PSA: PLEASE READ

[R-Farmer]

So Racial, gender, sexual slurs and not slurs in general. That's why I asked.

If you had bothered to read the rule in question (there’s a link in the upper left), you wouldn’t need to ask.

Boru

So if I have a question concerning site policy I should not ask it? even if it looks like there is a post that an admin makes that amends a given or established rule that protects a small group to now include everyone?

for example rule 7 specifically identifies "hate speech" (and define a small group of people)

1. The use of hate speech targeting race, gender, sex, and sexual orientation are prohibited. This includes the usage of slurs. 
   
   An exception will be made if the hate speech itself is being discussed, however even in these cases, members should make the intent of the discussion clear and censor any slurs using asterisks (e.g. f*ggot) or some other reference (e.g. the n word).
   

but again the word slur is not limited to hate speech. it is a word that describes any disparaging remark. That is why I posted the actual definition.

slur
1 of 4
noun (1)
ˈslər 
1: an insulting or disparaging remark or innuendo

And it is why I asked are you going with this specific definition or one that targets specific slurs. 

The whole 'no tolerance policy' made me think all slurs were off the table. which is why I asked the question

[arewethereyet]

If you go to the main page>site specific>Questions For Staff you can - drumroll - ask the staff questions.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

If you had bothered to read the rule in question (there’s a link in the upper left), you wouldn’t need to ask.

Boru

So if I have a question concerning site policy I should not ask it? even if it looks like there is a post that an admin makes that amends a given or established rule that protects a small group to now include everyone?

for example rule 7 specifically identifies "hate speech" (and define a small group of people)

1. The use of hate speech targeting race, gender, sex, and sexual orientation are prohibited. This includes the usage of slurs. 
   
   An exception will be made if the hate speech itself is being discussed, however even in these cases, members should make the intent of the discussion clear and censor any slurs using asterisks (e.g. f*ggot) or some other reference (e.g. the n word).
   

but again the word slur is not limited to hate speech. it is a word that describes any disparaging remark. That is why I posted the actual definition.

slur
1 of 4
noun (1)
ˈslər 
1: an insulting or disparaging remark or innuendo

And it is why I asked are you going with this specific definition or one that targets specific slurs. 

The whole 'no tolerance policy' made me think all slurs were off the table. which is why I asked the question

You can ask anything you like. You can also read the rules. You can also dance with the Devil in the pale moonlight.

Boru

[R-Farmer]

One is an attack on a personal attribute the other is an attack on a notion of behavior or belief.

The word is short for the phrase 'F*cking Ret*rd. You are disparaging mentally disabled people. As not only are you saying being mentally disabled is an abhorrent condition, you are attributing this abhorrent condition to anyone who does not think as you do. The summary of the belief being because I do not agree with you, I must be mentally handicap. That is literally hating someone for something they have little control over. Unless you are saying belief in god can be flipped like a switch. IE you could go from not believing in god, to full born again convicted by the Spirit speaking in tongues belief in god just by deciding to.

Fucktard is not remotely equal to slurring someone because they are black or gay or trans. 

[size=medium]are you saying Mentally disabled people choose to be called ret*rded? are you saying mentally challenged people are not disparaged, banned from places or even shunned from society? if not then why use this terms as a derogatory term at all? if being mentally challenged is as accepted, then why use this term to describe someone thought process as being deficient in some way?

Nope, one is attacking them for a personnel attribute. The insult fucktard does none of that. 

So thought is not a personal attribute? You do understand that our thoughts, are in fact the MOST personal part of our essence right?? As you literally can't get any more personal than someone's internal thoughts and thought processes. Or do you not recognize the whole plight of people with gender dysmorphia is all about the internal dialog of an individual (their thought patters and processes) not matching their physical body. So that begs the question Are trans people protected under the no slur rule for their thoughts/thinking?

yes they are specifically mentioned.

So it's not about just physical attributes or 'personal attributes.' (thoughts or thinking) it's about not being aligned with the protect class of people. Meaning you are allowed to do and say all the reprehensible things found in any type of hate speech, so long as your target is not apart of the protected class.

