Should racism/sexism/homophobia/etc. be censored?

[mrswdk]

Should bigotry be actively censored and punished on the fora or not?

[Army of GOD]

No, its stupid. But CC is anarchy compared to a lot of other forums where swearing period is bannable. Fucking stupid. Were on the internet.

[muy_thaiguy]

No, its stupid. But CC is anarchy compared to a lot of other forums where swearing period is bannable. Fucking stupid. Were on the internet.

Not really. I'm on 2 other forums that more or less moderate themselves (we do have mods, but they only step in with spambots, porn (against forum rules for both), and really bad bigotry). In comparison to those, this site can almost be called a police state (locked threads, deleted posts, numerous banned posters that were banned for questionable reasons, etc).

[BigBallinStalin]

Social ostracization works well enough. It might not if the alleged bigot is really a troll, but then again getting trolled serves as a valuable learning experience.

A huge problem with banning certain behavior is that any whiny crybaby can scream loud enough and get his way. This can easily get out of hand--to the point where the forum becomes dull since any possibly offensive material is now punishable.

[mrswdk]

The results are in! 100% of OT users think bigotry should not be censored.

Long live democracy!

[crispybits]

It definitely shouldn't be censored. People should be allowed to express their bigoted opinions so the rest of us can identify them for ridicule, mockery and general contempt.

[PLAYER57832]

You are asking the wrong question. Racism, etc is not prohibited, only certain WORDS that are intrinsically antagonistic in nature are prohibited.

I can talk about whether blacks are inferior in a genetic sense, using data and evidence, as long as I stay within specific boundaries of discussion, keep it scientific, listen to opposition and combate data with data. (NOTE.. let me be clear that I in now way, shape or form think race indicates anything about genetic inferiority or superiority except in very, very narrow genetic disease issues). HOWEVER, it is rare that such a discussion happens without someone launching into "you N***er", etc. If you read through the immigration threads, you will often find racist concepts and ideas. You will find homophobic ideas in many threads as well. They go on for a while, until some idiot ruins it for the rest by being abusive, rather than intelligently discussing things.

The point is that as long as these thoughts are kept in discussion, it is OK. The harm is when it turns into trading attacks. That is wrong and must be proscribed because it is NOT discussion, it is the verbal equivalent of taking a gun and shooting someone. THAT is the real issue.. too many people, today, no longer encounter enough ideas with which they disagree and therefore never really learn the limits of discussion decorum.

[BigBallinStalin]

ITT, Player supports the censorship.

[crispybits]

You are asking the wrong question. Racism, etc is not prohibited, only certain WORDS that are intrinsically antagonistic in nature are prohibited.

I can talk about whether blacks are inferior in a genetic sense, using data and evidence, as long as I stay within specific boundaries of discussion, keep it scientific, listen to opposition and combate data with data. (NOTE.. let me be clear that I in now way, shape or form think race indicates anything about genetic inferiority or superiority except in very, very narrow genetic disease issues). HOWEVER, it is rare that such a discussion happens without someone launching into "you N***er", etc. If you read through the immigration threads, you will often find racist concepts and ideas. You will find homophobic ideas in many threads as well. They go on for a while, until some idiot ruins it for the rest by being abusive, rather than intelligently discussing things.

Intelligently discussing things requires two intelligent parties willing to hold a reasonable conversation. If one side is determined to remain uninformed, hold on to bigoted (or factually incorrect) views, and keep spreading their bigotry/misinformation for everyone to hear and potentially be swayed by even after attempts at reasonable discourse, the only option remaining is unreasonable discourse. At some point you have to stop being polite to people and call them a bigot/idiot. That is as much part of free speech as is their right to express bigoted/idiotic views.

The point is that as long as these thoughts are kept in discussion, it is OK. The harm is when it turns into trading attacks. That is wrong and must be proscribed because it is NOT discussion, it is the verbal equivalent of taking a gun and shooting someone. THAT is the real issue.. too many people, today, no longer encounter enough ideas with which they disagree and therefore never really learn the limits of discussion decorum.

