What is wrong with expressing your opinion and arguing a point by actually being respectful? Believe it or not individuals can communicate their point without having to resort to racist name calling, threats against others or hate speech. Obviously, it's a little more effort, and people may disagree with you which is acceptable as usually the goal is to have a discussion in the first place. As for "censorship", we dont go around "censoring" unpopular opinions about anything, we don't care what you wish to discuss, we don't care that you have a difference of opinion or that you wish to argue a point about religion, race, politics, bubble gum flavour or the best time to drink coffee. We just care that you do it with respect to the rest of the community, and we don't think that's bullshit, we think its being a good host.
Well said ! There is nothing wrong with healthy discourse if it is done in civil and respectful manner. It's also what makes snapzu special and in my opinion is the most crucial thing we need to try and preserve at all cost especially with the recent influx of new users.
There is nothing wrong with healthy discourse if it is done in civil and respectful manner.
Note that there's a difference between me ranting about black people behaving like savage animals, and not being civil towards whomever I'm talking to.
So you want me to refrain from expressing myself the way I feel like expressing myself, in the name of Propriety and all, but your response to me sounds like you're upset.
Should you have "censored your feelings" too, or should we just accept that there's no point in censoring them at all? If I feel like swearing like a sailor, and go ahead and do so, I don't think it's my problem if someone gets offended by it. Anyone is free to ignore everything I say.
But if the way I express myself doesn't sit well with someone, that should not be made into a problem for me by the site's operators.
So you want me to refrain from expressing myself the way I feel like expressing myself, in the name of Propriety and all, but your response to me sounds like you're upset.
If you feel I was upset in my reply than in your eyes your reasoning must be infallible, it is after all your opinion, I however don't need to convince you otherwise.
Should you have "censored your feelings" too, or should we just accept that there's no point in censoring them at all?
I wouldn't call it "censoring", most folks would refer to it as being polite and understanding, but yes, it's obvious that I took the more difficult path and argued my opinion in a respectable manner so that my reply can elevate whatever this conversation is becoming to a level that is:
a) able to continue on without having to resort to racist name calling, inducing hate or threats against others. (notice a theme emerging here?) and
b) to not subject the rest of the community to the same type of behavior I listed in point a. (You wouldn't act like this at a party, why do you think it's acceptable on an online community?)
Most AFK people if they need to rage punch something, scream racism/abuse or threats will tend to do it alone somewhere as not to become pariahs amongst their peers. For some reason a long time ago, it became bafflingly acceptable to believe that people can pop onto a community forum and use the "free speech" argument to say anything you want thinking the community itself or the management has no right to any recourse. Some places ignored it, others took a hard stance to protect their community. We are the latter.
If I feel like swearing like a sailor, and go ahead and do so, I don't think it's my problem if someone gets offended by it. Anyone is free to ignore everything I say.
My neighbor is playing music so loud my bed frame literally shakes from the bass. It's 3 am in the morning and it is common courtesy to turn your music down after 10pm on week days as there are many in the area that wake up for work in mere hours. How am I free to ignore this music? and should there be recourse available? Again, I wouldn't consider it "self censorship", it is more like being courteous to others which takes more effort, and requires empathy and understanding instead of hate and selfishness. As for swearing like a sailor, its all about the context, nowhere in our rules do we specifically ban swearing. Are you swearing for the sake of swearing? are you using it in conversation to provide a level of emotion that your message would otherwise lack? or are you attacking someone mercilessly to a point where anyone of sound mind would call it abuse? I swore on a number of occasions, it's the context that I swore in that matters.
We approach all matters on a case by case basis, our goal is never to remove legitimate discussion even if it isn't popular opinion, but our rules state clearly what we don't accept, and you either agree to our rules or go somewhere else, although lately even those places are realizing that ignoring such behaviour can prove to be a bad thing.
But if the way I express myself doesn't sit well with someone, that should not be made into a problem for me by the site's operators.
Actually, it absolutely should be. We are the hosts of this community and we are the ones with the tools to protect it from those who break our rules. Ultimately, we will use them for exactly that reason.
Actually, it absolutely should be. We are the hosts of this community and we are the ones with the tools to protect it from those who break our rules. Ultimately, we will use them for exactly that reason.
