Forum - View topic

New Forum Rules 06/29/2018

@ Trendo

**Provocative scene**

Person A: that scene was funny. (OK)
Person B: that scene was racist. (OK)
Person C: I liked how that scene did (some racist thing). (Not OK)
Person D: You're a douche if you liked that scene. (Not OK)
Person E: You're calling the scene racist is because you want to censor something I approve of. (Not OK)

These interpretations would, of course, change depending on the context.

So... umn... are you saying that ANN shouldn't ban someone for repeatedly saying "gas the Jews?" because if you're saying that, well, I don't think you're gonna get a lot of agreement. And if you're not saying this, why bring up Count Dankula?

Crext wrote:

CrowLia wrote: Crext wrote: Couldn't the guidelines have been edited without using the highly polarizing term of "hate speech" though? I assume the priority is to prevent users from attacking each other on an individual level? Explain how exactly is "hate speech" a "polarizing" term? How is the concept of not spouting racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc, ideologies -even if you do it politely- "polarizing"? It's a leftwing term that has very well documented cases of abuse. Just look at the Lindsay Shepard case, or Count Dankula, or... There's so much mister. It just didn't work. You can still block people for being discriminating without using the left wing term of hate speech, as it got such negative associations attached.

Ah, Count Dankula, a guy who got in trouble for, quite literally, teaching his dog to "heil Hitler", in a video where he (the person, not the dog) repetitively says to "gas the Jews", and calls his dog a "good wee Nazi!"

I mean I guess there's an argument to be made as to whether this guy should have been outright arrested for this, but ANN won't be arresting people. They'll just be banning people.

So... umn... are you saying that ANN shouldn't ban someone for repeatedly saying "gas the Jews?" because if you're saying that, well, I don't think you're gonna get a lot of agreement. And if you're not saying this, why bring up Count Dankula?

Mad_Scientist wrote:

So... umn... are you saying that ANN shouldn't ban someone for repeatedly saying "gas the Jews?" because if you're saying that, well, I don't think you're gonna get a lot of agreement. And if you're not saying this, why bring up Count Dankula?

Because context matters. Or are you saying that you should be banned because you just said it twice?

Earlier Tempest mentioned the idea of a "country where people don't yet know how not to be hateful".

The context in the example was a nazi teaching his dog to respond to nazi slogans about genocide because he believes in wanting to commit genocide against an entire group of people because that's a core tenant of being a nazi.

Explaining the context the original posted didn't provide and quoting the words of the actual nazi is different from arguing for genocide.

This is the type of logic I'm used to see on a particularly bad 4chan thread.

Therre will be a "strike" system right, otherwise its better to leave some discussion out

Mavado, J-Dark Side and Crext.

You're derailing the thread. Your discussion about Count Dankula is heading off-topic.

Mad_Scientist wrote:

Earlier Tempest mentioned the idea of a "country where people don't yet know how not to be hateful".

I was being sarcastic. No such country exists.

Sorry, didn't mean for it to go that way.

It's just that I feel that it's hard to discuss one's concern over the language in these new rules without bringing up specific examples. I've seen far too many use the term "Marginalized people" as a cover to spread blatant anti-white bigotry while dismissing any criticism as "Hate speech" from nazis.

Then I guess we're circling back around to the earlier topic, if you're just going to resort back to the fear of white people facing consequences.