While I'm not white, I am male, and a christian, oh and I do live in a rual area so it is ok to bring all the hate you can muster again me. The same hate that would get you banned and or socially ostracized if I were apart of the protected class, but again I am not so you have a green light.. so long as being a hypocrite doesn't bother you, which why should it? after all we live in a society of double standards, where rights and justice is not equally applied across the board..

Nope one is insulting someone for a behavior or attitude the other is attacking someone for a personal attribute 

My guy a personal attribute that a whole group of people (billions) share is NOT a Personal Attribute. but again go with the whole "you are not apart of the protected class and I (you) have the right to be as hatefully as your heart will allow." At least then you can stop pretending and you maybe won't confuse yourself so much as to why "personal attacks" are ok against some but not others.

Example 

Bob is a fucktard for saying 1+1= 5. That's a fuckarded belief

VS 

Bob is a &(&^%%

If bob does not have the mental capacity to truly understand 1+1=/=5 then bob is legit-ly mentally challenged. and is a part of the 'protected class' of people I was speaking about. That makes you a monster to this society for expressing hate and distain against a member of the protected class.. Note how your peers will now distance themselves from you for your intolerance again people like bob.

[brewer]

RF, you're free to leave this place at any time. But remember, we know your ulterior motives. Your time here has demonstrated that you want to disparage atheists by repeatedly spewing what we consider nonsense. Don't think you're the first to complain, or are even original. We've seen it all before.

I think you will be happier on a christian forum. They will eat your shit up and ask for seconds.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Calling Reframer Fucktarded refers to his belief in stupid irrational dumb ideas that have nothing to do with his race, sex, gender identity, Or even religion as many Christians would reject his arguments. Nor is it hatred to insult him for holding those opinions. Insulting people who hold stupid opinions is not hate. This is not the same as attacking someone for their skin color or Gender identity.  This is a typical ploy by apologists to make any insult towards them for the nonsense they spew an act of hate.

If bob does not have the mental capacity to truly understand 1+1=/=5 then bob is legit-ly mentally challenged. and is a part of the 'protected class' of people I was speaking about. That makes you a monster to this society for expressing hate and distain against a member of the protected class.. Note how your peers will now distance themselves from you for your intolerance again people like bob.

Bob's belief in 1+1 = 5 has nothing to do with a mental disability he believes it due to his embrace of fringe math which has been shown to be objectively wrong but he insists it's true regardless. Bob is being fucktarded and is a fucktard for holding such a view and again he suffers from no mental disability.

[Angrboda]

One is an attack on a personal attribute the other is an attack on a notion of behavior or belief.

The word is short for the phrase 'F*cking Ret*rd. You are disparaging mentally disabled people. As not only are you saying being mentally disabled is an abhorrent condition, you are attributing this abhorrent condition to anyone who does not think as you do. The summary of the belief being because I do not agree with you, I must be mentally handicap. That is literally hating someone for something they have little control over. Unless you are saying belief in god can be flipped like a switch. IE you could go from not believing in god, to full born again convicted by the Spirit speaking in tongues belief in god just by deciding to.

Uh, no, when you call someone a moron or a retard you are not disparaging those people, you are implying that the person is acting like they have the limited capacities of the people in question. It is an offense against the person it is directed at, not against those who are so limited.

[The Valkyrie]

Do as you're told or the Viking-wannabe chick will practice her bloodeagle on you.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Do as you're told or the Viking-wannabe chick will practice her bloodeagle on you.

Pfft. Like YOU need practice.

Boru

[Rev. Rye]

Myself, I hate when people use words that end with 'tard'.  I learned early how hateful and hurtful the derogatory word 'retard' is and in extension I don't like fucktard or relitard or any of the other variants.  But what I do or don't like isn't how the rules are made here.

I generally take to the opinion that retard is a hateful term toward the mentally disabled but words like fucktard or relitard only generally refer to stupidity not mental illness or disability.After all you can be mentally disabled and highly intelligent.

Depending on whether or not one considers autism a disability, I'm a living example of that. I was diagnosed on the spectrum when I was a young child and when I was six, my IQ was measured at 176 (Weschler, if my parents' memories were any indication). To be fair about the latter, I know that child IQ tests and adult IQ tests are calculated differently, plus that IQ tests are generally kinda nebulous in what they actually measure.