Exactly. If you're hosting a party, and a guest starts insulting the gay couple, or slinging racial slurs at the black chick, it becomes uncomfortable and the host's job is to fix it, or the party is going to end real quick. Maybe it just means, if you don't like the people attending, remove yourself from that party.
I wouldn't call it "censoring", most folks would refer to it as being polite and understanding
Well, I’m sure you get the idea. You would be consciously refraining from expressing yourself the way you feel like doing it, because it might offend someone. How is politeness relevant if you’re not hostile towards whomever you’re talking to?
but yes, it's obvious that I took the more difficult path and argued my opinion in a respectable manner
My point was that your disrespect still leaked through. It could be argued that if “politeness” really were a primary concern for you, you wouldn’t have let that happen.
What was the point of the extent of restraint you exercised, if your disrespect leaked through anyway?
It’s also worth noting that your disrespect (or hate, if you will) is aimed at me, whereas my disrespect (or hate) was aimed at people looting businesses that haven’t done anything to them.. which of those is more detrimental to our having a fruitful conversation?
a) able to continue on without having to resort to racist name calling
Look, there’s that word again. That’s the real issue here, not “hate speech”.
You need to see that if a group of white people were vandalizing and looting innocent businesses, I’d be just as inclined to call them a “pack of savage apes”, because that would fit their behaviour. It’s not about their colour, it’s about their behaviour.
But you’re (implicitly) accusing me of being a racist, even though I’m not.
I’m a truthist, or more generally, an “objectivist” (but not in the Randian sense).
inducing hate or threats against others. (notice a theme emerging here?)
What if I posted on Snapzu and made a highly “impolite” remark on pedophiles and their activities? If I commented that “pedophiles are filthy monsters”, referring to their documented child-molesting activities, would that constitute “hate speech”? They’re a group of people, and you could even say that I actually hate them!
Notice a theme here?
For some reason a long time ago, it became bafflingly acceptable to believe that people can pop onto a community forum and use the "free speech" argument to say anything you want thinking the community itself or the management has no right to any recourse.
What’s baffling to me, is how resistant people are to objectivity. But as for free speech, let’s go to an example where it matters the most: taxation is extortion. A lot of people will find that claim “offensive”, but it’s a clear fact:
When a mafia threatens people with violence to get money from them, it’s called “extortion”, but when a government threatens people with imprisonment to get money from them, it’s called “taxation”. There are people who go against lots of hostility in trying to get others to see that, because it's very, very important and people need to hear it even though they'll be upset.
Some places ignored it, others took a hard stance to protect their community. We are the latter.
In reality, if you want Snapzu to be a community worth “protecting”, you’ll actually encourage free speech, because that’s how you can have a positive effect on humanity’s circumstances. A community that doesn’t tolerate views that are currently considered offensive is one that might as well just swap cat pictures and circle-jerk with inane pun threads.
How am I free to ignore this music? and should there be recourse...
I wouldn't call it "censoring", most folks would refer to it as being polite and understanding
Well, I’m sure you get the idea. You would be consciously refraining from expressing yourself the way you feel like doing it, because it might offend someone. How is politeness relevant if you’re not hostile towards whomever you’re talking to?
but yes, it's obvious that I took the more difficult path and argued my opinion in a respectable manner
My point was that your disrespect still leaked through. It could be argued that if “politeness” really were a primary concern for you, you wouldn’t have let that happen.
What was the point of the extent of restraint you exercised, if your disrespect leaked through anyway?
It’s also worth noting that your disrespect (or hate, if you will) is aimed at me, whereas my disrespect (or hate) was aimed at people looting businesses that haven’t done anything to them.. which of those is more detrimental to our having a fruitful conversation?
a) able to continue on without having to resort to racist name calling
Look, there’s that word again. That’s the real issue here, not “hate speech”.
You need to see that if a group of white people were vandalizing and looting innocent businesses, I’d be just as inclined to call them a “pack of savage apes”, because that would fit their behaviour. It’s not about their colour, it’s about their behaviour.
But you’re (implicitly) accusing me of being a racist, even though I’m not.
I’m a truthist, or more generally, an “objectivist” (but not in the Randian sense).
inducing hate or threats against others. (notice a theme emerging here?)
What if I posted on Snapzu and made a highly “impolite” remark on pedophiles and their activities? If I commented that “pedophiles are filthy monsters”, referring to their documented child-molesting activities, would that constitute “hate speech”? They’re a group of people, and you could even say that I actually hate them!
