Poll: Hate Speech and You

Mns · **Posted:** Mon May 17, 2010 11:25 pm

The first step I'm taking for this is changing Henq's rank. It will currently be [PLACEHOLDER] until you give me something you want to be called, Henq.

Mns · **Posted:** Mon May 17, 2010 11:27 pm

Also, I'm going to change my vote after reading this thread. For those of you keeping score at home, please deduct one vote from option #2 and add one to option #1. Its rather hypocritical for me to be a fan of keeping "faggots" and putting a blanket filter on most other words.

Also, I'm probably going to create a sticky in this forum with the various changes that myself and the mods have made to the site.

Henqetnetjer · **Posted:** Mon May 17, 2010 11:30 pm

Mayonaise wrote:

The first step I'm taking for this is changing Henq's rank. It will currently be [PLACEHOLDER] until you give me something you want to be called, Henq.

Thank you sir.

That is really all I needed. Changing the rest of the mods and yourself is unnecessary. I was just concerned with my own association with the title.

Any other title is fine. Skrob is saying in vent "The Mayor" so that is my suggestion but seriously, "moderator" is perfect in my eyes.

Mns · **Posted:** Mon May 17, 2010 11:33 pm

Henqetnetjer wrote:

Any other title is fine. Skrob is saying in vent "The Mayor" so that is my suggestion but seriously, "moderator" is perfect in my eyes.

I'd like to keep a general theme in all of ranks so people can notice that we're mods without seeing our names in different colors (ex. Currently, we're all faggots).

If the ranks change, chances are I may change yours to fit with a new theme, but currently it will be "The Mayor".

Jubbergun · **Posted:** Tue May 18, 2010 4:27 am

As much as I personally think Muerte is pretty swell, I think that changing the mod names and filtering/censoring for any reason aside from humor and general mischief-making defeats the entire purpose of FUBU.

I might, however, suggest that since the mod title seems to have been selected as an insult to the official forum mods, we could possibly just change the title to something like "Humorless Robot Retard," and possibly rotate the title from time-to-time.

I guess those two paragraphs are contradictory. Maybe what I'm trying to say is, we shouldn't change the name just because someone is offended, but because we have an opportunity to do something funnier and/or more original...and if that results in certain parties getting over their apprehension and getting on board with the rest of us, all the better.

I must now go make fart noises, because this degree of seriousness is likely bad for my sanity.

Your Pal,
Jubber

rikkilake · **Posted:** Wed May 19, 2010 2:39 pm

Mayonaise wrote:

shuya wrote:

It's a piece of history.

This is my feeling on the subject. For those of you that don't know, people have called each other faggots on this board for years. I could care less about the filters, but I'm very passionate about calling mods (or at the very least, myself) a faggot.

I feel this is quite possible the weakest argument in this thread. People have been getting slurs thrown at them for as long as such words existed and to claim that you have a right to use them because they've been apart of your vocabulary for the past few years is ludicrous at best. The only sub-cultures where I feel this is appropriate are where the pejorative is referring to something that is personal to them (ie: someone who is openly gay referring to someone else within their community as a "faggot"). Through words being reclaimed they have become acceptable, however that only applies to those people reclaiming it, not some under-grads trying to seem edgy.
Additionally, I find that your filtering and discouragement of racial slurs is quite hypocritical to your open use towards a different people of oppression. Picking and choosing who you do and do not discriminate against for things that are not a matter of choice speaks poorly of ones character. This, I suppose, could be a reaction towards the centuries of slavery and subsequent century-and-a-half (and counting) of extreme racism towards that specific group, however to ignore the current struggles--although less severe--of other groups and protect only one is questionable at best.
With that said, my vote stands to change the moderator title at least. As far as a filter, I see it as just making the use of the pejorative marginally-less offensive. Even with the current filter, I know what the person is really trying to say--and will have the same experience with additional filters--and am still appalled that the excessive use of racial slurs is tolerated at all. Just because you made it look nicer, it doesn't change what someone was really trying to say.

