User blocking / thread blocking feature Added Spirituality/Philosophy and Sexuality forums Surveys post type IMPORTANT: How the community feedback model works
Roleplaying Video Games Entertainment & Media Politics & World
General Spirituality & Philosophy Worldbuilding Creative Forum
The Sports Center Science, Math, & Technology The Nostalgia Forum Sexuality
Community feedback needed: Should GTX0 be geared towards kids or adults? add_comment New add_comment New request

Community Decisions

What type of opinions should be disallowed?

Posted 1 Month ago by Riven

https://gtx0.com/thread/free_speech
I'm creating a second post for several reasons:

  • I don't believe there was a consensus in the old thread. I want to confirm that.

  • The old thread is too long and covered too many different issues, three of which have been resolved now.

  • I want to address several specific issues and see if we can come to a consensus on those at least.

    This thread works a bit differently

    For each question, I have two sides represented and all the people who support them listed. This means that you only have to post if I'm incorrect, you change your mind, or you're trying to convince the other side. This should help make this post more accessible.

    Questions

    1. Should we disallow ideologies/ideas that are inherently violent? (ie, "X should be shot", "slaughter the bourgeoisie", "X gets the guillotine", "string them up", "X should be thrown into a woodchipper", etc.

  • Yes -- CZM, mariomguy, Tek Shmansen, Riven

  • No -- poptart, pacman, Grey echelon

    2. Should we disallow literal neo-nazis from posting?

    Example:
    https://gtx0.com/thread/the-cure-to-cancer
  • Yes -- Count Dooku, grey echelon, CZM, Riven, mariomguy, Cetasaurus, poptart, Rika, Tek Shmansen

  • No -- pacman

    3. Should we disallow hate speech that targets specific groups of people?

  • Yes -- Rika, mariomguy, Cetasaurus, CZM, poptart, grey, Tek Shmansen

  • No -- ravenspirit, Count Dooku, jet presto, Riven, tnu, Acca Larentia, Famov, weird occurance, pacman

    In this case, "specific groups of people" means those with protected characteristics currently codified in rule 3d: "race, religion, ethnic origin, financial status, national origin, sex, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity"

    4. Should we disallow the negative use of certain words which are indicative of certain protected types of people? Ex -- "gay", "bitch"

  • Yes -- CZM, mariomguy, Tek Shmansen

  • Maybe -- poptart!, pacman, grey echelon

  • No -- Cutter, Riven, Acca Larentia, Weird Occurance, Rika

    I may have butchered some of these counts or mistaken people's views. Don't shoot me for it, just leave a post below expressing where you stand.

    Forewarning -- Anything off-topic or non-constructive (by my standards) will be moved. Intentional disruption may result in kicks or bans. No exceptions.

    Forewarning 2: The community consensus decided in favor of GTX0 promoting a civil atmosphere. The rules haven't changed yet, but I recommend acting that way just the same.

  • There are 26 Replies


    I agree with your projection of my standpoints.

    1 Month ago
    CZM
     

    Should we disallow hate speech that targets specific groups of people?


    Depends how you define hate speech. I don't know if I'm ok with people casually using the n-word on the site, for instance. But don't know if this has ever been an issue tbh lol

    I'm ok with things like ACAB and discussions about "cops suck" "nazis suck", and don't find words like "bitches" or "bastards" to be offensive, so don't care.

    Just as long as this "hate" doesn't turn into violence or exclusionary speech, I'm pretty ok with it. And you cover this in #1 so I guess it's all good.

    1 Month ago
    Weird Occurance
     

    on mobile/in a hurry, but – my name goes wholeheartedly into the anti-nazi list. the historical consequences of nazism produce in great part my anti-hate speech stance in the first place.

    1 Month ago
    Ceta
     

    i would say No, Yes, Yes, Maybe? but i’d prefer if you take my name out of all of these. this misses the point entirely — we don’t need to codify new rules, you just need to let mods oust troublemakers

    EDIT: as for why i vote “no” on one — most ideologies are inherently violent, and neoliberalism is one of the most violent of them all in practice. this would stifle a lot of discussion.

    1 Month ago
    poptart!
     

    I think basically any speech should be allowed unless it is directly threatening/harassing another user or clogging up a forum. In simpler terms, ban 85 because he actively harassed and flamed others, but someone like Asha, who had views similar to his, should be allowed to make her stupid defenses of fascist/racist/ancap ideology.

    1. No
    2. No
    3. No, but using said hateful ideology to go after other users directly should not be allowed.
    4. Split. Depends heavily on the word and the context.

