PSA: Hate Speech

[outtathereligioncloset]

It pained me to read this entire 19 pages. So much ANGER exhibited. Much of it from a moderator. Thankfully, I must have missed what led up to this. Perhaps because more often than not, when I see stuff like that starting, I move on to a different thread. And in general, on a forum where I find someone in particular is offensive, I put them on ignore. Sort of like when I am watching something on TV that crosses any personal line where I find it offensive, I know how to turn the channel. No matter what the "language" short of promoting a rape culture or pediphilism (situations where the person should be banned outright without "warnings" IMO), I can't quite wrap my head around demanding the *powers that be* to implement censorship.

The offensiveness of individual words can be quite subjective.
The context can be more important than the words themselves.
Anything said in a part of a forum that is supposed to be a safe space section that is clearly ugly and unsupportive is uncalled for. That's not language, that's intent. Are we going to start to try to regulate intent?

This whole thing reminds me of a very old sitcom called WKRP in Cincinnati. (Setting was a radio station.) Some sort of *morals* group approached the station manager and got him to agree to forbid his DJs from using certain words. Memory tells me it was something a little more than just George Carlin's "Seven dirty words you can't say on TV" (which by the way, included "tits") but I don't remember it as being an extremely long list. If he failed to comply they vowed to go after his advertisers and get them to pull commercials if he didn't agree to their demands. So he complied. THEN they came to him with a list of songs they wanted him to ban the DJs from playing. Clearly, they were offended by these songs, even though not one of them had any of the forbidden *words* in them. First on their list?

John Lennon's "Imagine."
"Imagine there's no heaven...."

Having realized that he had given an inch and they were demanding a mile, he told them to get lost, rather eloquently as I recall. Censorship. He reminded them that they had the right to turn the channel. He told them they could whine to the advertisers and the advertisers could make their own decisions and if they wanted to pull out, he'd find other advertisers.

I suppose the last place I'd expect to invoke a censorship clause would be an atheist forum. Honestly, that's.....disturbing.

Couple more thoughts....
I interpret this to mean that I would not be allowed to call either a specific member or the members as a whole, (for example) a bunch of thin-skinned snowflake low-life bitches, BUT am I correct that I AM still allowed to REFER to my bitchster-in-law (who is NOT on this forum and never will be) as a self-righteous, self-centered cunt? Is that the point? Have I got that right? Intent? Who it's aimed at? Whether it's a member or someone outside of the forum? Can I still call Donald Trump an ignorant slut? A dickhead?

I just skimmed back over these pages and am surprised to see just how many of the people on THIS THREAD are NOT listed as "donator." Hmmm. One could make the argument that people who don't pay the bills maybe shouldn't complain about the accommodations. But let me be clear, I don't think that being a donator should give me any more say than someone who doesn't support this forum with a monthly donation. I'm certainly not going to stop my donations based on any decision about this subject. I'm not the morals police. And I'm sure my single dollar a month doesn't make or break this place.

But I will take this as a moment to make my own PSA to remind all my fellow members who have NOT decided to donate------betcha pledging a dollar a month wouldn't make or break you either.