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

[crispybits]

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.

Snipped a bit because pretty much everything I disagree with is within this quote (not to say I agree with everything else, but the crystallised points are within this)

I actually kind of agree that there are situations where this is not effective (and you'll notice I've stopped in the evolution thread because the experiement wasn't showing any effect). When the claimant of the harmful idea has anonymity is one such situation. UC or shickingbrits or any of the other creatards have effectively no real sanction from anything that happens here. If Dave from Texas or Bob from Ohio (just random names/places, not trying to identify those two in the real world) was putting their real name and their actual reputation behind these ideas it would be different. If one of your biology scientist friends went online with a moniker that didn't identify them they could spout all sorts of crap about why evolution is flawed because the bible says so, macro-evolution vs micro-evolution, etc etc and there would be precisely no feedback into their actual lives. If they stood up with their real name on their name badge in a conference and did the same there would be real sanctions. Nobody would take them seriously as a scientist ever again.

The Palestine/Isreal thing is a good example for my point. It's escalating precisely because the rest of the world that isn't invested in either side isn't standing up and ostracising (at least intellectually/morally) those involved. If India, Japan, Australia, South Africa, Nigeria, Brazil, etc etc (i.e. all those countries not invested) all stood up as one and said "you know what - all YOU on this side are being ridiulous about THIS, and all YOU on that side are being ridiculous about THAT, and unless you both drop the ridiculousness and start having the discussions based on the things that all of us agree are valid we're going to exclude you from being allowed to have any influence on these things. What you have there is a real world example where there is no sanction being applied by global society for the stupid philosophies/ideas of either side. What those sanctions could be is another discussion entirely but the basic point is that the Israelis and the Palestinians are "allowed" by global society to keep spouting their ridiculous ideas and there's no negative feedback other than from those they consider as enemies. At least on the internet there's (usually) a moderator, in that situation we're not even supplying that, and that's a failure of global society.

On your last point, please note that I have never said our first resort should be to ostracise/insult. I've said that we should initially try to explain reasonably why any given idea is wrong, and allow counter-arguments. I advocate ostracising and insults only when those espousing the harmful idea fail to act reasonably by listening to the other side, by taking into account evidence for the other side, analysing it and identifying the precise bits and pieces that may show us that this idea is wrong or right and by acting honestly in that analysis. For example "gay sex is immoral" could be espoused by someone. When challenged on that they could be asked to define what they consider as moral/immoral and why and what it is precisely about gay sex that makes it fit those criteria either way. Say there is a definitional problem, their definition of what makes something immoral has a flaw, we should point that flaw out to them. If they refuse either to present an argument that counters that objection, then we should try in every way we know to make the objection clear to them. Having tried everything we know to explain why their philosophy is flawed and they still refuse to adapt their argument, and just keep going back to that initial argument that "gay sex is immoral because ...." ignoring our objections then they should simply be removed from the conversation. We can't shut them up by force (and we shouldn't be able to imo, free speech is too valuable to take away from people), but we can make it very clear that we think they're idiots, AND we should continue to say WHY we think they're idiots. Like I said not "you idiot" or "you idiot you're wrong" but "you idiot you're wrong and here's why (again)". Only once they actually come up with an argument which addresses the "and here's why" bit should they be allowed back into the serious conversation the rest of the world is having about that topic.

[Neoteny]

Do the powers that be have an interest in creating a safe place for a variety of genders, races, and serial orientations to spend money?

[AAFitz]

ITT, Player supports the censorship.

ITT, BBS supports the bigotry.

[BoganGod]

In the words of Axel Rose before he became gay(strictly using word in modern lame interpretation, no reflection on the poison dwarfs sexuality) - Some may say "live and let live", "live and let die"

Moderation should be strictly in moderation. In the past on this site moderation of fora has been as consistent as a fast food reviewers bowel movements. It is easier to make the argument that the two Cs should be taken into account on CC. Content and Concistency. Sadly without uniform and unequivocal guidelines, these become subjective criteria for judging candidates for censorship.

No topic should be taboo, as long as fellow site users address the topic, rather than the person. Then everything should be fine.

I should be allowed to vent/preach/share my distrust of hetrosexuals, dismissing them as breeders, conformist sheep and needy simpletons. However if I address a particular player as "*________(player name) you pussy whipped, morally dense, conformist breeder" I may have stepped over the line.