And what about when the other side of the debate is happy to be dishonest, manipulative and launch attacks of their own? Sure you can turn the other cheek for a while, maintain the moral high ground and keep trying to talk reasonably to these people, but in the end the only real effective sanction against societally harmful ideas and philosophies is to call them out for what they are in the strongest terms possible, to make the social ostracisation crystal clear and make it clear to each of these individuals your honest view of them for holding such philosophies. If that means you have to use language that could be considered offensive then it's regrettable but it really is just too bad.

Reasonable discussion is for reasonable people. Once people prove themselves to be completely unreasonable (and especially if that includes some level of abusive language/degrading philosophy) then reasonable discussion attempts should stop and they should just be attacked for being what they are and have proved themselves beyond all doubt to be.

[BigBallinStalin]

You are asking the wrong question. Racism, etc is not prohibited, only certain WORDS that are intrinsically antagonistic in nature are prohibited.

I can talk about whether blacks are inferior in a genetic sense, using data and evidence, as long as I stay within specific boundaries of discussion, keep it scientific, listen to opposition and combate data with data. (NOTE.. let me be clear that I in now way, shape or form think race indicates anything about genetic inferiority or superiority except in very, very narrow genetic disease issues). HOWEVER, it is rare that such a discussion happens without someone launching into "you N***er", etc. If you read through the immigration threads, you will often find racist concepts and ideas. You will find homophobic ideas in many threads as well. They go on for a while, until some idiot ruins it for the rest by being abusive, rather than intelligently discussing things.

Intelligently discussing things requires two intelligent parties willing to hold a reasonable conversation. If one side is determined to remain uninformed, hold on to bigoted (or factually incorrect) views, and keep spreading their bigotry/misinformation for everyone to hear and potentially be swayed by even after attempts at reasonable discourse, the only option remaining is unreasonable discourse. At some point you have to stop being polite to people and call them a bigot/idiot. That is as much part of free speech as is their right to express bigoted/idiotic views.

The point is that as long as these thoughts are kept in discussion, it is OK. The harm is when it turns into trading attacks. That is wrong and must be proscribed because it is NOT discussion, it is the verbal equivalent of taking a gun and shooting someone. THAT is the real issue.. too many people, today, no longer encounter enough ideas with which they disagree and therefore never really learn the limits of discussion decorum.

And what about when the other side of the debate is happy to be dishonest, manipulative and launch attacks of their own? Sure you can turn the other cheek for a while, maintain the moral high ground and keep trying to talk reasonably to these people, but in the end the only real effective sanction against societally harmful ideas and philosophies is to call them out for what they are in the strongest terms possible, to make the social ostracisation crystal clear and make it clear to each of these individuals your honest view of them for holding such philosophies. If that means you have to use language that could be considered offensive then it's regrettable but it really is just too bad.

Reasonable discussion is for reasonable people. Once people prove themselves to be completely unreasonable (and especially if that includes some level of abusive language/degrading philosophy) then reasonable discussion attempts should stop and they should just be attacked for being what they are and have proved themselves beyond all doubt to be.

Agreed. The only problem is that the standard of 'reasonableness' varies across individuals, so people can use your argument to justify sanctioning people who disagree with them on issues like feminism, comedy, etc. So here's an alternative policy:

The more inclined you are to insult someone (after you've given them some slack), the more you should simply phrase your responses as questions. It keeps you more neutral and makes the other still look like an idiot--without you having to say that they're an idiot.

[crispybits]

For example: (Edit - was typing before the BBS post - will reply to that in a mo)

Jim: Black people are inferior to white people, they aren't as intelligent as us whites!
Tom: Actually, there is evidence that shows that there is no actual difference between the intelligence of black people and white people <produces evidence)
Jim: Black people are inferior to white people, they aren't as intelligent as us whites!
Tom: Did you not read what I wrote, there is no evidence to support your idea and actually evidence against your idea.
Jim: Black people are inferior to white people, they aren't as intelligent as us whites!

Now Tom can either continue trying to rationally discuss whether there are any differences between the intelligence of black people and white people, and Jim will never change his mind because he's a bigot and an idiot. Tom will be wasting his breath. So it's a waste of Tom's resources to do so. It also gives a form of credulity to Jim's position that Tom is even willing to debate it like it's an equally valid proposition to the actually true proposition.

