3 ms·

I always thought this type of take was interesting. Profanity (and blasphemy) is offensive to tons of people, arguably more than are offended by hate speech. Bu

I always thought this type of take was interesting. Profanity (and blasphemy) is offensive to tons of people, arguably more than are offended by hate speech. But profanity is tolerated in many communities where hate speech is not. Seemed funny that calling someone a “f**ing idiot” is not banworthy but calling someone a “[insert your least favorite racial slur here]” is. So irrational race-based hatred is worse than just run of the mill irrational hatred.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
happytoexplain 5y ago
It is interesting - but note that context matters a lot. "You're a fucking idiot" and "Your cake recipe was fucking delicious" should be treated very differently by moderators. Edit: Maybe I'm a bit off-topic though. As for the question of whether two hateful comments should be weighted differently because one is based on race/gender/etc and one is just generalized anger, you could reframe that conversation as one about whether you agree with the concept of protected classes or not. Does hate against blacks produce more societal harm than hate against people who said somebody's preferred car manufacturer was shitty? I think so, even if the hate is just as loud and irrational in both cases. But it's definitely not a clear cut answer in every case.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > you could reframe that conversation as one about whether you agree with the concept of protected classes or not If someone is not in a vulnerable position, than hate speech isn't much of a threat. If a Swede is locked in a room of Norwegians and says 'Norwegian scum should be taught a lesson', people might back away a little, but it's not much threat. But vice-versa, if a Norwegian says 'Swedish scum should be taught a lesson', then it's a very threatening situation to the Swede. (I'm picking two groups which, as far as I know, have little real-world animosity.)
nicoburns 5y ago
It's about the implied world view. If you think black people or gay people are inferior then that's obviously a really harmful attitude to have (and one that has a long history of causing severe injustices to people on those groups). Is calling someone a "fucking idiot" even any more offensive than just calling them an idiot? I don't see why.
- prepend 5y ago
  In the case of blasphemy, many think that religious people are inferior. I’ve talked with many athiests who think all theists are stupid. And I’ve talked with members of Religion X who think members of Religion Y are inferior. So from a world view perspective, someone saying “Jesus Christ, you’re an idiot” would be part of an inferior perspective on people who think that blasphemy shouldn’t be done. I think this is different from profanity, but I’ve worked with people who thought use of the “F word” was so offensive they would feel uncomfortable working with people who say such things. I think it comes down to those views as not being reasonable, but everyone agreeing that being offended by racial slurs as being reasonable. So it’s unreasonable to ever use hate speech, but it’s reasonable to use blasphemy and profanity.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > someone saying “Jesus Christ, you’re an idiot” would be part of an inferior perspective on people who think that blasphemy shouldn’t be done. As an important nuance, if the speaker knows that someone will be offended, I think it assumes the views of the offended person are unimportant. That's different, though not necessarily any less bad, than seeing that person as inferior. I can't anticipate everything that will offend anyone. But if I know someone is offended by something, I certainly want to respect them as people and avoid saying it. If I know someone is of a certain religion, I'd avoid saying anything about it that I wasn't sure of. > I think it comes down to those views as not being reasonable, but everyone agreeing that being offended by racial slurs as being reasonable. There's hate speech against religions too, and that's as verboten as hate speech against racial groups. In fact, for a moment I considered using an example of religious hate speech, but that would be completely inappropriate (and rightfully so, IMHO). Blasphemy is a different matter than hate speech.
wolverine876 5y ago
> Profanity (and blasphemy) is offensive to tons of people, arguably more than are offended by hate speech. But profanity is tolerated in many communities where hate speech is not. That overlooks the degree of offense and threat. Some things are far more offensive and threatening than others. Clearly, hate speech is exceptionally offensive and threatening to many people. Fuck. Shit. Asshole. My writing these words is rude, but has little impact. Even if I stuck them into my comments ('the fucking interface ...'), it would just be a little rude. Hate speech can be a personal attack. Also, hate speech is often tied to power: If a powerful group uses hate speech against a vulnerable one, it can represent a serious threat: Humanity's history of the powerful abusing the vulnerable is long and terrible, and hate speech indicates, often intentionally, the willingness or intention to carry out such acts.
- prepend 5y ago
  Yes, and the issue is the level of offense and threat. My curiosity is why a web site would think that it’s ok for people to be offended by “God dammit” but not by “[racial slur].” I’m not really offended by profanity or blasphemy, but many are. So I don’t think it’s based on number of people offended. I think I understand why hate speech is particularly dangerous, but it seems funny that other offensive speech is deemed acceptable. For example, HN allows profanity and blasphemy but not racial slurs (whether targeted or not).
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    > I’m not really offended by profanity or blasphemy, but many are. > it seems funny that other offensive speech is deemed acceptable. For example, HN allows profanity and blasphemy ... I'm interested to know what your experiences are with this? I don't recall seeing a complaint about blasphemy in an Internet forum. However, I haven't quite yet read the entire Internet ... What blasphemy is on HN? I could imagine statements that unknowingly violate a theological tenant - for example, to some using the word beginning G... for the monotheistic deity is blasphemous [edit: to some religions] (which, given the circumstances, I'll avoid). But I am not aware of any knowing blasphemy - there is so little religion here that it's not even an issue. Hate speech directed at a religion would (or should) be outside the guidelines, but that's regardless of the blasphemy of it.
unparagoned 5y ago
I would have said that profanity is fairly low on the offensive scale, and hate speech is on a completely different level. The number impacted is not really relevant.
permo-w 5y ago
Well generally race-based insults have a far greater emotional impact. The words themselves have to arise from somewhere, and usually it will be from somewhere or something or somewhen very meaningful for the race being insulted

