap right there that I was talking about. If you say one disparaging thing about one of the radical left, you get deleated, no warning. But I have been putting up with this since I joined, the repeat attacks, name calling, and crap like this.

Edit: There is a distinct differance between calling a person on this site names, and refering to Hillary Clinton as a left-wing nutjob.

FOB is a typical rightwing hypocrite--they want everyone else to live up to standards that they dont even keep themselves

No.

He's not.

I work with a Conservative, and even though Im a liberal, we actually get along great.

FOB is a troll.

and mostly....a jerk.That is the exact crap right there that I was talking about. If you say one disparaging thing about one of the radical left, you get deleated, no warning. But I have been putting up with this since I joined, the repeat attacks, name calling, and crap like this.

Edit: There is a distinct differance between calling a person on this site names, and refering to Hillary Clinton as a left-wing nutjob.Do you object to the troll or being called mostly... a jerk? Have you noticed how none of the other right wingers on these boards have jumped to your defence? And what's the difference between a general reference to "conservo creeps" and a general reference to redical left-wing nutjobs out of interest. You still haven't provided the evidence I asked for regarding supposed left wing bias either. :roll:

So, The Holy word, I take it that you have accepted that "hate speech" is a broad term and not as narrowly defined as you first indicated?

Seeing as you challenged me to define the phrase and show why, in his mind, FOB would have used the term. I think I have done that.

As for the right wing bias, well it is fair to say that the moderators tend to be left-wing which may increase the feeling of persecution by right-wing posters on this forum.

So, The Holy word, I take it that you have accepted that "hate speech" is a broad term and not as narrowly defined as you first indicated?To an extent. I think it's truer to say that I've accepted that it's a term with so many different intereprations that it's become largely meaningless.

Seeing as you challenged me to define the phrase and show why, in his mind, FOB would have used the term. I think I have done that.What I don't think you've done is show why FOB feels he has the right to use the term, considering the nature of his posts that I quoted earlier.

As for the right wing bias, well it is fair to say that the moderators tend to be left-wing which may increase the feeling of persecution by right-wing posters on this forum.What evidence is there that affects moderation decisions?

To an extent. I think it's truer to say that I've accepted that it's a term with so many different intereprations that it's become largely meaningless.

I take that as a yes.

What I don't think you've done is show why FOB feels he has the right to use the term, considering the nature of his posts that I quoted earlier.

Only FOB knows why he used the term. Asking someone to expalin why they used a "meaningless" term is....meaningless. Which is the point I was making.

What evidence is there that affects moderation decisions?

None. Please reread what I said. The fact that moderators are overwhelmingly left wing in their views it could "increase the feeling of persecution by right-wing posters". I did no say there was any persecution.

I take that as a yes.A qualified yes. I still think that attempting to apply it to political groups is an overstrech of the dictionary.com defination. But you've won this one old chap. Let it go. :roll:

Only FOB knows why he used the term. Asking someone to expalin why they used a "meaningless" term is....meaningless. Which is the point I was making.But the point I'm making is that by his own defination FOB is equally guilty of hate speech. Would you agree?

None. Please reread what I said. The fact that moderators are overwhelmingly left wing in their views it could "increase the feeling of persecution by right-wing posters". I did no say there was any persecution.So if there is no persecution then certain right wing posters are suffering from, according to dictionary.com:

Paranoia: A psychotic disorder characterized by delusions of persecution with or without grandeur, often strenuously defended with apparent logic and reason.

So my description of "right wing persecution complexes" is entirely correct. Hurrah for me. (I suspect showing me dictionary.com was a bad idea. Now you know how Dr Frankestein felt for you have spawned a monster :lol: )

A qualified yes. I still think that attempting to apply it to political groups is an overstrech of the dictionary.com defination. But you've won this one old chap. Let it go. :roll:

Just wanted you to say so. No need to roll your eyes.

But the point I'm making is that by his own defination FOB is equally guilty of hate speech. Would you agree?

By his own definition he is guilty of hate speech. At least now you are understanding his interpretation of hate speech and as such will not need him to explain it to you. Second point agreed on then.

So if there is no persecution then certain right wing posters are suffering from, according to dictionary.com:

Paranoia: A psychotic disorder characterized by delusions of persecution with or without grandeur, often strenuously defended with apparent logic and reason.

