View Topic

What if someone arrived in this community and over the course of a month or two, it became known that this person was say, racist, homophobic, a Nazi sympathizer, or something along those lines, although this person had not broken any rules and had been respectful and decent in discussing it or hadn't really discussed it at all but had included references to such in their signature or profile. Should such a person be banned?

This came to mind when I was reading this article, but this scenario has actually played out in other regions, so it's not an entirely academic debate. Obviously we stand for inclusion and have a great LGBT community, but we've also never taken action against someone for their beliefs and have a history of giving people a chance, so I'm curious to see where the community stands on this one.

There's a line to be walked. I'd have to go with "case by case" on this one. Someone's actions may seem benign, but when it comes out that they are racist or whatever and you reframe their past actions it turns out their beliefs are not so benign.

Honestly, I'm not inclined to give literal Nazis a chance, on the whole. Some opinions are not acceptable to hold. It's just hard to tell what those are in advance. For example, if you learned that I was literally Hitler, simply allowing me to speak would be giving me a platform and extending my power.

I think so long as they aren't vocal about it they can be tolerated.

I guess it depends where this community draws the line on speech rights. Do people have a claim right to not be judged for their views? Or, do people have a claim right for this space being free of racism and so on? Which one do we lean more towards, do we value more?

In the case given, where they are entirely respectful in their debates, then they would infringe the latter claim right but taking action would infringe the former claim right. In the case where their views are not being acknowledged otherwise, the latter claim right is not directly infringed so it is not justifiable to infringe the former. Personally I class the former as more important than the latter. Though, anything in extremis would distort importance in the thick of things.

Furthermore, Wintreath is a largely tolerant place! So long as that part of their views isn't all they are, they'd be fine in my book. I'd disagree with them, but I wouldn't judge them as a person for it (unless they don't uphold my claim right to not be judged for my views, in which case I'm no longer obligated to uphold their claim right not to be judged).

~

Or, to ditch the literary tone: prats get a slap.

Ultimately, if someone who was a Nazi wanted to be in Wintreath, they probably wouldn't be the type of person who was completely gone, or at least would still have an inkling of hope. I think that in the event that a Nazi was in Wintreath, especially if they were not outwardly vocal about it, they would benefit from learning about the amazing people and incredible ideological diversity here, and would very likely find it hard to believe in an ideology that calls for their destruction. I see it as similar to the de-Nazification programs that they have in Germany. A lot of modern 'Nazis' are kept in their sort of weird echo chamber/ ideological bubble because they have no friends who aren't Nazis (as would be expected, who wants to befreiend a Nazi?) and consequently these programs try to let individuals realise that there is a world outside the ideology, etc.

That being said, Evelynx is right that there are some lines that can't be crossed (actively disparaging another person individually, threats, being literal Hitler, etc) and those cases should rightfully be dealt with swiftly to protect people in the community. But there's an edge case for most things in the world, so that's to be expected to a certain degree. Some people can't be reasoned with, which is ultimately a very sad thing...

Edit: would to wouldn't because it autocorrected

Depends on your definition of Racist. Is someone who is ignorantly racist or benignly racist counted? What about someone who has a chip on their shoulder about a nationality? Frankly, unless someone is being disruptive, threatening or personally offensive I see no need to think about summary bans.

And I absolutely, 100 percent disagree with you, Evelynx. The counter to bad speech is good speech, not banning speech. See what people have to say, hear them out, then decide for yourself. I read Mein Kampf and came to the conclusion that Hitler was a jerk by myself. If the opinions that other people have are as wrong as you say they are most sensible people would agree with you. If a literal Nazi came goosestepping into this topic right now and just spoke about his repugnant views do you think that, unless you throw him out right away, you'll see Robin and Wintermoot sporting swastikas and doing the Nazi salute? Of course not because bad thoughts are their own deterrent in a free marketplace of ideas. And I'm not to hot about the thought of allowing bans against people for "wrong think". Who are you to say what viewpoint is wrong or right? And while I could not disagree more vehemently with Nazis (considering that I am a mixed breed impure mongrel in their eyes I would say that I would say that I personally dislike, and that is putting it mildly, actual Nazis) I do not like setting the precedent that we can ban people just for having the wrong opinion.