For the record Uncle Bogan loves all, and respects none.
Kisses

[mrswdk]

Do the powers that be have an interest in creating a safe place for a variety of genders, races, and serial orientations to spend money?

Having a free OT wouldn't interfere with that.
.

[BigBallinStalin]

Do the powers that be have an interest in creating a safe place for a variety of genders, races, and serial orientations to spend money?

Where they giving out money? Sign me up.

[BigBallinStalin]

ITT, Player supports the censorship.

ITT, BBS supports the bigotry.

Yes, AAFitz, your crushing logic has once again defeated anyone's hope of tackling your post.

[Neoteny]

Do the powers that be have an interest in creating a safe place for a variety of genders, races, and serial orientations to spend money?

Having a free OT wouldn't interfere with that.
.

It definitely would.

[mrswdk]

Do the powers that be have an interest in creating a safe place for a variety of genders, races, and serial orientations to spend money?

Having a free OT wouldn't interfere with that.
.

It definitely would.

You would have to be a colossal pansy to decide to not play a Risk-like* game online because on one page buried within the forums there are one or two people expressing some bigoted views. I highly doubt there are more than 3 people in the world who are both that easily distressed and old enough to have a card with $25 on it.

Plus, I imagine that OT in its current form would already be enough to scare those sorts of cry babies off.

*but not the same as Risk alright!?

[Dukasaur]

[Neoteny]

Do the powers that be have an interest in creating a safe place for a variety of genders, races, and serial orientations to spend money?

Having a free OT wouldn't interfere with that.
.

It definitely would.

You would have to be a colossal pansy to decide to not play a Risk-like* game online because on one page buried within the forums there are one or two people expressing some bigoted views. I highly doubt there are more than 3 people in the world who are both that easily distressed and old enough to have a card with $25 on it.

Plus, I imagine that OT in its current form would already be enough to scare those sorts of cry babies off.

*but not the same as Risk alright!?

If you think there would only be one or two people on a completely free forum that would express these views, then you obviously haven't read much on this forum. Or twitter. There's also a difference between not being able to handle a random's rantings on pansiness (or whatever), and just not being interested in subjecting oneself to it. Regardless of what you think of it, there are a lot of people who don't want to be involved with a site that does not contain harassment and bigotry. And CC wants their money too.

[BigBallinStalin]

Unfortunately, when bigotry and the like is censored, it prevents other people from detecting who is a bigoted, racist turd.

[Neoteny]

And if the censor is a bigoted racist turd, or somesuch, there are other issues that arise. Just because it isn't a perfect system doesn't mean it doesn't work. Or that people won't vote with their dollars about it.

[Gillipig]

Should "insert blank" be censored?
My answer will always be no, no matter what you fill the blanks with.

[PLAYER57832]

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.

You are not going to change Tom's opinion, and that is not the point or goal.

IF Tom is in your house or you are in his (an older relative, for example), and the two of you are talking privately, then you need to just move on. HOWEVER, if you are in public, or if you are at home and there are other people present, particularly children, then you need to respectfully counter all of Tom's positions. You won't change "Tom", but you will make an impact on the kiddies...and perhaps others. If nothing else, you at least show that you are someone who can be reasonable.

In a PUBLIC forum, you need to oppose him, but to do so in a calm and logical manner. That is how you maintain the high ground.

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...

Except, I would argue that by reducing yourself to saying he is a "fucking idiot".. in those words, you are losing you standing. You are not showing yourself to be calm, you are showing that Tom is upsetting you. Upsetting you is likely Tom's goal to begin with, so you have just falled into his trap. By using those words, you are giving him far more power than if you simply calmly say "no, you are wrong"... and, if he continues too much, simply leave.

[crispybits]

You're straw-manning the argument Player. Once again, I said that room should be given for the rational debate, that the racist/homophobe/whatever has the right to express their beliefs and we should listen to those arguments and accept that disagreement is valid, as much for the reason you mentioned before that our beliefs shouldn't be beyond criticism either, no matter how reasonable we think they are.

I also said that the response shouldn't ever just be "fucking idiot..." but should always include the counter arguments too. I'm not advocating that we get to a point and simply start calling people names and we think that that is enough.