Henqetnetjer · **Posted:** Wed May 19, 2010 2:47 pm

rikkilake wrote:

I feel this is quite possible the weakest argument in this thread. People have been getting slurs thrown at them for as long as such words existed and to claim that you have a right to use them because they've been apart of your vocabulary for the past few years is ludicrous at best. The only sub-cultures where I feel this is appropriate are where the pejorative is referring to something that is personal to them (ie: someone who is openly gay referring to someone else within their community as a "faggot"). Through words being reclaimed they have become acceptable, however that only applies to those people reclaiming it, not some under-grads trying to seem edgy.
Additionally, I find that your filtering and discouragement of racial slurs is quite hypocritical to your open use towards a different people of oppression. Picking and choosing who you do and do not discriminate against for things that are not a matter of choice speaks poorly of ones character. This, I suppose, could be a reaction towards the centuries of slavery and subsequent century-and-a-half (and counting) of extreme racism towards that specific group, however to ignore the current struggles--although less severe--of other groups and protect only one is questionable at best.
With that said, my vote stands to change the moderator title at least. As far as a filter, I see it as just making the use of the pejorative marginally-less offensive. Even with the current filter, I know what the person is really trying to say--and will have the same experience with additional filters--and am still appalled that the excessive use of racial slurs is tolerated at all. Just because you made it look nicer, it doesn't change what someone was really trying to say.

100% in agreement with this.
Well said Rikki-baby.

Mns · **Posted:** Wed May 19, 2010 2:52 pm

rikkilake wrote:

Mayonaise wrote:

shuya wrote:

It's a piece of history.

This is my feeling on the subject. For those of you that don't know, people have called each other faggots on this board for years. I could care less about the filters, but I'm very passionate about calling mods (or at the very least, myself) a faggot.

I feel this is quite possible the weakest argument in this thread. People have been getting slurs thrown at them for as long as such words existed and to claim that you have a right to use them because they've been apart of your vocabulary for the past few years is ludicrous at best. The only sub-cultures where I feel this is appropriate are where the pejorative is referring to something that is personal to them (ie: someone who is openly gay referring to someone else within their community as a "faggot"). Through words being reclaimed they have become acceptable, however that only applies to those people reclaiming it, not some under-grads trying to seem edgy.
Additionally, I find that your filtering and discouragement of racial slurs is quite hypocritical to your open use towards a different people of oppression. Picking and choosing who you do and do not discriminate against for things that are not a matter of choice speaks poorly of ones character. This, I suppose, could be a reaction towards the centuries of slavery and subsequent century-and-a-half (and counting) of extreme racism towards that specific group, however to ignore the current struggles--although less severe--of other groups and protect only one is questionable at best.
With that said, my vote stands to change the moderator title at least. As far as a filter, I see it as just making the use of the pejorative marginally-less offensive. Even with the current filter, I know what the person is really trying to say--and will have the same experience with additional filters--and am still appalled that the excessive use of racial slurs is tolerated at all. Just because you made it look nicer, it doesn't change what someone was really trying to say.

How am I censoring someone if you know exactly what they're trying to say? Currently, all filters are there for humor purposes. There is also an open policy on racial slurs because the board really hasn't decided on this issue yet (considering the board is brand new and this is our first major discussion).

I also chose to filter nigger and not other slurs was because I felt that out of most slurs (except for faggot) nigger is the most used. I'll remove the filter on it if people are rather peeved by me filtering one and not others, but it was strictly for humor purposes.

rikkilake · **Posted:** Wed May 19, 2010 3:06 pm

Mayonaise wrote:

How am I censoring someone if you know exactly what they're trying to say? Currently, all filters are there for humor purposes. There is also an open policy on racial slurs because the board really hasn't decided on this issue yet (considering the board is brand new and this is our first major discussion).

I also chose to filter Distinguished Nigerian Gentleman and not other slurs was because I felt that out of most slurs (except for faggot) Distinguished Nigerian Gentleman is the most used. I'll remove the filter on it if people are rather peeved by me filtering one and not others, but it was strictly for humor purposes.

I never once used the word "censor." I, however, did use the word "filter" which is also the word you used as well in your response to me.
The main issue that I have with it is not filtration, but tolerance. You are tolerating the existence of such language, and through your use of humor, have made it acceptable since people will now enjoy using it since they themselves will also find humor through it. To shrink or enlarge the amount of filters you have will not fix that problem, it will only mask it and encourage people to use them perhaps more since others will find it more humorous when they're call a poopy [gay.filter()].
That is my opinion on the topic. A solution? tell the racist, homophobic assholes to go back to /b/ where they belong.

Mns · **Posted:** Wed May 19, 2010 3:10 pm

I don't think that we've even had any "racist, homophobic assholes" on here, so I don't feel that this is even a problem. Not to mention that 4chan-esque people will probably find themselves subject to moderation in other ways.