Tom could also just walk away from the conversation, but we know for a fact that when bigoted views go unopposed they tend to gain more traction.

So what's left? Tom's only morally sound option is to make sure everyone knows he thinks that Jim is an uninformed, bigoted, idiotic fruitloop. And to do it in terms that are crystal clear. He should also continue to include references to the evidence/argument about why Jim is incorrect. Jim can continue to express his racism, but all he will get out of it is insulted, mocked and debunked. If Jim doesn't care about his reputation in whatever social circles the debate is occurring within, then in the end nothing will stop him, but the social norm within that social circles will tends towards Jim being a bigoted idiotic fruitloop.

I'm not suggesting someone making a point is immediately attacked for holding an incorrect and harmful view. But when that person is presented with reasonable discussion and their obvious misconceptions and mis-use of certain ideas and philosophies is clearly explained, and they refuse to act reasonably themselves, then the only remaining option is to call them a fucking idiot...

[crispybits]

Agreed. The only problem is that the standard of 'reasonableness' varies across individuals, so people can use your argument to justify sanctioning people who disagree with them on issues like feminism, comedy, etc. So here's an alternative policy:

The more inclined you are to insult someone (after you've given them some slack), the more you should simply phrase your responses as questions. It keeps you more neutral and makes the other still look like an idiot--without you having to say that they're an idiot.

This is why I don't hold that the standard of "reasonableness" should be decided by the individual. It should be decided by the society. Individuals have to make the judgement call as to when the discussion turns from reasonable to unreasonable, but in the end if someone jumps the gun on that they will be the one that gets ostracised for doing so and (if they are reasonable) they will learn where the limit of "reasonable philosophies/ideas" sits and adjust their behaviour in future.

I don't see how rephrasing things as questions has any effect on the individual actually being unreasonable if nobody ever actually calls them on things.

A: 2+2=5
B: <explains why 2+2=4>
A: 2+2=5
B: <explains again why 2+2=4>
A: 2+2=5
B: What does 2+2=?

Where does that get you? A has aready exposed his incorrectness while he has been reaffirming his unreasonableness. Asking him to repeated reaffirm his idiotic answer doesn't give any negative feedback to him at all.

[BigBallinStalin]

That's pretty much how I've treated a6mehzero and shickignbrits, and I'm proud of myself. We can disagree about the means, but I enjoy the more subtle way of insulting people.

The ideal way is the Socratic method--e.g. is your 2+2 example a strawman of the tactic which I've mentioned? Are there not better examples than yours? Does yours resemble the best way of handling opponents by means of questioning? (etc.) [If yes/no, explain].

Now, I'm not saying, "your example is stupid because it's a strawman," since I can back away from being accused of any possible implication that may follow from my questions. But notice how I've been handled myself in this paragraph and the previous one. In this paragraph, I'm adopting something more akin to your tactic: no questioning + insult. Would you prefer that I directly insulted you? Or would you prefer the questioning method?*

*Also, what's fun about the questioning method is that the other person sometimes doesn't realize they're being insulted, so it's a joke within a joke! Sometimes, it's not perceived as a joke, but I assume the recipient feels rather stupid by answering it (usually to himself). Or, the recipient and the sender aren't being insulted nor are insulting, so a good outcome can still be salvaged! How could you pass up on these possibilities??

[mrswdk]

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=207031

[crispybits]

We seem to agree to a certain extent. If a person makes a bigoted statement, then the first thing we would both do is try to deal with that person reasonably, and try and talk to them about their beliefs and explain why we think they are wrong, give them the opportunity to defend their position reasonably, and hopefully come to a good outcome. I'm not saying that as soon as someone makes a bigoted statement then they should instantly be insulted.

What I am saying is that if all forms of reasonable discussion fail, and it is obvious that the person expressing the bigotry cannot be reasoned out of their position, that we need to make it clear to everyone - not just to ourselves or those in the "in-group" - that this idea is not acceptable within society. There may be others witnessing the bigotry, and not familiar enough with the ideas, that will not recognise sarcastic/insulting questioning for what it is and instead think that the bigoted idea is somehow acceptable because we're giving it the platform to be explained.

