POLL - Hate speech as a tolerable subject matter to be hosted by the P&R

[Whiskey16]

The questions are clear for what may be acceptable as political and news discussion.

Off the top of the head here are some presently forum tolerated recorded subject matter:

Muslims do not have "just as much of a right" to be in western countries, they do not share the values, they did not contribute to the development of the civilization there. Do I have just as much of a right to go live in China as the native Chinese? Or Kenya as the native Kenyans? Or Iraq as the native Iraqis? Of fucking course not.

And I'm sorry, but when I consider there are 7 billion people on the planet, and that these people by and large (there are exceptions) represent an ENORMOUS backslide for our planet in terms of women's rights, gay rights, freedom of speech, and a million other HARD FOUGHT freedoms and advancements we fought tooth and nail as western civilization to attain, I reflect that I would have absolutely no problem with every European nation putting out a message saying if you're first or second generation Muslim immigrant, depart now. You have one week, after which time the army of each nation will simply enter the heavily Muslim districts with a shoot on sight policy.

Originally posted by Reference:
Is the racism against blacks warranted?

Originally posted by Reference;
Under Apartheid, 73 people died in police detention from 1963 to 1990, which equates to 2.6 people per year during the Apartheid period.
..
South Africa did the latter and it was branded racist for classing people according to cultures. I would rather take a couple of hindred of people dead at a riot than 4 million in genocide. Look all over Africa the tribes fighting and murdering each other today. Look at South Africa's stats now. It fits in nicely with the rest of Africa's stats and does not stand out being much higher than the rest of Africa.
..
We took a bowl of dust and in 80 years build a country who have nuclear power, a space program, build a nuclear bomb and is the only one to dismantle it voluntarily. They sanctioned us with fuel imports we turned coal into fuel by building SASOL.

Our concern should be by tolerating generically hateful and racially/ethnic supremacist presentations AnandTech is on the record as being welcoming of such material and thereby attracting and retaining the extremists that propagate it. Reasonable people will avoid this forum as its reputation reflects what is hosted.

[edit -- second reference link fixed]

Threads or questions about forum moderation belong in moderator discussions. We'd be happy to answer questions about the moderation. We've made it clear in the past that this site is not a platform for people to spread their racist points of view. While some discussion is tolerated, when we see an individual engaging in a habit of repeatedly bringing these things up, often backed by dubious or cherry picked sources, we're (or at least I am) going to make some assumptions about their intent. Recently (today), one thread was highly cut and pasted from a site described (within the first few google hits) as an extremist hate group. When that happens, there's not much doubt as to the motivation of the OP. Ditto the content in the OP of another recent thread. Both threads have been locked & their OPs have been banned for a month. -Admin DrPizza

 

[nehalem256]

I don't know about "hate speech", but I am pretty sure purposefully misquoting someone is against the rules(Note your quoted text seems to be closer to the thread title, but since you felt the need to link to a post on page 9...):

The actual text from the second reference post:

You're just about as wrong as can be.

You should study up on some of the things done in Africa or Haiti, or Cambodia and other Asian countries (for another non-white example set), etc if you like... not to mention the shit that has been done by middle-east regimes.

20% of serial killers in the US are black, and there have been a number of black mass shooters including one a couple of months ago.

The LA Times publicly admitted in 2007 that they have a policy of avoiding showing black crime for what it is, because they feel that information would be dangerous and make whites more racist toward blacks if they knew the full extent of it.

You actually have a situation where about 2% of the population (black males within the appropriate age range) are committing a majority of murders. That's jaw-dropping.

Black on white rapes per year in the US also number in the tens of thousands, while white on black rapes are so rare as to be statistically untrackable.

Other media outlets admitted to the same thing that the LA Times did shortly after. There is a standing policy among almost all major outlets of the mainstream media to avoid painting a clear picture of minority criminality. They think they're doing it for noble reasons, but I've always valued the truth first and foremost.

The FBI also counts Hispanics as white in many cases when listing the PERPETRATOR but does not do the same when listing the victim. Cute, huh? This throws the already amazingly low white crime levels off even more. Whites are even less criminalistic than the FBI's stats indicate.

