Reply To: Question about the guidelines…

[Gallup’s Mirror]

Where I think it would be more effective is to concisely and clearly define hate speech because this is where things are ambiguous depending on who you ask….I think a definition more clearly stated within the guidelines would be appropriate regardless of who says it.

Your point about ambiguities is well taken, as there is neither a universal definition of hate speech nor one that could not be disputed on some level.

The guidelines define hate speech as “a communication which is meaningless except as an expression of denigration for a group of people”. This definition resembles those used in legal dictionaries, such as “a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence.”

We actually went with a more inclusive definition of hate speech than we might have. For instance, some definitions add the qualifier that the targeted group must have a history of oppression as a racial or religious minority. Under such a definition, denigration of powerful religious groups like Catholics in most circumstances would not be considered hate speech.

I guess what I’m wondering why any hate speech would be tolerated at all or considered any more or less egregious than any other.

“Atheists are fools”. You could go out into the wilderness and tell the pines. Or you might tell the next gathering of American Atheists. Or you might tell the Bible thumpers at Liberty University. Identical words may instill outrage, indifference or agreement depending on the circumstances. As such, visiting religious don’t get the same benefit of the doubt when denigrating atheists in a community of atheists.

I like to think we hold our community in high enough regard that we do not slur hate speech towards people.

So would I. Unfortunately it’s not that unusual. Visiting Christians level the usual unreasoned slurs, calling us instigators of genocide, a hate group, inherently worthless, morally degenerate, fanatical crackpots, and so on.

If anything we have tolerated this more than I would prefer. Moderators show restraint. Members rarely report it. I think they’d rather rebut or are desensitized because belittling atheists (unlike insulting most other minorities) is still considered to be socially acceptable.