In the end, if someone wants to express ideas that give no respect to our cultural values (our scientific values / our moral values etc), then that person should expect to be treated with no respect. If someone expresses ideas that are contemptible towards these kinds of values, then they should expect to be treated with contempt. There should be a period during which we work out that we understand them correctly, and there should be a period during which correction of them is attempted in all good faith, but if that person continues to express views which are contrary to what is acceptable, then there should be some form of obvious and significant punishment for that, just like there is a punishment for those found to be breaking cultural values like "don't sleep with your neighbours wife" or "don't steal".

Constantly bending over backwards trying to hold reasonable discussions with these people moves their ideas into the realm of "things which are open to debate/discussion", and there should be certain ideas and philosophies that have been found to be harmful to society that should carry sanctions. There is no debate or discussion for example about whether it is OK for scientists to falsify data, it's just considered wrong. People are told that it is unacceptable and why it's unacceptable and the discussion stops there. Anyone who then does it faces real sanctions. The same should apply to bigotry. And slightly beyond the scope of the OP the same should also apply to intellectual dishonesty, hypocrisy and willful ignorance (to name a few things) imo.

Edit - just a final note, I also said that the insult shouldn't be the only thing thrown at them. If someone says 2+2=5 after having it all patiently explained to them several times why this is wrong, the response shouldn't be "you idiot", or even "you idiot, 2+2=4", but rather "you idiot, 2+2=4 and here again is the explanation why"

[Metsfanmax]

We seem to agree to a certain extent. If a person makes a bigoted statement, then the first thing we would both do is try to deal with that person reasonably, and try and talk to them about their beliefs and explain why we think they are wrong, give them the opportunity to defend their position reasonably, and hopefully come to a good outcome. I'm not saying that as soon as someone makes a bigoted statement then they should instantly be insulted.

What I am saying is that if all forms of reasonable discussion fail, and it is obvious that the person expressing the bigotry cannot be reasoned out of their position, that we need to make it clear to everyone - not just to ourselves or those in the "in-group" - that this idea is not acceptable within society. There may be others witnessing the bigotry, and not familiar enough with the ideas, that will not recognise sarcastic/insulting questioning for what it is and instead think that the bigoted idea is somehow acceptable because we're giving it the platform to be explained.

In the end, if someone wants to express ideas that give no respect to our cultural values (our scientific values / our moral values etc), then that person should expect to be treated with no respect. If someone expresses ideas that are contemptible towards these kinds of values, then they should expect to be treated with contempt. There should be a period during which we work out that we understand them correctly, and there should be a period during which correction of them is attempted in all good faith, but if that person continues to express views which are contrary to what is acceptable, then there should be some form of obvious and significant punishment for that, just like there is a punishment for those found to be breaking cultural values like "don't sleep with your neighbours wife" or "don't steal".

Constantly bending over backwards trying to hold reasonable discussions with these people moves their ideas into the realm of "things which are open to debate/discussion", and there should be certain ideas and philosophies that have been found to be harmful to society that should carry sanctions. There is no debate or discussion for example about whether it is OK for scientists to falsify data, it's just considered wrong. People are told that it is unacceptable and why it's unacceptable and the discussion stops there. Anyone who then does it faces real sanctions. The same should apply to bigotry. And slightly beyond the scope of the OP the same should also apply to intellectual dishonesty, hypocrisy and willful ignorance (to name a few things) imo.

But there are real fringe issues (like infanticide) where most would agree that the subject is outside the limits of what most people consider culturally acceptable, and yet there are strong logical reasons to show why the commonly accepted belief is inconsistent.

[crispybits]

Which is why you allow an initial period of reasonable discussion first. If the person who may initially appear to be espousing unacceptable ideas can justify those ideas in a way that brings their notions more clearly within the realms of acceptable debate (i.e. from "killing children is right" to "killing children is right only if that child is terminally ill, living in unbearable pain, and there is no hope of recovery") then the debate can be had and the discussion has a chance of being productive, whichever way the outcome goes.