The number of horrible warlords in Africa, people engaging in systematic rape and ethnic cleansing in Africa (Sudan, Rwanda, etc...) the systematic killing and horrible rape/torture of the white farmers in Zimbabwe... the list goes on and on and on. Look into what the Haitians did to the French among them a couple of hundred years ago.

Whereas white people? Latecomers to the slavery scene... and yet did more to bring it's end worldwide than any other group. Invented all sorts of medicines and vaccines etc, then shared them with the third world... have done plenty of brutal things, no doubt... but most of the impression of white people as these horrible worldwide butchers is the result of their own white guilt and how they frame historical events. It's also a result of them being particularly effective at shit that EVERYONE has attempted and succeeded at to various degrees throughout history... namely conquest.

So what in the above are you considering to be "hate speech"?

 

[monovillage]

I voted, but did you mean P&N (Politics and News) ?

 

[Incorruptible]

People have freedom of speech which means they can say whatever they want and criticize whatever they want but it doesn't mean anyone else has to listen to them

There should never be any restrictions on freedom of speech

 

[Geosurface]

Let's see what Captain Jean-Luc Picard has to say:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjJN08uqt70

"The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged.

Or if you prefer your quotes from real people:

Free speech is the whole thing, the whole ball game. Free speech is life itself.
Salman Rushdie

Whiskey16: Forum's leading hater of free speech, and whiner extraordinaire.

 

[Agent11]

Who defines what is hate speech? You, whiskey?

 

[nehalem256]

Whiskey, if you invested as much time in showing why those engaging in "hate speech" were stupid as you did in whining about free speech wouldn't that show visitors that not only does P&N respect free speech, but that it is full of reasonable people.

Why are you not doing this?

 

[Whiskey16]

Who defines what is hate speech? You, whiskey?

My first reference is a soundly strong example.

In choosing to refrain comment upon it, are you implying such hateful content and incitement to violence is tolerable to you (not hateful) and acceptable material to be hosted by AnandTech's P&N?

 

[Agent11]

I haven't seen any hate speech.

So I think you are off in the head.

 

[Geosurface]

My first reference is a soundly strong example.

In choosing to refrain comment upon it, are you implying such hateful content and incitement to violence is tolerable to you (not hateful) and acceptable material to be hosted by AnandTech's P&N?

If the first quote was hate speech, wouldn't it have lacked the stipulation about first/second generation? If it was based on hatred of Arabs on an ethnic basis, for example, rather than dismay at what the infusion of a certain culture into another culture is doing to it... why would there be a specification about first and second generation?

In a subsequent post I expressed an acknowledgement that I had worded that in too extreme a fashion, and edited the original post due to that. I acknowledged being overly upset about the issue at the time, and painting with too broad a brush.

Yet here you are, still quoting the old unedited post... squirreling away any and all quotes you can find from people you disagree with to add to your growing pile of "evidence we need to implement draconian limitations on these boards as to what opinions can be expressed!!!!!" (not an actual quote from you, a summary of your basic point)

See that's the thing, when you eliminate peoples' free speech and freedom to think things different from you or from the majority, you deny the natural flow of things like what happened there, me reflecting on it and agreeing that yes, I'd gone too far in what I'd said.

You shove yourself in to that natural process of back and forth, where people communicate and reach understandings, and you just try to shut the whole thing down and get people you don't agree with silenced.

When, if you were a decent person at all, you'd instead use your energies to try to actually convince people, like myself and others, why you are right and we are supposedly wrong.

What a sad little existence, scanning the forums for little nuggets you hope will eventually convince the nannies you want the moderators to be, to silence those you don't want to hear from. And when you beg for this, which you constantly do, you frame it in a way that sounds very much like a threat to the powers that be here "either silence people or I'll get this site in trouble!" (another approximation of what I feel you're saying)

Just pathetic.

 

[Whiskey16]

Whiskey, if you invested as much time in showing why those engaging in "hate speech" were stupid as you did in whining about free speech wouldn't that show visitors that not only does P&N respect free speech, but that it is full of reasonable people.

