Hate Speech by Proxy

[Slopeshoulder]

In this thread...
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... sc&start=0
...the member EastofEden posted a link to a video that some consider hate speech (and may actually be hate speech). It was presented as an endorsed POV by this member. In other threads he has recently posted links to sites peddling spurious research that is hate-based.

This raises the issue of whether posting links to hate sites and hate videos when endorsed as content/evidence in debate is tantamount to hate speech by proxy and therefore to be considered a rule violation.

I vote yes.

Or perhaps it is covered by the current "offensive material" rule?

Whether it is hate against jews, blacks, women, gays or other marignalized groups, it's all NOT OK. (Yes, there are non-hateful arguments against the moral standing and rights of these groups that, while they offend conscience and reason, are not hate speech proper. I'm talking about that which is).

I suggest vigorous enforcement of the "offensive material" rule, or creating a new rule against "hate by proxy" to apply in these circumstances.

[LiamOS]

How do we define hate-speech?
How do we determine if and to what extent it is being endorsed by a poster?

It's a good idea, but I fear it's not really feasible to implement such a rule.

[Slopeshoulder]

How do we define hate-speech?

As it is defined in law.

How do we determine if and to what extent it is being endorsed by a poster?

This is clear from the context: brought as evidence, claimed that it is correct, etc.

It's a good idea, but I fear it's not really feasible to implement such a rule.

Thank you, but I beg to differ.

[Flail]

In this thread...
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... sc&start=0
...the member EastofEden posted a link to a video that some consider hate speech (and may actually be hate speech). It was presented as an endorsed POV by this member. In other threads he has recently posted links to sites peddling spurious research that is hate-based.

This raises the issue of whether posting links to hate sites and hate videos when endorsed as content/evidence in debate is tantamount to hate speech by proxy and therefore to be considered a rule violation.

I vote yes.

Or perhaps it is covered by the current "offensive material" rule?

Whether it is hate against jews, blacks, women, gays or other marignalized groups, it's all NOT OK. (Yes, there are non-hateful arguments against the moral standing and rights of these groups that, while they offend conscience and reason, are not hate speech proper. I'm talking about that which is).

I suggest vigorous enforcement of the "offensive material" rule, or creating a new rule against "hate by proxy" to apply in these circumstances.

Although I agree that it is a brand of 'hate speech,' I am not for banning it. Such nonsense exposes the many flaws of literalism when it comes to believing in supernaturals.
One of my goals in life is to deter people from the evils of Christianity and Islam. Exposing this kind of nonsense promoted in the name of a particular supernatural is an excellent way to begin the process of overcoming indoctrination by deprogramming the believer.

[Deadclown]

In this thread...
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... sc&start=0
...the member EastofEden posted a link to a video that some consider hate speech (and may actually be hate speech). It was presented as an endorsed POV by this member. In other threads he has recently posted links to sites peddling spurious research that is hate-based.

This raises the issue of whether posting links to hate sites and hate videos when endorsed as content/evidence in debate is tantamount to hate speech by proxy and therefore to be considered a rule violation.

I vote yes.

Or perhaps it is covered by the current "offensive material" rule?

Whether it is hate against jews, blacks, women, gays or other marignalized groups, it's all NOT OK. (Yes, there are non-hateful arguments against the moral standing and rights of these groups that, while they offend conscience and reason, are not hate speech proper. I'm talking about that which is).

I suggest vigorous enforcement of the "offensive material" rule, or creating a new rule against "hate by proxy" to apply in these circumstances.

Although I agree that it is a brand of 'hate speech,' I am not for banning it. Such nonsense exposes the many flaws of literalism when it comes to believing in supernaturals.
One of my goals in life is to deter people from the evils of Christianity and Islam. Exposing this kind of nonsense promoted in the name of a particular supernatural is an excellent way to begin the process of overcoming indoctrination by deprogramming the believer.

I agree with Flail, although to be quite honest I am not at all easily offended to a great extent. I am used to reading forums where they are... well... far less civil than they are here. I will say that if such a rule were to be made it could be enforced and judged by the Moderators like all other such rules. Heck, if you think the video goes against present policy you can report it and let them decide?

[East of Eden]

In this thread...
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... sc&start=0
...the member EastofEden posted a link to a video that some consider hate speech (and may actually be hate speech). It was presented as an endorsed POV by this member. In other threads he has recently posted links to sites peddling spurious research that is hate-based.

This raises the issue of whether posting links to hate sites and hate videos when endorsed as content/evidence in debate is tantamount to hate speech by proxy and therefore to be considered a rule violation.

I vote yes.

Or perhaps it is covered by the current "offensive material" rule?

Whether it is hate against jews, blacks, women, gays or other marignalized groups, it's all NOT OK. (Yes, there are non-hateful arguments against the moral standing and rights of these groups that, while they offend conscience and reason, are not hate speech proper. I'm talking about that which is).

I suggest vigorous enforcement of the "offensive material" rule, or creating a new rule against "hate by proxy" to apply in these circumstances.

Although I agree that it is a brand of 'hate speech,' I am not for banning it. Such nonsense exposes the many flaws of literalism when it comes to believing in supernaturals.
One of my goals in life is to deter people from the evils of Christianity and Islam. Exposing this kind of nonsense promoted in the name of a particular supernatural is an excellent way to begin the process of overcoming indoctrination by deprogramming the believer.

I agree with Flail, although to be quite honest I am not at all easily offended to a great extent. I am used to reading forums where they are... well... far less civil than they are here. I will say that if such a rule were to be made it could be enforced and judged by the Moderators like all other such rules. Heck, if you think the video goes against present policy you can report it and let them decide?

Exactly. The silence of the mods reveals what a dumb, illogical idea Slopesholder put forth. IMHO what should be banned here is the name-calling (hate) from those who lack the ability to debate. I posted a lengthy detailed video from a respected Biblical scholar on what the Bible says about homosexuality and get nothing but name-calling and threats in reply. Why am I not suprised?

[East of Eden]

As it is defined in law.

Show me the law that prevents people from interpreting the Bible (negating the rights to free speech and free expression of religion or retract that statement). It seems that 'law' is only in your head.

[LiamOS]

The silence of the mods reveals what a dumb, illogical idea Slopesholder put forth. IMHO what should be banned here is the name-calling (hate) from those who lack the ability to debate.

[Deadclown]

Exactly. The silence of the mods reveals what a dumb, illogical idea Slopesholder put forth. IMHO what should be banned here is the name-calling (hate) from those who lack the ability to debate. I posted a lengthy detailed video from a respected Biblical scholar on what the Bible says about homosexuality and get nothing but name-calling and threats in reply. Why am I not suprised?

Whoa there buddy. Not what I said. The mods only react if something is reported. It may not have been reported. I respect Slopeshoulder a great deal and have no desire to be connected to the above.

[100%atheist]

This raises the issue of whether posting links to hate sites and hate videos when endorsed as content/evidence in debate is tantamount to hate speech by proxy and therefore to be considered a rule violation.

I vote yes.

The problem is that while the right to marry is a basic human right for all people including gays and lesbians in most European countries for a long time, it is apparently still the point of a debate in the US.

If hate speech is banned on this website, we will have no evangelicals and fundamentalists anymore to debate with.

However, the Universal 
Declaration
 of
 Human
 Rights can be considered as a boiler plate for the rules on hate speech.

Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

So, when the guy in the video says that humiliating (and killing) homosexuals is for their own good, it does not matter if he tries to hide behind the Bible, he is in odds with the international law. If East of Eden supports and endorses such speech then some restrictions of such behavior would be wise. However, again, I'm afraid there are way too many fundamentalists over here to ban them all.