If someone just says "killing children is right" and after having explained to them why this is wrong they just keep repeating "killing children is right" without offering anything more, then that person should be called a fucking idiot (and probably reported to the authorities as a significant risk to others)

[Metsfanmax]

Which is why you allow an initial period of reasonable discussion first. If the person who may initially appear to be espousing unacceptable ideas can justify those ideas in a way that brings their notions more clearly within the realms of acceptable debate (i.e. from "killing children is right" to "killing children is right only if that child is terminally ill, living in unbearable pain, and there is no hope of recovery") then the debate can be had and the discussion has a chance of being productive, whichever way the outcome goes.

If someone just says "killing children is right" and after having explained to them why this is wrong they just keep repeating "killing children is right" without offering anything more, then that person should be called a fucking idiot (and probably reported to the authorities as a significant risk to others)

If we had applied your views in the early 18th century, slavery abolitionism would have ended right quick.

[crispybits]

Also, I think it's a false assumption that morality on a societal level must be internally consistent. Morality is situational and very, very complex. We don't process moral decisions in society for the most part as simple things that follow simple rules.

So it's not important whether a belief is consistent with all other beliefs within the system as a whole, what matters is whether a belief can be justified using the basic principles society uses to judge these things. Racism was a commonly held belief once upon a time, black people were not thought of as being really human. That belief was part of the societal whole with regards standards and norms. The belief that racism is bad could never have gained any traction if it had to be compared to the belief that black people are inferior. We didn't compare it to that though, we compared it to the axiomatic beliefs of society as a whole, we found that in the way we make decisions about the validity of ideas racism being bad was something we could justify in many ways, and so the discussion was had, society changed and racism became unacceptable.

Edit - sniped while I was typing the rebuttal to the snipe

[mrswdk]

If someone's appealing to morality then that means they have no real argument.

[shickingbrits]

If someone's appealing to morality then that means they have no real argument.

Citizen of the future.

[PLAYER57832]

You are asking the wrong question. Racism, etc is not prohibited, only certain WORDS that are intrinsically antagonistic in nature are prohibited.

I can talk about whether blacks are inferior in a genetic sense, using data and evidence, as long as I stay within specific boundaries of discussion, keep it scientific, listen to opposition and combate data with data. (NOTE.. let me be clear that I in now way, shape or form think race indicates anything about genetic inferiority or superiority except in very, very narrow genetic disease issues). HOWEVER, it is rare that such a discussion happens without someone launching into "you N***er", etc. If you read through the immigration threads, you will often find racist concepts and ideas. You will find homophobic ideas in many threads as well. They go on for a while, until some idiot ruins it for the rest by being abusive, rather than intelligently discussing things.

Intelligently discussing things requires two intelligent parties willing to hold a reasonable conversation. If one side is determined to remain uninformed, hold on to bigoted (or factually incorrect) views, and keep spreading their bigotry/misinformation for everyone to hear and potentially be swayed by even after attempts at reasonable discourse, the only option remaining is unreasonable discourse. At some point you have to stop being polite to people and call them a bigot/idiot. That is as much part of free speech as is their right to express bigoted/idiotic views.

The point is that as long as these thoughts are kept in discussion, it is OK. The harm is when it turns into trading attacks. That is wrong and must be proscribed because it is NOT discussion, it is the verbal equivalent of taking a gun and shooting someone. THAT is the real issue.. too many people, today, no longer encounter enough ideas with which they disagree and therefore never really learn the limits of discussion decorum.

And what about when the other side of the debate is happy to be dishonest, manipulative and launch attacks of their own? Sure you can turn the other cheek for a while, maintain the moral high ground and keep trying to talk reasonably to these people, but in the end the only real effective sanction against societally harmful ideas and philosophies is to call them out for what they are in the strongest terms possible, to make the social ostracisation crystal clear and make it clear to each of these individuals your honest view of them for holding such philosophies. If that means you have to use language that could be considered offensive then it's regrettable but it really is just too bad.

Reasonable discussion is for reasonable people. Once people prove themselves to be completely unreasonable (and especially if that includes some level of abusive language/degrading philosophy) then reasonable discussion attempts should stop and they should just be attacked for being what they are and have proved themselves beyond all doubt to be.

Ironically enough, you are actually making my point for me.