So my description of "right wing persecution complexes" is entirely correct. Hurrah for me. (I suspect showing me dictionary.com was a bad idea. Now you know how Dr Frankestein felt for you have spawned a monster :lol: )

Well that depends on whether they have been diagnosed with a psychotic disorder. I have no proof of that either way. What I will say is that the people who argue against "certain right wing posters" in this forum so strongly are also the dispensers of justice by way of moderation. So, to someone who was thinking along those lines (left-wing bias) it would not be a hard conclusion to come to.

Now, there are fanatics on both sides, left and right. Would it be fair to say that you have a greater tolerance of the left wing fanatics as opposed to the right?

Just wanted you to say so. No need to roll your eyes.What precisely did you think "to an extent" with a qualification meant? Things are not always as clearcut as a simple yes and no answer.

By his own definition he is guilty of hate speech. At least now you are understanding his interpretation of hate speech and as such will not need him to explain it to you. Second point agreed on then.But surely it is reasonable to ask him to explain his interpretation before jumping to that conclusion? And questioning has been recognised as a legitimate form of Debate since Socrates.

Well that depends on whether they have been diagnosed with a psychotic disorder. I have no proof of that either way. What I will say is that the people who argue against "certain right wing posters" in this forum so strongly are also the dispensers of justice by way of moderation. So, to someone who was thinking along those lines (left-wing bias) it would not be a hard conclusion to come to.If I replace with "showing symptoms of paranoia" would that seem fairer to you? And if someone is thinking along those lines then surely the problem lies with their initial reasoning? And I don't think it was unreasonable to ask for solid evidence off FOB.

Now, there are fanatics on both sides, left and right. Would it be fair to say that you have a greater tolerance of the left wing fanatics as opposed to the right?It would be fair in terms of the fact that I am more likely to agree with the left wing fanatics (and I'd argue there are also centrist fanatics as well) so I'm not going argue with points I agree with. It wouldn't be if it was suggested that I wasn't still prepared to argue as strongly on points of contention. And equally, it wouldn't be in terms of calling for moderation. Essentially I'm only prepared to use this as a tactic in a)extreme cases or b) against people who have previously done this themselves. I hope that clarifys.

What precisely did you think "to an extent" with a qualification meant? Things are not always as clearcut as a simple yes and no answer.

Ok, ok. :roll:

But surely it is reasonable to ask him to explain his interpretation before jumping to that conclusion? And questioning has been recognised as a legitimate form of Debate since Socrates.

You may have thought it was reasonable to ask but I thought the answer was fairly self-evident as to what he thought was hate speech. I haven't said you cannot question, I was pointing out that it was fairly pointless asking a question, the answer to which you already knew.

If I replace with "showing symptoms of paranoia" would that seem fairer to you? And if someone is thinking along those lines then surely the problem lies with their initial reasoning? And I don't think it was unreasonable to ask for solid evidence off FOB.

That would be a more accurate description. Solid evidence of what he thinks is hate speech? The quotes he posted were what he was calling hate speech and hence were the "solid evidence" of what he considered to be hate speech. The reasoning behind it is only known to him.

It would be fair in terms of the fact that I am more likely to agree with the left wing fanatics (and I'd argue there are also centrist fanatics as well) so I'm not going argue with points I agree with. It wouldn't be if it was suggested that I wasn't still prepared to argue as strongly on points of contention. And equally, it wouldn't be in terms of calling for moderation. Essentially I'm only prepared to use this as a tactic in a)extreme cases or b) against people who have previously done this themselves. I hope that clarifys.

I realise there are centrist fanatics etc. I used left and right for the sake of example. I wouldn't expect you to argue against people you agree with, that would be ridiculous. What I was trying to ascertain was whether you would be more concerned about a right-wing fanatic's post than a left-wing fanatic's post, both of which contained insults and inflammatory remarks. Not in the context of moderation or refraining from discussing a contentious issue. Purely from your personal reaction to the remarks in the posts.
I would say most people would be more "offended" by inflammatory remarks that were directed against someone of a similar belief. For the sake of these forums that would be political standpoint on an issue. I am not saying this is deliberate bias but more of a subconcious leaning. I am also not saying this influences moderation.
So, even if there is no real conspiracy, someone may feel there is based on their leanings towards a person, who shares similar views, who has been warned or deleted or the fact that someone with a different political standpoint is dispensing the justice by way of moderation or is not warned or deleted for comments they perceive as "crossing the line". Whether that is paranoia or human nature, you'll have to ask a psychologist.

