Question about the guidelines…

Homepage Forums Atheism Question about the guidelines…

This topic contains 8 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by  . 4 years, 1 month ago.

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1081

    .
    Spectator

    For some reason the section on “no hate speech” was a little muddy…

    One part in particular stood out…

    Quote:

    Hate speech against atheists which is posted in a community of atheists is more egregious than hate speech against religious which is posted in a community of atheists.

    And some of the examples were a little confusing…

    Question – what was the thought process behind wording this guideline the way it was…

    Thank you!!!

    #1082

    .
    Spectator

    Why is any hate speech considered more egregious?

    Some of the examples were a bit hilarious too…sounded like personal preferences rather than a hard distinction..

    #1083

    Strega
    Moderator

    @Belle. If you as an atheist were to meet a theist on neutral ground, then you are both entitled to say your thing as equally valid participants. You could call theists ignorant and they could call atheists stupid. Much of a muchness.

    If you as an atheist went and sat in a church during a theist session, and for every statement made from a religious perspective, you piped up that it was a silly idea and this (atheist) way is the right way, you’d probably be thrown out, because you were the one out of place in a church where others congregate to share their theist beliefs and philosophies.

    On an atheist site, some ex-Mormon member posting in a forum is quite likely to explete about the nastiness of Mormons because he or she is venting in the right place. A theist coming here and posting about the nastiness of atheists is not equatable. It’s provocative. Because of the place.

    • This reply was modified 4 years, 1 month ago by  Strega.
    #1085

    There have been posts by theists, both Christian and Muslim, who have claimed (or assumed) that we have no moral code not because we don’t believe in any of their imaginary gods but simply because we are Atheists. They have compared us to Nazi’s (who swore an oath to the Christian God) because we are Atheists. We can mock religion or point out the atrocities committed in the name of imaginary gods on this site because that is part of what the site is about. There are members here (not always on the public forum) who have reported crimes and offences committed against them by various religious people. They may read other peoples stories without posting themselves. I have come to know many of these people. They are entitled to not be further abused or belittled by bigots and “holier than thou” religious apologists. We maintain zero tolerance towards them if they are extreme and issue warnings if their speech is moving in that direction.

    You can say that if “Jerry Falwell had been given an enema he could have been buried in a matchbox”(Hitchens). That is acceptable.

    #1108

    .
    Spectator

    Hate speech against atheists which is posted in a community of atheists is more egregious than hate speech against religious which is posted in a community of atheists.

    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. I like to think we hold our community in high enough regard that we do not slur hate speech towards people. We always say we attack ideas, not people. It shouldn’t matter if the words are coming from the mouth of an atheist or a theist. On our forum, all hate speech should be considered the same.

    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.

    I’m starting a project that has the potential to attract more theists to our site (if it works the way I think it will.) My vision with it is to bring more debate from people who don’t agree with us…we need more Dr. Bob’s on the site to give a different perspective instead of always singing to the choir. While we are a community that seeks to get away from religious vitrol, we are also an excellent platform to break the misconceptions and stereotypes of atheism, (part of the vision from which our site was founded) and the only way to do that is to invite more controversy of opinions. If it works, we may see more theists on here and the debates will get hot. I think we need a general definition of hate speech regardless of who you are.

    That’s really why I asked the question…I suppose I have a vision that if brought to fruition I can foresee those lines being a barrier to make theists fearful of posting on a site they may already think is possessed by the devil, lol….

    • This reply was modified 4 years, 1 month ago by  ..
    #1120

    SteveInCO
    Participant

    On the other hand, Belle, some people come here so they can “decompress” from the stress caused them by asshats who happen to be religious (and those seem to be the worst asshats, as they think god wants them to be asshats). Said decompression will involve rants, often with a lot of vitriol in them. (In point of fact you did so just recently about your ex-husband. Though you didn’t fling a lot of profanity and insults his way, I guarantee you after the things you said about him, he’d be most unwelcome here.)

    Those seem to be two mutually conflicting goals.

    I’ve seen sites where people of all persuasions can get together and talk, and they are ruthlessly and impartially moderated. That part of you that wants this sort of dialog may be better served there, while the side that needs to de-stress and let your hair down (so to speak), can still get what it needs here.

    • This reply was modified 4 years, 1 month ago by  SteveInCO.
    #1130

    .
    Spectator

    @steveinco I suppose you’re right…

    #1147

    Gallup’s Mirror
    Participant

    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.

    #1150

    .
    Spectator

    Thank you for the clarification Gallup. That helps a lot 🙂

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.