I worked with guys who were nice enough, but who regularly threw out expletives right and left with almost no thought. I would not, just because that was not how I was used to speaking. The one day, the equipment we were working with got completely screwed up, a few other things happened, and when a line broke, I just let out "Sh*t". Boy did everyone jump! Of course, they never let me forget it, but the thing is, they all remembered precisely because it was not my normal mode of speech. It mattered because of that.

George Carlin famously talked about (joked about) the power of certain words. Yet, ironically, that actually IS the point. When everyone uses F**k or s**t as just everyday adverbs and adjectives, then they become meaningless.

The other point to that is that when you let people just say whatever, however, then it makes some people constantly push the envelope more.. and more...and more, without end.

Now, the response is important. A website, trying to keep things under moderate control, will offer warnings when they think things are getting out of hand. Normally, reasonable people will listen and change how they are speaking. (of course, a few others see that as laying down the gauntlets and will then go out of their way to test the boundaries)

I am not in favor of absolutely eliminating all speech on specific subjects at all, except specific threats and, well.. not sure I want to see details for making various bomb types, either. However, ideas need to be discussed. Moderators, though, need to touch base and make sure that discussion actually is just that.. discussion and not just a series of attacks. People can disagree, very vociferously, about subjects, but still communicate. its when it becomes nothing more than insults that communication stops.

[PLAYER57832]

If someone's appealing to morality then that means they have no real argument.

Oh please! You yourself talk a LOT about morality. It matters not if you want to change a set standard or accept one, its still morality.

[PLAYER57832]

We seem to agree to a certain extent. If a person makes a bigoted statement, then the first thing we would both do is try to deal with that person reasonably, and try and talk to them about their beliefs and explain why we think they are wrong, give them the opportunity to defend their position reasonably, and hopefully come to a good outcome. I'm not saying that as soon as someone makes a bigoted statement then they should instantly be insulted.

What I am saying is that if all forms of reasonable discussion fail, and it is obvious that the person expressing the bigotry cannot be reasoned out of their position, that we need to make it clear to everyone - not just to ourselves or those in the "in-group" - that this idea is not acceptable within society. There may be others witnessing the bigotry, and not familiar enough with the ideas, that will not recognise sarcastic/insulting questioning for what it is and instead think that the bigoted idea is somehow acceptable because we're giving it the platform to be explained.

In the end, if someone wants to express ideas that give no respect to our cultural values (our scientific values / our moral values etc), then that person should expect to be treated with no respect. If someone expresses ideas that are contemptible towards these kinds of values, then they should expect to be treated with contempt. There should be a period during which we work out that we understand them correctly, and there should be a period during which correction of them is attempted in all good faith, but if that person continues to express views which are contrary to what is acceptable, then there should be some form of obvious and significant punishment for that, just like there is a punishment for those found to be breaking cultural values like "don't sleep with your neighbours wife" or "don't steal".

I utterly disagree on two points.

First, it is hard to respect someone you don't understand and similarly hard to truly not respect someone you do understand. You may not agree with their position, but understanding is key. Read through famous battles/disputes and often you read of the respect they had for their enemy.

There are people who are obtuse, who refuse to try to understand "the other" (whatever the other position/person is). They see any difference as inherently a justification for attack. But, to descend to their level makes you no different from them.

I agree that leaving/ostracizing is the only answer. however, today, we often don' really have that option. Look at, for example, the whole Palestinien/Israeli conflict. To reach peace, each side is going to HAVE to sit down and actually listen to the other side. I

Constantly bending over backwards trying to hold reasonable discussions with these people moves their ideas into the realm of "things which are open to debate/discussion", and there should be certain ideas and philosophies that have been found to be harmful to society that should carry sanctions.

These cases are VERY few and far between. It is only by continually engaging and confronting the wrong idea that we can both stifle it and also be sure that we ourselves have not become complacent in our ideas.

-- I could go on, but I gotta go.

[mrswdk]

If someone's appealing to morality then that means they have no real argument.

Oh please! You yourself talk a LOT about morality. It matters not if you want to change a set standard or accept one, its still morality.

Feel free to quote me. Even a paraphrase will do.