Should RF take stronger action against hate threads?

[Martin]

Labeling a thread a 'hate thread' is most often a judgment call. Let's error on the side of free speech.

I agree. Attacking people is a problem, but attacking ideas is often useful.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I myself believe there’s a line we should all never cross and that is to impute negative sentiments via generalisation methods towards any group of people small or large even DIR.

RF does care about that and has an excellent team of moderators, and one of the fine gentlemen in the panel is a Bahai. Are you not satisfied with that?
Perhaps you should moderate your own posts and not say funny things.

 

[Father Heathen]

What "hate speech" is there that isn't already against the rules?

 

[Revoltingest]

What "hate speech" is there that isn't already against the rules?

It all depends upon whom is hated.

 

[Father Heathen]

It all depends upon whom is hated.

Elaborate.

 

[night912]

The hard thing about this is that not everyone agree what is hate and what is not.

 

[Howard Is]

With the Anniversary of the NZ massacre being commemorated, findings are that hate speech online has been a major contributor to many of such crimes.

Should freedom of speech include the right to demonise or infer evil to mass populations of any group?

There are posts that will take a verse out of context attempting to impute violence to an entire religion who’s population numbers 1.7 billion adherents rather than attribute crimes specifically to those who committed them.

I believe to try and indicate or attribute to an entire religion the judgement of violence is but a prejudicial veiled attempt to demonise, discredit and incite hatred against Muslims or any group in general under the guise of ‘freedom of speech ‘.

I believe in view of massacres like the one in NZ that forums such as RF need to be far more vigilant at identifying those threads which have an agenda of discrediting and demonising a particular group as this could lead to hostility one day.

It doesn’t mean we can’t have our say but that freedom of speech needs to be used responsibly and we need to all be vigilant that we don’t inadvertently create hostility towards any group of people.

I see some threads where some groups are-being singled out with no real purpose except to discredit and demonise them not constructively share and or learn.

I myself believe there’s a line we should all never cross and that is to impute negative sentiments via generalisation methods towards any group of people small or large even DIR.

RF are an incredible forum with great moderators who are reasonable and just but in light of recent events I’m appealing for greater vigilance of threads seeking to demonise any group of innocent people.

I’m a shaman. I am not even allowed to discuss my religion or what I do.
Point blank.
Nothing.

Consider yourselves lucky.
My religion has been the moral and spiritual backbone of humanity for millenia. IMO.

My religion is probably the original foundation of your silly misinterpretation ! LOL

Yet you are all free to disparage and humiliate me, with no forum rules to prevent you, because...my religion has been reduced to a crime.

Burn the witch !

Love, peace and mung beans

 

[SalixIncendium]

I just want to take the time to remind everyone here that moderators do not take unilateral action at RF in deciding what action to take (if any) on reported posts or thread, including those considered to be hate speech.

RF policy requires a consensus of at least three moderators/admin to take/uphold action. I have even seen in cases where consensus has been met, if a staff member feels strongly enough about the decision not being the correct one, the report has been reopened and discussed with a second consensus to close.

Rest assured, the staff does not take hate speech lightly, but as previously mentioned in this thread, what might be construed as hate speech is quite subjective, which is why we have this system of checks and balances.

 

[Jim]

With the Anniversary of the NZ massacre being commemorated, findings are that hate speech online has been a major contributor to many of such crimes.

Should freedom of speech include the right to demonise or infer evil to mass populations of any group?

There are posts that will take a verse out of context attempting to impute violence to an entire religion who’s population numbers 1.7 billion adherents rather than attribute crimes specifically to those who committed them.

I believe to try and indicate or attribute to an entire religion the judgement of violence is but a prejudicial veiled attempt to demonise, discredit and incite hatred against Muslims or any group in general under the guise of ‘freedom of speech ‘.

I believe in view of massacres like the one in NZ that forums such as RF need to be far more vigilant at identifying those threads which have an agenda of discrediting and demonising a particular group as this could lead to hostility one day.

It doesn’t mean we can’t have our say but that freedom of speech needs to be used responsibly and we need to all be vigilant that we don’t inadvertently create hostility towards any group of people.

I see some threads where some groups are-being singled out with no real purpose except to discredit and demonise them not constructively share and or learn.

I myself believe there’s a line we should all never cross and that is to impute negative sentiments via generalisation methods towards any group of people small or large even DIR.

RF are an incredible forum with great moderators who are reasonable and just but in light of recent events I’m appealing for greater vigilance of threads seeking to demonise any group of innocent people.

I’m opposed to this.

(edited for clarification)
If “stronger action” means moderator actions, I’m opposed to it. If it means for people to stop rewarding, encouraging and supporting harmful behavior, I would like very much to see that happen.

 

[Terry Sampson]

I’m a shaman. I am not even allowed to discuss my religion or what I do.

??? Technically, I suppose, just saying that you're a shaman is not "discussing your religion", but ... isn't it kind of risky saying you are a shaman?

 

[Howard Is]

??? Technically, I suppose, just saying that you're a shaman is not "discussing your religion", but ... isn't it kind of risky saying you are a shaman?

