[lliamander]

> EDIT: the rain of downvotes is telling as usual.

You suggest that people subject to social stigma and censure should "maybe ask [themselves] some questions". Do you think the reaction you are receiving should cause you to question your own position?

[stretchwithme]

skillfully done.

[eeZah7Ux]

> Do you think the reaction you are receiving should cause you to question your own position?

If there was a clear accusation of hate speech on my behalf I would certainly do.

Would you?

[lliamander]

No, of course not. Why should I be disposed to take an accusation of hate speech at face value? I certainly don't have any hate in my heart for people. If I say something, it's because I think it is (or at least may be) true. Whether that might potentially in some abstract way cause others to feel hate is frankly not my business.

Now, if I'm wrong about some point of fact, I am more than willing to be corrected. And that's all it should take.

If someone feels the need to go beyond merely arguing my claim is false and use the accusation of hate speech, I'm going to seriously doubt that person is intellectually serious or acting in good faith.

[AnimalMuppet]

Nobody is accusing you of hate speech. The downvotes are accusing you of being wrong, though. You might question your position, not because it might be hateful, but because it might be wrong.

[eeZah7Ux]

Give me some good reasons for believing that a "slightly bad opinion" and "hate speech" can be easily confused and I'll be ready to rethink my position.

Questioning our own positions is the opposite of bigotry, after all.

[lliamander]

Your claim was that even the simple accusation of "hate speech" should be taken at face value and be cause for introspection, seemingly regardless of the circumstances.

Now here you are asking for reasons before you reevaluate your own position when we claim you are in error. Do you not see the hypocrisy?

You are welcome to expect arguments before you change your mind. You can be "innocent until proven guilty". That's all the rest of us ask. Telling others to assume fault when you yourself do not is a rather poor way to argue.

[joshuamorton]

No. I don't see the hypocrisy.

The opinion of an independent adjudicator like the platform you're on with hopefully unbiased hate speech rules should be considered evidence in a way that the bad faith arguments of the person you're arguing with is not.

That is, I should not necessarily take your accusation of hate speech at face value, because you've proven to be willing to try and use it to win an argument. But if dang said that I was doing something that broke the rules, I would be more introspective. This is, yes, technically an argument from authority, but so is basically everything in the world of social dynamics.

So the burden of proof for you and the burden of proof for hacker news as a platform may be different, but that has nothing to do with me vs. you.

So I'll repeat what the other user said: if dang@ came along and asked you to stop engaging in hateful rhetoric, would you take a moment to introspect on that, or would you first reaction be to argue and demand proof?

Mine would be to try and figure out what he was referring to, and then probably to do less of it. And indeed, when chastised by him, that's more or less what I've done.

[tablespoon]

>> If you feel a platform is overzealous in enforcing hate speech rules, don't use it. Or maybe ask yourself some questions before moving out.

>> EDIT: the rain of downvotes is telling as usual.

> You suggest that people subject to social stigma and censure should "maybe ask [themselves] some questions". Do you think the reaction you are receiving should cause you to question your own position?

That's twisting what he said. What he actually said is that people who are bothered by "hate speech rules" should "maybe ask [themselves] some questions." He didn't say anything about downvotes should lead to similar self-questioning.

[lliamander]

You are making a distinction without a difference.

As the original article itself pointed out, "hate speech" is an amorphous term that can refer to any socially unacceptable speech. Actual "hate speech rules" and "downvotes" are merely different mechanisms for enforcing social stigma and censure.

The real question is at what point should a person reevaluate their opinions in light of social pressure. The commenter I was responding to seems to think it should only happen when the opinions in question are ones he disagrees with.

EDIT: additionally, complaining about downvotes is also against the rules of this site. For someone to do that while extending no charity to those who break other content moderation policies is...interesting.

[tablespoon]

> You are making a distinction without a difference.

> As the original article itself pointed out, "hate speech" is an amorphous term that can refer to any socially unacceptable speech. Actual "hate speech rules" and "downvotes" are merely different mechanisms for enforcing social stigma and censure.

No, you're blurring things to the point of meaninglessness. For instance, "first post" competitions would clearly be unacceptable speech here, yet I doubt anyone in good faith would actually call such posts hate speech.

Also, downvotes are an opaque mechanism. Did your post get downvoted because you said something widely regarded as offensive, are this guy [1], or because you just had too many typos? You can speculate, but that's not very good basis for self reflection. However, if you're mad you can't post speech that (for instance) directly attacks some race as being inferior [2], you have a pretty clear thing to reflect on.

[1] https://www.csmonitor.com/World/2015/0701/What-happened-to-t...

[2] https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards/objectionable_co...

[lliamander]

> For instance, "first post" competitions would clearly be unacceptable speech here, yet I doubt anyone in good faith would actually call such posts hate speech.

No, but if you think "hate speech" is a clear and definite term with no room for abuse you are deluding yourself.

> Also, downvotes are an opaque mechanism.

The person I responded to clearly knew why he was being downvoted. He presented an unsophisticated and (on this forum) unpopular view of hate speech rules.

> If you're mad you can't post speech that (for instance) directly attacks some race as being inferior [2], you have a pretty clear thing to reflect on.

Insisting that people who are critical of hate speech rules are white supremacists is not a constructive take.

[tablespoon]

> No, but if you think "hate speech" is a clear and definite term with no room for abuse you are deluding yourself.

That's actually not an uncommon situation for a term, such is human language. Most terms have fairly established meanings with a bit of fuzziness around the edges. That doesn't mean they're meaningless, arbitrary, or not useful.

> The person I responded to clearly knew why he was being downvoted. He presented an unsophisticated and (on this forum) unpopular view of hate speech rules.

It was certainly unpopular with some, but I wouldn't say it was unsophisticated.

> Insisting that people who are critical of hate speech rules are white supremacists is not a constructive take.

I made it clear that was an example, not a general characterization of any group. You'll also notice I didn't specify any particular race, so you're basically putting words in my mouth.

[lliamander]

Those are several points that I would love to argue with you about, but I'm afraid we would be drifting from the main point.

The other commenter was insisting others take certain accusations or forms of disapproval at face value, yet was hypocritically quite defensive when challenged and down-voted.

The idea that "hate speech" accusations form some sort of special category where they should be taken at face value is absurd.

It was a rhetorical attempt to bully someone into submission that failed because most people here recognized it for what it was. And then he whined about people not approving.