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.
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?
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?
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).
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?
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.
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.
Read FullWhat 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.
Is that really, sincerely what you took away from everything I said here?