Yet my haphazardly chosen references demonstrate the antithesis of reasonable people and discussion.

A level of decorum is expected in a civil society. When excess and extremism is fostered and tolerated it thereby negates the appeal of such a society to reasonable people. A regular vocal rabble may disproportionately influence the nature and character of a society.

A private entity made public is reflected and judged by its content.

 

[glenn1]

Nothing the OP posted qualifies. Hate speech would be something like "kill all faggots" or "n*ggers aren't even human" or something like that. Things like the subway billboards saying "in the struggle between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man" isn't hate speech either.

 

[Jaskalas]

How the bloody hell does someone become so fixated on race?

The second quote likely counts, in my book. Don't know what the moderators think, but this whole subject is about forum moderation and is quite off topic.

 

[drebo]

There's no such thing as "hate speech."

It's a tool people suffering from "white guilt" have made up to make themselves feel better by demonizing people who see the world for what it is and refuse to lie to themselves about it.

Pointing out that Islamic cultures are back-ass-wards is not hate speech. You may not like it for one reason or another, but it is not "hate speech." It is a simple statement of fact. Islamic cultures have no women's rights. They have no freedom of speech or gay rights. They are backwards, and we should be resisting that corruption, rather than being brought down to their level.

I don't want to live in a world where gay people can't be gay, where I can't say "fuck you" to a clergyman, or where I can't express my thoughts. Especially when that world condones rape, selling of daughters as wives, and showing too much skin as a crime punishable by death. That's not a fair, just, or peaceful world.

Instead, I'd like to live in a world where anyone can do whatever the fuck they want as long as it doesn't affect any other non-consenting person. If people want to start communes where they practice Sharia law and stone women for wearing shorts, whatever, let them. But don't make me be a part of it.

"Freedom" as a concept means that we are free to do what we want within the boundaries of civilized society. It does not mean that we are free from consequences or free from having our feelings hurt.

 

[Whiskey16]

Things like the subway billboards saying "in the struggle between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man" isn't hate speech either.

No, glenn1, declaring the supremacy of one racial/ethnic/religious group and dehumanizing another is most certainly a text book definition of hate speech and supremacism.

What you accept and advocate is often the first extremist step to rank groups and enable crimes against the marginalised.

 

[Geosurface]

Nothing the OP posted qualifies. Hate speech would be something like "kill all faggots" or "n*ggers aren't even human" or something like that. Things like the subway billboards saying "in the struggle between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man" isn't hate speech either.

And with full acknowledgement that I have an even more recent registration date than Whiskey, when I see someone registered in 2000 like yourself, I tend to respect their long view of these forums, etc.

A dude who registered in 2011 trying to get the forum policies changed to codify his personal sensibilities and make the moderators dance to his tune? Makes me really think "who does this guy think he is?"

 

[Geosurface]

No, glenn1, declaring the supremacy of one racial/ethnic/religious group and dehumanizing another is most certainly a text book definition of hate speech and supremacism.

What you accept and advocate is often the first extremist step to rank groups and enable crimes against the marginalised.

As to the bolded:

At no time, have I come within a billion miles of doing anything remotely like "declaring the supremacy of one group"

So, who are you referring to? And why didn't you quote their post in your OP?

 

[Steeplerot]

This place is welcoming of extremists/racists and provides a outlet for their message/conspiracies.

This is why anandtech is known as techstormfront. Reasonable posters are generally frustrated/drowned out by hate and rightwing echo chamber spam. It reflects badly on AT as my customers are diverse. I would not recommend AT because of the trash, nor do a lot of former posters even come much because of it.

There is a newer group nowadays kicking back at the pricks, but with almost no standards on decency and a inclusive enviroment for all its just pissing in the wind. I gave up long ago.
Maybe anand is a racist, so let this happen? I hope not. I always liked AT.

