5 ms·

"there was always a bulletin board an on a corner of it there was always some faded-from-to-many-xeroxes bit of humor/racism/sports fandom/sexism/dirty joke or

by baltar 11y ago

"there was always a bulletin board an on a corner of it there was always some faded-from-to-many-xeroxes bit of humor/racism/sports fandom/sexism/dirty joke or other us-vs.-them thing " This sort of dreck was as despicable then as it is now, off- or online. If people posting such things now leave Twitter, I'm all for it. They can go back to the stone age where they belong - oh wait, even then most people were likely better than that: http://www.deutschlandradiokultur.de/geschlechterrollen-forscher-entzaubern-die-steinzeit.976.de.html?dram:article_id=342902 http://www.deutschlandradiokultur.de/geschlechterrollen-fors... (in German).

striking 11y ago
It seems you'll get your wish soon enough, at least with respects to Twitter. But how clean is clean enough?
- baltar 11y ago
  Simple: no racism, sexism or any other de-humanizing speech based on identity is "clean enough".
  - striking 11y ago
    How would you define the line between race discussion and racism? Or between meaningful discourse about gender/sex and sexism?
    - baltar 11y ago
      It's not my job to pick a definition but Twitter's (and other social sites'). In fact, they already did (defining "hateful conduct"): "You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or disease." Pretty basic stuff. If it was my choice, I'd pick a wider definition, accepting that there will be an area of uncertainty and errors. However, I think that it is still far better to exclude some people (for a while?) than to e.g. subject many more people to constantly being called pejorative terms (including implications to being a slave, an animal or an exhibit)/belittled because of identity/violently threatened etc. You could also see it this way: up to now the officially used definition was in effect that nothing is racist/sexist.

by baltar 11y ago

striking 11y ago

It seems you'll get your wish soon enough, at least with respects to Twitter. But how clean is clean enough?

baltar 11y ago
Simple: no racism, sexism or any other de-humanizing speech based on identity is "clean enough".
- striking 11y ago
  How would you define the line between race discussion and racism? Or between meaningful discourse about gender/sex and sexism?
  - baltar 11y ago
    It's not my job to pick a definition but Twitter's (and other social sites'). In fact, they already did (defining "hateful conduct"): "You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or disease." Pretty basic stuff. If it was my choice, I'd pick a wider definition, accepting that there will be an area of uncertainty and errors. However, I think that it is still far better to exclude some people (for a while?) than to e.g. subject many more people to constantly being called pejorative terms (including implications to being a slave, an animal or an exhibit)/belittled because of identity/violently threatened etc. You could also see it this way: up to now the officially used definition was in effect that nothing is racist/sexist.