And we already have a way to ban people that are especially disruptive. The UH. We did it to Govindia and, if necessary, we can do it again.

Lastly, on a personal note, under the strictest definition of racist I could be seen as one. I was raised in Singapore, a nation that suffered a Japanese Occupation, and personally raised by my grandmother who was there. From a young age I was bombarded by anti-Japanese rhetoric. Go to school, learn about Japanese atrocities, go home, hear about Japanese atrocities. I grew up intensely disliking the Japanese and only recently began to think about it objectively. I still have a massive, almost gut distrust of the Japanese and even though I try to think differently about them it's very difficult to overcome years of indoctrination.

I've never been overtly racist. I've never openly racist. I, personally, do not see myself as racist though others I know do. I've always tried to be civil and polite here. If we set the precedent that people with "the wrong opinion" need to go, at that point, is my head on the chopping block?

I don't think people should be banned for necessarily just thinking, or even stating, that they have issues with people of other races or in the LGBT community. For one thing, if we did that latter, we'd pretty much be banning the big faces of the RMB community, because on several occasions they've done the generically conservative move of 'man what's with all these trans people, what's with these pronouns, there's only two genders, all of that is bullshit'. For which warnings have been issued, and which they've since respected - so it would be kind of unethical for us to change from 'look, don't be a dick and say that kind of shit' to 'you say it, you're out'.
But for another thing - I'm not the first to say, and I probably won't be the last, that fundamentally, free speech eventually defeats most -isms, provided the people who think in those -isms bother to listen to you in the first place. It's one thing if it's a one-sided troll commentary loudly screeching the same nonsense talking points over and over again because he's trying to get a rise out of you - in that case, ban that dude forever. But it's another if it's an actual meaningful dialogue, because then the both of you are getting something out of it. But I think it does have to be a dialogue, because too often progressives approach these things in exactly the same way I just criticized - loudly screeching the same talking points without any regard for what the other person is saying - because there's a fundamental assumption that not only is the progressive viewpoint the right way to think, it is the only way people should be thinking and anything else is incomprehensibly regressive. Understanding the other person's perspective, through the process of talking to them, is the only way you can convince them there might be something to what you're saying - because otherwise they're just gonna get frustrated with you cause you're just talking past them.
wow that got way off track from the whole thing about banning but tl;dr not unless they're being actively trolling fucks

snip

Okay sorry I just find that incredibly hard to believe since the vast majority of Singaporeans are incredibly rah-rah about all things Japan; food (there's like 5 Japanese restaurants in every mall, to say nothing of how Japanese food fads come and go like lightning - is ten-don still the new hotness?), anime, culture, vacations to Japan, people learning the language - seems that people want to be Japanese a lot more than they want to be Chinese. Which - now, if you said the same thing about mainland Chinese (colloquially, 'ah tiong'), oh, shit, in a heartbeat, but I suppose that wouldn't constitute racism since the majority of Singaporeans are Chinese. Oh, or Malays, but the institutional racism there has more to do with issues of national security, and the generic, public racism is less actual racism and more to do with classism (which Singapore's greatest problems lie with) and increasing public distrust for Islam, mostly because Islamism seems to be intensifying all throughout the region (viz. all the nonsense in Malaysia; Indonesia; the Marawi crisis with the whole Moro thing in the first place...)

I mean, as long as they aren't being outwardly so in the first place, are we even going to know it anyways?

As long as they're being respectful to the other members, I think anyone should be given a chance to be here.

Meh, I really think the appropriate response to some statements is a punch in the face. I don't think answering bad speech with good speech gets you anywhere every time you do it... for example, what if someone is advocating taking away your free speech rights? Why should you let them do that?

Okay sorry I just find that incredibly hard to believe since the vast majority of Singaporeans are incredibly rah-rah about all things Japan; food (there's like 5 Japanese restaurants in every mall, to say nothing of how Japanese food fads come and go like lightning - is ten-don still the new hotness?), anime, culture, vacations to Japan, people learning the language - seems that people want to be Japanese a lot more than they want to be Chinese. Which - now, if you said the same thing about mainland Chinese (colloquially, 'ah tiong'), oh, shit, in a heartbeat, but I suppose that wouldn't constitute racism since the majority of Singaporeans are Chinese. Oh, or Malays, but the institutional racism there has more to do with issues of national security, and the generic, public racism is less actual racism and more to do with classism (which Singapore's greatest problems lie with) and increasing public distrust for Islam, mostly because Islamism seems to be intensifying all throughout the region (viz. all the nonsense in Malaysia; Indonesia; the Marawi crisis with the whole Moro thing in the first place...)