What would happen to one of your fellow scientists who proposed something preposterous? They may go to a few conferences and present their idea and publish a paper. Now say other scientists disagreed with that person, their first responses would be to argue why they think the idea is flawed. They may challenge the person at the conferences, they may write responses to the paper demostrating why the ecidence disproves the idea, etc etc. But what actually happens in the scientific community if that person, despite the rational criticism and evidence against, continues to propose the exact same thing without any amendment to deal with the criticisms? After only a short time, do they have any sort of professional reputation left? They become ostracised, and the kind of things said about them are far more damning within that community than "you fucking idiot" is to any random person. Your own profession already does what I'm suggesting.

Finally, I was never emotionally charged when I was insulting SB. I was perfectly calm at all times. SB never upset me beyond the intellectual offence I take when anyone proposes ideas as stupid as his are and then fails to back those up properly when challenged with actual evidence. Sure it sometimes happens that when people get upset they will start throwing out insults, but that again is not what I'm advocating. Is there something impossible about expressing the view you think someone is a fucking idiot in a calm and perfectly rational fashion? Do you not think it's actually very powerful when you see someone not emotionally overcome using the strongest terms possible to dismiss an argument, including the reasons why they dismiss an argument?

Maybe I should amend mine. Maybe it should be "that's a fucking idiotic idea" instead of "you're a fucking idiot". The trouble is, the two are pretty much inextricably linked. If someone is going to cling to a fucking idiotic point even after they have been showed in clear terms why it's fucking idiotic then they are, almost by definition, a fucking idiot...

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Should "insert blank" be censored?
My answer will always be no, no matter what you fill the blanks with.

Penis

[Gillipig]

Should "insert blank" be censored?
My answer will always be no, no matter what you fill the blanks with.

Penis

Go to Japan you penis censoring snob!!

[Army of GOD]

what the f*ck is "insert blank" and why do people want it censored?

[BigBallinStalin]

You're straw-manning the argument Player. Once again, I said that room should be given for the rational debate, that the racist/homophobe/whatever has the right to express their beliefs and we should listen to those arguments and accept that disagreement is valid, as much for the reason you mentioned before that our beliefs shouldn't be beyond criticism either, no matter how reasonable we think they are.

I also said that the response shouldn't ever just be "fucking idiot..." but should always include the counter arguments too. I'm not advocating that we get to a point and simply start calling people names and we think that that is enough.

What would happen to one of your fellow scientists who proposed something preposterous? They may go to a few conferences and present their idea and publish a paper. Now say other scientists disagreed with that person, their first responses would be to argue why they think the idea is flawed. They may challenge the person at the conferences, they may write responses to the paper demostrating why the ecidence disproves the idea, etc etc. But what actually happens in the scientific community if that person, despite the rational criticism and evidence against, continues to propose the exact same thing without any amendment to deal with the criticisms? After only a short time, do they have any sort of professional reputation left? They become ostracised, and the kind of things said about them are far more damning within that community than "you fucking idiot" is to any random person. Your own profession already does what I'm suggesting.

Finally, I was never emotionally charged when I was insulting SB. I was perfectly calm at all times. SB never upset me beyond the intellectual offence I take when anyone proposes ideas as stupid as his are and then fails to back those up properly when challenged with actual evidence. Sure it sometimes happens that when people get upset they will start throwing out insults, but that again is not what I'm advocating. Is there something impossible about expressing the view you think someone is a fucking idiot in a calm and perfectly rational fashion? Do you not think it's actually very powerful when you see someone not emotionally overcome using the strongest terms possible to dismiss an argument, including the reasons why they dismiss an argument?

Maybe I should amend mine. Maybe it should be "that's a fucking idiotic idea" instead of "you're a fucking idiot". The trouble is, the two are pretty much inextricably linked. If someone is going to cling to a fucking idiotic point even after they have been showed in clear terms why it's fucking idiotic then they are, almost by definition, a fucking idiot...

"You're being idiotic" is a good one because you're not saying that they're an idiot; they're only acting like one. It could be the case that they're not idiotic all the time.

[mrswdk]

It's also marginally less counter-productive. Insulting people is rarely an effective way of persuading them that you are worth listening to.

[Army of GOD]

It's also marginally less counter-productive. Insulting people is rarely an effective way of persuading them that you are worth listening to.

shut up, dick-ass-bitch

[mrswdk]

Yes dad

[mrswdk]

I mean dad

[crispybits]

It's also marginally less counter-productive. Insulting people is rarely an effective way of persuading them that you are worth listening to.

By the time in what I'm saying you get to that point you already know they're not worth your time any more. The point is to make it crystal clear how abhorrent their views are.