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

happytoexplain 5y ago

It is interesting - but note that context matters a lot. "You're a fucking idiot" and "Your cake recipe was fucking delicious" should be treated very differently by moderators. Edit: Maybe I'm a bit off-topic though. As for the question of whether two hateful comments should be weighted differently because one is based on race/gender/etc and one is just generalized anger, you could reframe that conversation as one about whether you agree with the concept of protected classes or not. Does hate against blacks produce more societal harm than hate against people who said somebody's preferred car manufacturer was shitty? I think so, even if the hate is just as loud and irrational in both cases. But it's definitely not a clear cut answer in every case.

wolverine876 5y ago
> you could reframe that conversation as one about whether you agree with the concept of protected classes or not If someone is not in a vulnerable position, than hate speech isn't much of a threat. If a Swede is locked in a room of Norwegians and says 'Norwegian scum should be taught a lesson', people might back away a little, but it's not much threat. But vice-versa, if a Norwegian says 'Swedish scum should be taught a lesson', then it's a very threatening situation to the Swede. (I'm picking two groups which, as far as I know, have little real-world animosity.)

nicoburns 5y ago

It's about the implied world view. If you think black people or gay people are inferior then that's obviously a really harmful attitude to have (and one that has a long history of causing severe injustices to people on those groups). Is calling someone a "fucking idiot" even any more offensive than just calling them an idiot? I don't see why.

prepend 5y ago
In the case of blasphemy, many think that religious people are inferior. I’ve talked with many athiests who think all theists are stupid. And I’ve talked with members of Religion X who think members of Religion Y are inferior. So from a world view perspective, someone saying “Jesus Christ, you’re an idiot” would be part of an inferior perspective on people who think that blasphemy shouldn’t be done. I think this is different from profanity, but I’ve worked with people who thought use of the “F word” was so offensive they would feel uncomfortable working with people who say such things. I think it comes down to those views as not being reasonable, but everyone agreeing that being offended by racial slurs as being reasonable. So it’s unreasonable to ever use hate speech, but it’s reasonable to use blasphemy and profanity.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > someone saying “Jesus Christ, you’re an idiot” would be part of an inferior perspective on people who think that blasphemy shouldn’t be done. As an important nuance, if the speaker knows that someone will be offended, I think it assumes the views of the offended person are unimportant. That's different, though not necessarily any less bad, than seeing that person as inferior. I can't anticipate everything that will offend anyone. But if I know someone is offended by something, I certainly want to respect them as people and avoid saying it. If I know someone is of a certain religion, I'd avoid saying anything about it that I wasn't sure of. > I think it comes down to those views as not being reasonable, but everyone agreeing that being offended by racial slurs as being reasonable. There's hate speech against religions too, and that's as verboten as hate speech against racial groups. In fact, for a moment I considered using an example of religious hate speech, but that would be completely inappropriate (and rightfully so, IMHO). Blasphemy is a different matter than hate speech.

wolverine876 5y ago

> Profanity (and blasphemy) is offensive to tons of people, arguably more than are offended by hate speech. But profanity is tolerated in many communities where hate speech is not. That overlooks the degree of offense and threat. Some things are far more offensive and threatening than others. Clearly, hate speech is exceptionally offensive and threatening to many people. Fuck. Shit. Asshole. My writing these words is rude, but has little impact. Even if I stuck them into my comments ('the fucking interface ...'), it would just be a little rude. Hate speech can be a personal attack. Also, hate speech is often tied to power: If a powerful group uses hate speech against a vulnerable one, it can represent a serious threat: Humanity's history of the powerful abusing the vulnerable is long and terrible, and hate speech indicates, often intentionally, the willingness or intention to carry out such acts.

prepend 5y ago
Yes, and the issue is the level of offense and threat. My curiosity is why a web site would think that it’s ok for people to be offended by “God dammit” but not by “[racial slur].” I’m not really offended by profanity or blasphemy, but many are. So I don’t think it’s based on number of people offended. I think I understand why hate speech is particularly dangerous, but it seems funny that other offensive speech is deemed acceptable. For example, HN allows profanity and blasphemy but not racial slurs (whether targeted or not).
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > I’m not really offended by profanity or blasphemy, but many are. > it seems funny that other offensive speech is deemed acceptable. For example, HN allows profanity and blasphemy ... I'm interested to know what your experiences are with this? I don't recall seeing a complaint about blasphemy in an Internet forum. However, I haven't quite yet read the entire Internet ... What blasphemy is on HN? I could imagine statements that unknowingly violate a theological tenant - for example, to some using the word beginning G... for the monotheistic deity is blasphemous [edit: to some religions] (which, given the circumstances, I'll avoid). But I am not aware of any knowing blasphemy - there is so little religion here that it's not even an issue. Hate speech directed at a religion would (or should) be outside the guidelines, but that's regardless of the blasphemy of it.

unparagoned 5y ago

I would have said that profanity is fairly low on the offensive scale, and hate speech is on a completely different level. The number impacted is not really relevant.

permo-w 5y ago

Well generally race-based insults have a far greater emotional impact. The words themselves have to arise from somewhere, and usually it will be from somewhere or something or somewhen very meaningful for the race being insulted