Notice a theme here?
For some reason a long time ago, it became bafflingly acceptable to believe that people can pop onto a community forum and use the "free speech" argument to say anything you want thinking the community itself or the management has no right to any recourse.
What’s baffling to me, is how resistant people are to objectivity. But as for free speech, let’s go to an example where it matters the most: taxation is extortion. A lot of people will find that claim “offensive”, but it’s a clear fact:
When a mafia threatens people with violence to get money from them, it’s called “extortion”, but when a government threatens people with imprisonment to get money from them, it’s called “taxation”. There are people who go against lots of hostility in trying to get others to see that, because it's very, very important and people need to hear it even though they'll be upset.
Some places ignored it, others took a hard stance to protect their community. We are the latter.
In reality, if you want Snapzu to be a community worth “protecting”, you’ll actually encourage free speech, because that’s how you can have a positive effect on humanity’s circumstances. A community that doesn’t tolerate views that are currently considered offensive is one that might as well just swap cat pictures and circle-jerk with inane pun threads.
How am I free to ignore this music? and should there be recourse available?
Instead of silencing people community-wide, you could implement personal filters like Hubski’s.
Again, I wouldn't consider it "self censorship", it is more like being courteous to others which takes more effort, and requires empathy and understanding instead of hate and selfishness.
Do you see what you did there?
are you using it in conversation to provide a level of emotion that your message would otherwise lack?
-This. As I’ve already explained, the idea is that people should be allowed to express themselves freely, the way they feel like expressing themselves.
We all feel strongly about pedophiles, and the feeling is.. hate!
I just happen to feel strongly about vandals too, and any other wrongdoers. A spade is a spade, even if it happens to be black.
What are you trying to accomplish? The admin clearly expressed to you how this community will be managed. It is abundantly clear that hate speech is unwelcome on snapzu, its really that simple. If you want to hate on people for the sole purpose of hating on people, then go somewhere where hating on people is a thing.
Think of the rules against hate speech here as a feature of this community instead of a limitation, everyone here wants to get away from this type of crap, we are here and satisfied because we found a corner of the internet that has exactly what we want. Go find a corner of your own that has the features you're looking for and I'm sure you will be happy as well.
You can express yourself any way you like. However, when you're engaged in discourse with someone it's better to take into account your audience, ie the one you're speaking to. After all, whats the point of talking with someone if the way you speak to them shuts them down to further discussion?
For example, a religious person and a non-religious person are speaking. The non-religious guy just outright says he thinks all religions are fairy tails and all religious people are nut jobs. Or conversely the religious guys says that all godless people are without morals and are going to hell. This shuts down the other person to further discussion because they feel there's no need or use talking with this person any further. Either because they've come off as insulting, aggressive, or just outright disrespectful.
Even though both people spoke what they believed and felt and expressed themselves how they wanted, absolutely nothing meaningful or insightful came of their "discussion." I've seen religious and non-religious people who probably held those very beliefs have very insightful and interesting conversation because they took into account the person they were speaking to.
when you're engaged in discourse with someone it's better to take into account your audience
Yes, but the more sensitive an audience is, the less likely they are to be rational, and thus, your effort will more likely be wasted anyway. Basically we just need people's messages not to be censored, so that the more rational among the audience can see them.
What is wrong with expressing your opinion and arguing a point by actually being respectful? Believe it or not individuals can communicate their point without having to resort to racist name calling, threats against others or hate speech. Obviously, it's a little more effort, and people may disagree with you which is acceptable as usually the goal is to have a discussion in the first place. As for "censorship", we dont go around "censoring" unpopular opinions about anything, we don't care what you wish to discuss, we don't care that you have a difference of opinion or that you wish to argue a point about religion, race, politics, bubble gum flavour or the best time to drink coffee. We just care that you do it with respect to the rest of the community, and we don't think that's bullshit, we think its being a good host.
Well said ! There is nothing wrong with healthy discourse if it is done in civil and respectful manner. It's also what makes snapzu special and in my opinion is the most crucial thing we need to try and preserve at all cost especially with the recent influx of new users.
Note that there's a difference between me ranting about black people behaving like savage animals, and not being civil towards whomever I'm talking to.