What kind of risk ?

I’m not paranoid. Merely constrained.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Elaborate.

Hypothetical example: "The President of the U.S. is a narcissistic arse and his supporters are the scum of the earth."

 

[Terry Sampson]

What kind of risk ?

I don't know; I'm not a shaman. What kind of punishments do shamans call down on themselves when they discuss whatever it is that they do? [BTW, what do shamans do, anyway? ]

 

[Jim]

Vilifying a religion, opinion, or belief ought not to qualify imo. There won't be much of a forum left if it is moderated into Teletubbie standards.

I agree.

 

[Howard Is]

BTW, what do shamans do, anyway?

I couldn’t begin to answer that without violating Rule 6.
That is what I mean by constrained.

For me, it has involved almost fifty years of practice and study. Study of meditation, yoga and music, botany, biology, and psychology, but a central core issue created by the US government roughly a century ago has rendered those of my type personae non grata.

That is changing quickly now. There is a global mental health crisis occurring, and the blanket worldwide ban on many vital medicines has given way to research and trials, which are clearly indicating that the War On Illumination was a display of lamentable ignorance.

Who knew ?

 

[Samantha Rinne]

With the Anniversary of the NZ massacre being commemorated, findings are that hate speech online has been a major contributor to many of such crimes.

Should freedom of speech include the right to demonise or infer evil to mass populations of any group?

There are posts that will take a verse out of context attempting to impute violence to an entire religion who’s population numbers 1.7 billion adherents rather than attribute crimes specifically to those who committed them.

I believe to try and indicate or attribute to an entire religion the judgement of violence is but a prejudicial veiled attempt to demonise, discredit and incite hatred against Muslims or any group in general under the guise of ‘freedom of speech ‘.

I believe in view of massacres like the one in NZ that forums such as RF need to be far more vigilant at identifying those threads which have an agenda of discrediting and demonising a particular group as this could lead to hostility one day.

It doesn’t mean we can’t have our say but that freedom of speech needs to be used responsibly and we need to all be vigilant that we don’t inadvertently create hostility towards any group of people.

I see some threads where some groups are-being singled out with no real purpose except to discredit and demonise them not constructively share and or learn.

I myself believe there’s a line we should all never cross and that is to impute negative sentiments via generalisation methods towards any group of people small or large even DIR.

RF are an incredible forum with great moderators who are reasonable and just but in light of recent events I’m appealing for greater vigilance of threads seeking to demonise any group of innocent people.

Those saying this don't realize that NZ did nothing to promote "hate" after the event. Neither did any of the churches. In actual fact, this was a staged event to garner sympathy for Muslims and to a large extent, many churches bought it . You ask many Christians, they'll tell you "those poor poor Muslims in New Zealand." If Christians are killed, other Christians will simply pray for that country. No anger, no nothing, just praying for the country. #PrayForFrance

If a few Muslims get killed, what happens? Well, I'll tell you what happens, because it's exactly what happened to New Zealand.

Show of Support, or Creeping Sharia in New Zealand? - CultureWatch

New Zealand Goes Full Islam After Mosque Attacks

After the event, Sharia creeped in to New Zealand. Despite Islam making up 1% and Christians making up 50% they bent over backwards to please the "poor suffering Muslims." Meanwhile , during the election of 2016 and the years around this, I was reading about how in areas of Germany and Sweden, actually telling the truth about no-go zones (regions of Germany and Sweden violently taken over by Muslims, and effectively turned into violent slums) was a crime punishable by imprisonment, even if you only made one comment online. Even if you were a grandma.
Swedish Pensioner Prosecuted for 'Hate' for Accusing Migrants of Arson

It's not "hate" when it's true. That is called "truth." If truth offends you, then by all means, I suggest you go to Saudi Arabia or Iran where you have decided people there are more tolerant . And like the good Christian that I am, I'll pray for you. But I fully expect you to come running home, giving an excuse that you had to leave because you were feeling "too welcome" there. Right...

 

[Jim]

I couldn’t begin to answer that without violating Rule 6.
That is what I mean by constrained.

For me, it has involved almost fifty years of practice and study. Study of meditation, yoga and music, botany, biology, and psychology, but a central core issue created by the US government roughly a century ago has rendered those of my type personae non grata.

That is changing quickly now. Their is a global mental health crisis occurring, and the blanket worldwide ban on many vital medicines has given way to research and trials, which are clearly indicating that the War On Illumination was a display of lamentable ignorance.

Who knew ?

Oh, I see. That gives me something to think about.

 

[Revoltingest]

Elaborate.

You crazy?
I don't violate the rules.

 

[Jim]

I think that trying to silence people when they’re vilifying some group or category of people makes things worse for those people, without doing anything to help them. What I think is needed is for people to take more responsibility for their own actions and behavior, for example in freeing themselves and helping to free others from stereotypes and delusions, and in practicing and promoting self discipline.

 

[Cooky]

The only attacks I'm interested in enforcing are personal attacks. All others can be sorted out with dialogue.

...Also, people who instigate personal attacks should stop.