Not everyone has the same upbringing and not everyone is the same. I'm was just saying something that I personally feel.

Meh, I really think the appropriate response to some statements is a punch in the face. I don't think answering bad speech with good speech gets you anywhere every time you do it... for example, what if someone is advocating taking away your free speech rights? Why should you let them do that?

So you think that if someone holds appropriately offensive viewpoints violence is an acceptable response? Do I really need to point out how problematic that viewpoint is?

And if someone is advocating taking away your rights, in parliament or just on the street, the best defense is not an armed assault but you exercising your rights and defeating that person politically. The thought that the only response to bad ideas are good ones is not so that you can change the ideas of the person with ideas that you find wrong, its to change the ideas of everyone else. I sincerely doubt that I could ever change your mind, Evelynx, but I want to counter the ideas you hold that I find questionable with ideas I think are better so that everyone may benefit. That's the point of free speech.

And my main point was and still is that I do not like setting the precedent that if someone holds viewpoints that you or anyone else find objectionable then a summary ban is an appropriate response. I dislike summary bans in the best of circumstances and I am loathe the say its ok for 'wrong think'.

So you think that if someone holds appropriately offensive viewpoints violence is an acceptable response?

Yes. They'd have to be pretty offensive viewpoints, but if I'm not willing to defend my beliefs then they are meaningless. Of course, words and conversation come first, but I do think that the appropriate response to some speech is a physical response. I do think the appropriate response to some speech is a ban.

So you think that if someone holds appropriately offensive viewpoints violence is an acceptable response?

Yes. They'd have to be pretty offensive viewpoints, but if I'm not willing to defend my beliefs then they are meaningless. Of course, words and conversation come first, but I do think that the appropriate response to some speech is a physical response. I do think the appropriate response to some speech is a ban.

It will never end there. If you set the personal or societal precedent that violence is an acceptable response to mere speech, even offensive speech, then it wont end with just Nazi types. Soon you'll end up eyeing, like, pro-life activists while doing the mental gymnastics to justify it to yourself. Then it will be something else, then another thing until finally you just become a violent left wing fascist. It would always end that way if you begin that path.

The main problem is that any line you set about "offensive viewpoints" is arbitrary and subjective. That line will be pushed farther and farther, if not by yourself then someone else. That line will always be pushed by both sides of an argument. So either no violence is acceptable or its all ok because once you set the precedent that any of it is ok Pandora's Box will be opened and you will never know where that crazy train will end up going.

And have you ever considered that someone out there in the world may find your viewpoints appropriately offensive? If you set the precedent that violence is an acceptable response to speech there is nothing in the world stopping that violence from turning against you.

So you think that if someone holds appropriately offensive viewpoints violence is an acceptable response?

Yes. They'd have to be pretty offensive viewpoints, but if I'm not willing to defend my beliefs then they are meaningless. Of course, words and conversation come first, but I do think that the appropriate response to some speech is a physical response. I do think the appropriate response to some speech is a ban.

It will never end there. If you set the personal or societal precedent that violence is an acceptable response to mere speech, even offensive speech, then it wont end with just Nazi types. Soon you'll end up eyeing, like, pro-life activists while doing the mental gymnastics to justify it to yourself. Then it will be something else, then another thing until finally you just become a violent left wing fascist. It would always end that way if you begin that path.

The main problem is that any line you set about "offensive viewpoints" is arbitrary and subjective. That line will be pushed farther and farther, if not by yourself then someone else. That line will always be pushed by both sides of an argument. So either no violence is acceptable or its all ok because once you set the precedent that any of it is ok Pandora's Box will be opened and you will never know where that crazy train will end up going.

And have you ever considered that someone out there in the world may find your viewpoints appropriately offensive? If you set the precedent that violence is an acceptable response to speech there is nothing in the world stopping that violence from turning against you.