 

[nehalem256]

No, glenn1, declaring the supremacy of one racial/ethnic/religious group and dehumanizing another is most certainly a text book definition of hate speech and supremacism.

from your "hate speech" quote:

And I'm sorry, but when I consider there are 7 billion people on the planet, and that these people by and large (there are exceptions) represent an ENORMOUS backslide for our planet in terms of women's rights, gay rights, freedom of speech, and a million other HARD FOUGHT freedoms and advancements we fought tooth and nail as western civilization to attain

So to be clear you think that the way Muslims treat women and gays is equal to the way the US and Western Europe does?

I won't bother asking what your opinion on free speech is, since clearly it matches with the way the Muslim world tends to feel about it.

 

[drebo]

No, glenn1, declaring the supremacy of one racial/ethnic/religious group and dehumanizing another is most certainly a text book definition of hate speech and supremacism.

What you accept and advocate is often the first extremist step to rank groups and enable crimes against the marginalised.

The statement may be a stereotype, sure, but it is not "hate speech." Nor is it supremacism.

Stereotypes are rooted in truth. The stereotype of the urban black twenty-something male as a "savage" is due to a propensity for that particular group of people to commit crimes of aggression and general disrespect for other people and their belongings.

It's no different than the stereotype of rural white twenty-something males of being Bible-thumping, gun-toting racist hicks. Sure, some of them probably are, and that's why the group is labeled as such.

Calling a spade a spade is not hate speech. It's up to every group of people to be responsible for their own identity as seen by other groups of people.

 

[Geosurface]

This is why anandtech is known as techstormfront.

Is known as by who? By you?

Enlighten me, how common is this nickname? Can you link to anywhere outside of this site itself where it has ever been called that? I certainly know I could be unaware of such a nickname, but I smell BS. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Fact is, there are a LOT of people on these forums who cannot see cultural or racial issues discussed without tapping out instantly and crying "racism!" at anyone with whom they disagree or whom they saw express a less conventional viewpoint on it, these people are not anyone who should be setting or influencing policy, as they are not even capable of an adult-level discussion.

And again with the attempted blackmail type posts "change your forum free speech policies or this site's reputation will get really bad! I'll stop using it! I'll tell my friends it's racist here!" such pathetic drivel.

Far as I can tell, the left wing thinkers here do a lot more drowning out and making others feel unwelcome and like they can't be heard here than the other way around. Case in point: this fucking thread.

 

[drebo]

Is known as by who? By you?

Enlighten me, how common is this nickname? Can you link to anywhere outside of this site itself where it has ever been called that? I certainly know I could be unaware of such a nickname, but I smell BS. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Fact is, there are a LOT of people on these forums who cannot see cultural or racial issues discussed without tapping out instantly and crying "racism!" at anyone with whom they disagree or whom they saw express a less conventional viewpoint on it, these people are not anyone who should be setting or influencing policy, as they are not even capable of an adult-level discussion.

And again with the attempted blackmail type posts "change your forum free speech policies or this site's reputation will get really bad! I'll stop using it! I'll tell my friends it's racist here!" such pathetic drivel.

Far as I can tell, the left wing thinkers here do a lot more drowning out and making others feel unwelcome and like they can't be heard here than the other way around. Case in point: this fucking thread.

It all stems from white guilt. The bleeding hearts here feel its their duty to make sure that no one is ever more successful than anyone else, and that includes an ethnic group's ability to rise above their own stereotypes.

 

[nehalem256]

This is why anandtech is known as techstormfront.

And you want it to become techcensorfront?

 

[DucatiMonster696]

This place is welcoming of extremists/racists and provides a outlet for their message/conspiracies.

This is why anandtech is known as techstormfront. Reasonable posters are generally frustrated/drowned out by hate and rightwing echo chamber spam. It reflects badly on AT as my customers are diverse. I would not recommend AT because of the trash, nor do a lot of former posters even come much because of it.

There is a newer group nowadays kicking back at the pricks, but with almost no standards on decency and a inclusive enviroment for all its just pissing in the wind. I gave up long ago.
Maybe anand is a racist, so let this happen? I hope not. I always liked AT.

This is a political extremist calling everyone else who disagrees with his opinion extremists.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

[EagleKeeper]

You want to censor people from speaking out because you do not like the subject or way of presenting it.

Why should you be making that decision?