You do realise it's just you and me chatting now? :lol: Ok, ok. :roll: Just wanted you to say so. No need to roll your eyes. :mrgreen:

You may have thought it was reasonable to ask but I thought the answer was fairly self-evident as to what he thought was hate speech. I haven't said you cannot question, I was pointing out that it was fairly pointless asking a question, the answer to which you already knew.But in the context, I think it obvious that is was a way of asking him to justify his use of the term. I can't help feeling that you're deliberately arguing semantics here. That's deplorable behaviour. I'd never dream of doing something like that. *Puts on expression of outraged innocence*

That would be a more accurate description. Solid evidence of what he thinks is hate speech? The quotes he posted were what he was calling hate speech and hence were the "solid evidence" of what he considered to be hate speech. The reasoning behind it is only known to him.Which is his choice as he's constantly refused to justify it. I think that's significant.

I realise there are centrist fanatics etc. I used left and right for the sake of example. I wouldn't expect you to argue against people you agree with, that would be ridiculous. What I was trying to ascertain was whether you would be more concerned about a right-wing fanatic's post than a left-wing fanatic's post, both of which contained insults and inflammatory remarks. Not in the context of moderation or refraining from discussing a contentious issue. Purely from your personal reaction to the remarks in the posts.
I would say most people would be more "offended" by inflammatory remarks that were directed against someone of a similar belief. For the sake of these forums that would be political standpoint on an issue. I am not saying this is deliberate bias but more of a subconcious leaning. I am also not saying this influences moderation.
So, even if there is no real conspiracy, someone may feel there is based on their leanings towards a person, who shares similar views, who has been warned or deleted or the fact that someone with a different political standpoint is dispensing the justice by way of moderation or is not warned or deleted for comments they perceive as "crossing the line". Whether that is paranoia or human nature, you'll have to ask a psychologist.I thought the centrist example was just worth bringing up because of the tendancy of centrist fanatics to present their views as 'common sense'. As I'm sure you'll acknowledge, fanatic's an extremely loaded term anyway- I am committed, you are hardline, they are fanatics. Me personally on insults and inflammatory remarks, I can honestly say I really wouldn't be particuarly offended by either side. I'm big enough and ugly enough to look after myself without running snivelling to teacher anytime someone's rude to me. :twisted:

You do realise it's just you and me chatting now? :lol:

Seems that way...we have scared the others off. I really expected a few "conspiracy theorists" and their opponents to start up in here.

But in the context, I think it obvious that is was a way of asking him to justify his use of the term. I can't help feeling that you're deliberately arguing semantics here. That's deplorable behaviour. I'd never dream of doing something like that. *Puts on expression of outraged innocence*

I would never dream of accusing you of such tactics. :shock: I would never argue semantics.... :wink:

Which is his choice as he's constantly refused to justify it. I think that's significant.

Maybe he feels he doesn't have to. Who knows. Safe to say he won't try now.

I thought the centrist example was just worth bringing up because of the tendancy of centrist fanatics to present their views as 'common sense'. As I'm sure you'll acknowledge, fanatic's an extremely loaded term anyway- I am committed, you are hardline, they are fanatics. Me personally on insults and inflammatory remarks, I can honestly say I really wouldn't be particuarly offended by either side. I'm big enough and ugly enough to look after myself without running snivelling to teacher anytime someone's rude to me. :twisted:

Yes, fanatics is a loaded word but I wanted to use extremes as an example. Using centrists fanatics would have confused the issue so I left them out.
I agree with you. There is very little that upsets me and I cannot envisage running to the mods over inflammatory remarks and insults posted in these forums .
I was trying to show that people have a subconscious support for people of similar beliefs. Not significant enough to affect their judgement too much but it could be the underlying reason people feel persecuted due to trivial things. As I said, I am not sure this isn't just human nature as opposed to paranoia.