On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 6:17 AM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[email protected]> wrote:
> So, when you were considering the risk of political violence and thinking > about "flagging" the post, whatever that means, you were only trying to > change the subject to something you'd prefer to talk about? Good question, Glen. "Flagging" a post to me would have been a list admin email of the sort: "In the judgment of the List Admin, this speech is considered hate speech and will not be tolerated in this forum. This is a warning. Any posters that use this type of language will be given a public warning and if their post behavior continues they will be unsubscribed" I think my original post was clear. As list admin, I did not feel Marcus post called for this type of action/flagging. I gave one reason that the risk of inciting violence was near zero and my follow up post which you quote is I also understand the sentiment behind Marcus's post. And then I concluded the "list admin" portion of my post as intellectually wondering what constitutes hate speech. In my little corner of the world, I've never had to make that determination as a manager or any other position of authority. Nor have I been part of large enough organizations to sit through seminars listen to this sort of expertise. I did find your EricC reference interesting in this regard if a "majority" could be a protected class. Relatedly, I came across this WaPO article <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/07/canadian-judge-punching-a-caucasian-and-yelling-i-hate-white-people-isnt-a-hate-crime/> of a First Nation/Native woman yelled "I hate white people" and then punched a lady in the nose and it was judged not a hate crime. I hope I was clear in the 2nd part of my post replying as a list member and "religious" person to bring up what I wanted to talk about. -Stephen On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 6:17 AM uǝlƃ ↙↙↙ <[email protected]> wrote: > So, when you were considering the risk of political violence and thinking > about "flagging" the post, whatever that means, you were only trying to > change the subject to something you'd prefer to talk about? > > On 9/24/20 11:15 AM, Stephen Guerin wrote: > > As a list admin, this might be flaggable. I'm not sure if expressing > hatred of a protected class of people in of itself is hate speech- it seems > to be at least up to the line. Ie, replace with "The two groups I hate more > than cops are gays and black people" - would I have a responsibility to > intercede? > > > > As I consider the impotence of this group to take political action and > incite political violence I consider the statement low to zero risk. I will > take no action as a list admin. Intellectually, I would like to know where > the line of hate speech is. > > On 9/24/20 11:32 PM, Stephen Guerin wrote: > > Yes, I recognize Marcus's "I hate religious people" for what it was. > > -- > ↙↙↙ uǝlƃ > > - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam > un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com > archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ > FRIAM-COMIC <http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/FRIAM-COMIC> > http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ >
- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