    1 Month ago
    pacman
     

    Mark me as yes for all. But for #4, if people are legitimately talking about homosexuality and political topics, the context matters.

    example 1 - You are a GAY DUMB BITCH - This is an example of what is NOT ok. Gay is used as a slur. Definitely warrants a warning.
    example 2 - 40% of homeless youth are actually gay - I mean, this is not ok, but the word is not used as a slur.
    example 3 - You're pretty dumb if you think lower wages encourage people to work, it actually does the opposite. - While this is half an insult, the actual purpose is not to demean, but to correct an improper stance. Cracking down too hard on statements like this will make people feel like they're walking on eggshells and limit conversation. You're giving an upper hand to people who think they know it all and can't back it up with reasonable evidence.

    Mods need to be able to steer the conversation in the right direction if things get out of hand, or seem like they're going that way. #1 has already gone off the deep end and needs to be dealt with immediately. #2 should pass. #3 should mark a watch: as long as the conversation doesn't rise to something unacceptable, it could lead to a better conversation letting it pass. If mods want to butt in, they need to be able to steer the conversation away from uncivility. Though personally I don't think #3 is uncivil, it seems everyone has a different threshold.

    1 Month ago
    mariomguy
     

    Again, as with the consensus in the last thread I feel like a lot of this could just potentially add even more complications in negative ways when the current rules should have been enough. It's how the staff handles situations or doesn't handle them that can be the problem.

    Agree with Poptart on 1 for the same reasons. And we shouldn't assume "everyone" was in favor of 1 when it was only directly one person that was also claiming everyone else wanted it without that actually being said.

    2 is correctly yes and 3 is correctly no. 3 if only because as others have pointed out, the current rules should be enough and adding even more onto it just complicates things even further and potentially ends up including more towards harmless dialogue. 4 I'm no on because again, I feel like the context will easily get thrown out the window and this may just complicate things further in negative ways when the current rules once again should already cover this. Changing this wouldn't change how the staff handles or doesn't handle these things ultimately.

    I don't know if I'm ok with people casually using the n-word on the site, for instance. But don't know if this has ever been an issue tbh lol

    It has, but that's already covered by the current rules anyway making this all pointless.

    1 Month ago
    Grey Echelon
     

    I don't know if I'm ok with people casually using the n-word on the site, for instance.

    Yeah, imo that word should only be allowed when discussing it in a historical context or quoting something like Huck Finn, for instance. I mean, the only other context in which one would really use it would be to degrade, troll or flame, all of which should naturally not be allowed.

    1 Month ago
    pacman
     

    But for #4, if people are legitimately talking about homosexuality and political topics, the context matters.


    That's why he specified "negative". That word is the only thing keeping me from saying no to that question. No-one should be restricted from complimenting their friend as a boss bitch or a mad bastard, for example.

    1 Month ago
    CZM
     

    That's why he specified "negative". That word is the only thing keeping me from saying no to that question. No-one should be restricted from complimenting their friend as a boss bitch or a mad bastard, for example.

    Know you're not talking to me but just to make sure I have my head on right from recent things: I get what you're saying and maybe I was too rash. It's not that I disagree, it's just that I disagree with how it may go with how things tend to happen on gtx0. Like, sure bitch as an insult gets tagged fine. But then you probably get shit like "ACAB" being tagged because that can be seen as negative or you get shit like posting rap being arguably disallowed or a lot of pop shit like that because then it could be seen as negative.

    After going through this shit before in the past I just expect some way shit will backfire. And I feel like the current rules suffice for negative usage, but correct me if I'm wrong.

    1 Month ago
    Grey Echelon
     

    Like, sure bitch as an insult gets tagged fine. But then you probably get shit like "ACAB" being tagged because that can be seen as negative


    The original question specifies:

    Should we disallow the negative use of certain words which are indicative of certain protected types of people? Ex -- "gay", "bitch"


    Cops should not be considered a protected group.

    or you get shit like posting rap being arguably disallowed or a lot of pop shit like that because then it could be seen as negative.


    This is the more interesting one to me. Does it matter if MC Ride says "bitch"?

    I think that people quoting from or posting external content should be treated differently from saying something themselves. It also matters if the target of the terms are specific, general or abstract (i.e. "you're a bitch", "cops are bitches", "some bitch"). I'd hear what people have to say on these aspects before arriving at a conclusion about them.

    1 Month ago
    CZM
     

    Cops should not be considered a protected group.