Lemme know when I've gone too far, I've gone almost 30 years now without actually physically assaulting anyone for their speech or banning anyone, so so far I'd say my speech has served as an adequate measure to date. Lining up a slippery slope fallacy and launching it at me because I declare that there are lines that must not be crossed seems pretty premature given that fact, especially since I have not and cannot define those lines with specificity.

It's very likely that someone does find my viewpoints appropriately offensive. I don't really care. If they attempt to silence me with physical violence, I will resist them. Conflict is universal.

So you think that if someone holds appropriately offensive viewpoints violence is an acceptable response?

Yes. They'd have to be pretty offensive viewpoints, but if I'm not willing to defend my beliefs then they are meaningless. Of course, words and conversation come first, but I do think that the appropriate response to some speech is a physical response. I do think the appropriate response to some speech is a ban.

It will never end there. If you set the personal or societal precedent that violence is an acceptable response to mere speech, even offensive speech, then it wont end with just Nazi types. Soon you'll end up eyeing, like, pro-life activists while doing the mental gymnastics to justify it to yourself. Then it will be something else, then another thing until finally you just become a violent left wing fascist. It would always end that way if you begin that path.

The main problem is that any line you set about "offensive viewpoints" is arbitrary and subjective. That line will be pushed farther and farther, if not by yourself then someone else. That line will always be pushed by both sides of an argument. So either no violence is acceptable or its all ok because once you set the precedent that any of it is ok Pandora's Box will be opened and you will never know where that crazy train will end up going.

And have you ever considered that someone out there in the world may find your viewpoints appropriately offensive? If you set the precedent that violence is an acceptable response to speech there is nothing in the world stopping that violence from turning against you.

Lemme know when I've gone too far, I've gone almost 30 years now without actually physically assaulting anyone for their speech or banning anyone, so so far I'd say my speech has served as an adequate measure to date. Lining up a slippery slope fallacy and launching it at me because I declare that there are lines that must not be crossed seems pretty premature given that fact, especially since I have not and cannot define those lines with specificity.

It's very likely that someone does find my viewpoints appropriately offensive. I don't really care. If they attempt to silence me with physical violence, I will resist them. Conflict is universal.

Again, you miss my point. If not you then someone else will always push an arbitrary line on "offensive speech". You cannot guarantee that if the precedent is set that violence is an acceptable response to the wrong opinion that it will end with only the most heinous viewpoints. Hence my viewpoint that violence is never an acceptable response to mere speech or opinion. You yourself say that the line where violence becomes acceptable is a line you cannot specify. That terrifies me that you say violence is acceptable but when it can and cannot be used you will not specify because it sounds remarkably like "violence is acceptable whenever I arbitrarily say it is ok".

And if you also cannot specify lines that cannot be crossed for speech you think is ban worthy but you still think that bans can and should be leveled anyway then I cannot agree with such a viewpoint.

Yes, and the reason violence is not an acceptable response is to protect everyone, you included. If someone attacked you for your political views then they are clearly in the wrong. But if you say violence is ok under the right circumstances then who knows? I am loathe to think what a society that thinks that violence is an acceptable response to the wrong opinion would be like to live in.

Again, you miss my point. If not you then someone else will always push an arbitrary line on "offensive speech". You cannot guarantee that if the precedent is set that violence is an acceptable response to the wrong opinion that it will end with only the most heinous viewpoints. Hence my viewpoint that violence is never an acceptable response to mere speech or opinion. You yourself say that the line where violence becomes acceptable is a line you cannot specify. That terrifies me that you say violence is acceptable but when it can and cannot be used you will not specify because it sounds remarkably like "violence is acceptable whenever I arbitrarily say it is ok".

And if you also cannot specify lines that cannot be crossed for speech you think is ban worthy but you still think that bans can and should be leveled anyway then I cannot agree with such a viewpoint.

Yes, and the reason violence is not an acceptable response is to protect everyone, you included. If someone attacked you for your political views then they are clearly in the wrong. But if you say violence is ok under the right circumstances then who knows? I am loathe to think what a society that thinks that violence is an acceptable response to the wrong opinion would be like to live in.

Okay, so if someone came in here and was completely civil but it came out they thought it was okay to rape and murder children, you'd just be totally cool with that? Let's have a discussion about it, maybe you're right? I mean, as long as they are respectful.