[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.