    There were efforts to make them a protected group at the federal level, either last year or the previous year. Seems like what *should* count as a "protected group" is somewhat arbitrary depending on the person.

    1 Month ago
    pacman
     

    There were efforts to make them a protected group at the federal level, either last year or the previous year. Seems like what *should* count as a "protected group" is somewhat arbitrary depending on the person.


    Authoritarians attempt to further shield the machinery of their abuse from criticism; this and more breaking news at 11.

    "The SWAT officer cries out in pain as he strikes you", to make an apropos appropriation of a hateful phrase.

    1 Month ago
    CZM
     

    Ordinarily, I'd probably just be yes on all of this but a combination of how things went in the past and recent shit has left me really confused and swaying between a lot of things even though it doesn't necessarily make sense for me to be this way. If I'm wrong in my concerns though I'd be glad to be corrected on this. Ya what Pacman said is kind of my concern. In fact, I kind of feel like we saw something along those lines from one person last thread.

    I think that people quoting from or posting external content should be treated differently from saying something themselves. It also matters if the target of the terms are specific, general or abstract (i.e. "you're a bitch", "cops are bitches", "some bitch").

    I think in general quoting or posting something like this shouldn't be considered a problem unless it's clearly being done just to cause trouble. That's also why I want to rely on the current rules personally just to be safe.

    1 Month ago
    Grey Echelon
     

    Look at the reasons why certain groups are protected:

    Race - Given at birth, cannot be changed. Also, race is a construct. It's not like an RPG.
    Age - Cannot be changed
    Gender - Cannot be changed
    Disability - Usually cannot be changed. Some disabilities are from birth, or onset during childhood.
    Country of origin - You cannot change where you or your parents are born, and changing the country you live now is very difficult. Not just because of COVID, either.
    Sexual Orientation - We are finding more and more evidence that this cannot be changed, and attempts to forcibly change it have gone WAY sour.
    Religion - Ironically enough, religion can be changed, but religion is so incredibly personal to the individual is is nearly a breach of privacy to expect or demand a change. Similar to identity, it's tied to the individual.

    Now look at things that CAN change:

    Cop, or other job - You don't have to be a cop. You don't have to kill someone even if you are a cop and you're ordered to do so. The second statement is where controversy is drawn. Jobs are hard to change.
    Political affiliation - Your affiliation WILL change as you learn more, get older, and for some people who vote selfishly, your personal circumstances change.
    Racial pride - 200 KKK members hung up their robes when they befriended Daryl Davis, and African American musician. Not only can this change, but it changes frequently, and it really should. Skin color can't change, ergo pride in skin color is divisive at the very best, but more frequently delusional, more frequently a superiority complex, and not often but sometimes breaks out in violence and can be extremely destructive.

    1 Month ago
    mariomguy
     

    Side note -- yes, mods will still have discretion. The issue isn't the rules or the idea of discretion but that the community hasn't yet come to a consensus on a content policy, the site officially has no stance either way, and thus there are consistently conflicts between how different moderators and/or users think the site should behave. The goal of these posts is to reach as much of a consensus as possible about what should be allowed here, then solidify that into the rules and get mods to actually enforce it consistently.

    That way when users complain, it'll be about whether a specific mod action or inaction enforces the content policy or not, and not about how the site needs to change. Any attempt to change the site in a way other than the consensus will be rejected, any complaints that go against it ignored, and future site changes or revisions can be brought up to the community for review rather than brought up to me or other admins privately. Overall the site will work significantly better from a community standpoint. Also bear in mind that this isn't up for discussion -- I'll explain it as needed, but this set of policies falls under principle 1b.

    1 Month ago
    Riven
     

    also i want to be clear about my point from the last thread — the word “bitch” is one that i personally don’t want to use, at least not in contexts where it can be hurtful to someone. i wasn’t trying to language-police anyone.

    1 Month ago
    poptart!
     

    Mod edit: would've moved this post, but it did change its answers, so just edited it to only that instead.

    if this is really required for anything at all then I'd have to change my stances to:

    3: Yes but provided you don't go overboard, the existing rules for this are sufficient.
    4: Undecided for now at least because I don't like language policing too much either right now.

    1 Month ago
    Grey Echelon
     

    2. Should we disallow literal neo-nazis from posting?

    Yes

    3. Should we disallow hate speech that targets specific groups of people?

    Still yes here, but whatever happens happens.

    4. Should we disallow the negative use of certain words which are indicative of certain protected types of people? Ex -- "gay", "bitch"

    I am used to this at this point, so no.