However, race trolling (like those stupid pictures that have black people as monkeys, etc) won't be tolerated and falls under the extreme circumstances clause in the rules.

rikkilake · **Posted:** Wed May 19, 2010 3:44 pm

Mayonaise wrote:

I don't think that we've even had any "racist, homophobic assholes" on here, so I don't feel that this is even a problem. Not to mention that 4chan-esque people will probably find themselves subject to moderation in other ways.

However, race trolling (like those stupid pictures that have black people as monkeys, etc) won't be tolerated and falls under the extreme circumstances clause in the rules.

What would you define someone using anothers race in a negative connotation as a means to insult another as? Personally, I call that being racist. In order to understand the meaning of your sentence your audience is forced to make a negative association with the word you are using against the individual(s). Once that connection has been made, especially in an environment such as the internet where memes spread like wildfires, it is only a matter of time before other people start saying it, too. Now that you and others are using the racial pejorative as a means to insult people, when you initially think up what to say to someone that you do not like, you are first going to head straight to that word. You now associate an entire people with dislike. You are officially racist.

Yuratuhl · **Posted:** Wed May 19, 2010 4:32 pm

rikkilake wrote:

The only sub-cultures where I feel this is appropriate are where the pejorative is referring to something that is personal to them (ie: someone who is openly gay referring to someone else within their community as a "faggot"). Through words being reclaimed they have become acceptable, however that only applies to those people reclaiming it, not some under-grads trying to seem edgy.

I don't agree with anything that presents a double standard. The point of internet anonymity is specifically that a poster is an avatar that types words. If words are only charged with hate based on who is saying them, who can effectively police this when none of it is face to face? If gays can call gays "faggots" then I can too, not that I would. Same goes with racial epithets. If we're going to represent equality of language, it's everything or nothing.

For the record, I generally agree more with the European stance of restricting hate speech. But this is the internet, and I'm not Interpol, and most of us here are reasonable enough not to be flagrant racists/other-o-phobes.

Henqetnetjer · **Posted:** Wed May 19, 2010 4:49 pm

Yuratuhl wrote:

But this is the internet, and I'm not Interpol, and most of us here are reasonable enough not to be flagrant racists/other-o-phobes.

Must of us are reasonable enough not to be flagrant homophobes...and by that I assume you mean most of us don't just throw the word "faggot" around lightly...

...yet it is in every post that the mods make..soooo...?

rikkilake · **Posted:** Wed May 19, 2010 5:00 pm

Yuratuhl wrote:

rikkilake wrote:

The only sub-cultures where I feel this is appropriate are where the pejorative is referring to something that is personal to them (ie: someone who is openly gay referring to someone else within their community as a "faggot"). Through words being reclaimed they have become acceptable, however that only applies to those people reclaiming it, not some under-grads trying to seem edgy.

I don't agree with anything that presents a double standard. The point of internet anonymity is specifically that a poster is an avatar that types words. If words are only charged with hate based on who is saying them, who can effectively police this when none of it is face to face? If gays can call gays "faggots" then I can too, not that I would. Same goes with racial epithets. If we're going to represent equality of language, it's everything or nothing.

For the record, I generally agree more with the European stance of restricting hate speech. But this is the internet, and I'm not Interpol, and most of us here are reasonable enough not to be flagrant racists/other-o-phobes.

To look at it as a "double standard" is to ignore what the word itself means and conveys to the masses. By reclaiming such words, the group is accepting the negative meaning behind the word and the power it has held over them. To deny that group the ability to use language like that exclusively and have it not hold a negative connotation within their own community is to force them to also try and ignore their past.
As for the anonymity of the internet, context is key when descerning between the two uses of words.

Unacceptable use:
Person 1: Rend is the boss that you kite, right?
Person 2: No, you fucking faggot, Rend is the one with the dragon.

Acceptable use:
Person 1: Sorry guys, I can't make it to UBRS tonight. I have a date with my male-partner
Person 2: Just call him and cancel so you can tank!
Person 1: I am too much of a faggot to reject someone as cute as him, sorry!

The issue, however, with restricting "hate speech" is what do you define as hate speech? Wikipedia.org defines it as:

Quote:

In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.

Given that, then you would not only ban someone spewing racial slurs at a group of minorities, but it would also mean that say at the protests in Greece is someone yelled, "Kill all cops!" That would also be hate speech and thus be banned.

Nameviolator · **Posted:** Wed May 19, 2010 5:36 pm

I think this is a problem best solved by Louis CK

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqwj--wGEgY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-otAJrtY-w

Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

Poll: Hate Speech and You

Who is online