    1 Month ago
    RikaxNipah
     

    I'mma _tentatively_ say YES to all.

    I like being able to discuss any topic but my blood pressure rises quickly when I see abusive posts/replies. I don't like people being abused and I don't like feeling fighty. Hrm.

    Context is so important. "Should we be able to behead X?" may be a very different discussion than "We should behead X".

    Gah. Sorry if I'm not helping.

    1 Month ago
    Tek Shmansen
     

    I've updated the totals. My own opinions look like this:

    1. Should we disallow ideologies/ideas that are inherently violent? (ie, "X should be shot", "slaughter the bourgeoisie", "X gets the guillotine", "string them up", "X should be thrown into a woodchipper", etc.


    Yes. This is the kind of thing that makes other users feel unsafe more than anything else. I also don't like the recent tendency of all parts of the political sphere to turn to casual violent ideology.

    2. Should we disallow literal neo-nazis from posting?


    Yes. I'm all for free speech on a variety of topics, but I think this particular ideology carries way too much baggage to be associated with GTX0.

    3. Should we disallow hate speech that targets specific groups of people?


    No. Hate speech is too loosely defined and victimizes those in unprotected groups in its pursuit of preventing victimization of protected groups.

    4. Should we disallow the negative use of certain words which are indicative of certain protected types of people? Ex -- "gay", "bitch"


    No. I just generally don't buy the idea that words are bad independent of context.

    1 Month ago
    Riven
     

    There is a consensus to disallow neo-nazis from posting, so that will be a rule moving forwards.

    There's no consensus on any other question. Given that and the urgency of a unified content policy:

  • I'm deciding No on the hate speech issue based on its majority (9-7) and my own strong convictions.

  • I'll decide the other two issues based on seeding an RNG with the sum of all posts's timestamp numbers (including this one). The current total is 35528494805. So I'll add the timestamp of this one and post the results.

    I'll leave this post up for an additional half a week -- if the majority on the hate speech issue flips the other way (or in the middle) I'll RNG it, or if there's a consensus the other way I'll respect it.

    Additionally, if there's a consensus on the other two issues in that time I'll respect that instead.

    Whatever the case, I'll close this issue out sometime on the 14th and we'll have a unified content policy moving forward.

  • 1 Month ago
    Decision
     



    1. Should we disallow ideologies/ideas that are inherently violent? (ie, "X should be shot", "slaughter the bourgeoisie", "X gets the guillotine", "string them up", "X should be thrown into a woodchipper", etc.


    Yes. Chosen by RNG and changeable via consensus until the 14th.

    2. Should we disallow literal neo-nazis from posting?


    Yes. Chosen by consensus and unchangeable.

    3. Should we disallow hate speech that targets specific groups of people?


    No. Chosen by majority and personal conviction. Changeable via consensus or RNG until the 14th.

    4. Should we disallow the negative use of certain words which are indicative of certain protected types of people? Ex -- "gay", "bitch"


    Yes. Chosen by RNG and changeable via consensus until the 14th.

    1 Month ago
    Decision
     

    3. Should we disallow hate speech that targets specific groups of people?

    No.


    1. Should we disallow ideologies/ideas that are inherently violent? (ie, "X should be shot"

    Yes.


    So we can say that it's totally deserved that Alaskan sea crab fishermen have such a high mortality rate and that you hope that more of them suffer the same fate and that their families should know that their breadwinners are burning in hell, but saying that Alaskan sea crab fishermen should be shot is crossing a line?

    1 Month ago
    CZM
     

    That does seem a bit absurd.

    1 Month ago
    Riven
     

    Final content policy, moving forward:

    1. Is it acceptable for people to insult other users while making arguments?


    No, we should promote an environment of civility. Chosen by consensus.

    2. Should we disallow ideologies/ideas that are inherently violent? (ie, "X should be shot", "slaughter the bourgeoisie", "X gets the guillotine", "string them up", "X should be thrown into a woodchipper", etc.


    Yes. Chosen by RNG.

    3. Should we disallow literal neo-nazis from posting?


    Yes. Chosen by consensus.

    4. Should we disallow hate speech that targets specific groups of people?


    No. Chosen by majority and personal conviction.

    5. Should we disallow the negative use of certain words which are indicative of certain protected types of people? Ex -- "gay", "bitch"


    Yes. Chosen by RNG.

    I'll update the rules/etc accordingly. These decisions are now final, but can be reviewed again one year from now.

    1 Month ago
    Decision
     

    This thread is locked