3 ms·

Hard to see how this won't slide down the slippery slope of banning all "offensive" content...at what point do you say we are OK with this particular group bein

by smegel 13y ago

Hard to see how this won't slide down the slippery slope of banning all "offensive" content...at what point do you say we are OK with this particular group being offended but not others? Perhaps when the mainstream media starts agitating over it...

lowboy 13y ago
At least you invoked the name of the logical fallacy. And it's more than just offense in this case. Sexual assault is a very serious and terrible thing to have happen. Joking about it legitimizes and normalizes it, contributing to incidents. I imagine it's the same thing as with hate speech: it could prompt acts of violence toward people of the targeted group.
- spindritf 13y ago
  > Sexual assault is a very serious Are videos where people actually get hurt[1], not just their feelings, also banned from Facebook? Or are those less serious? I heave heard this claim that rape jokes somehow contribute to the prevalence of the problem. Is there any empirical proof for that? [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNuaaPoLu1Q&t=44s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNuaaPoLu1Q&t=44s (unpleasant to watch)
  - adamors 13y ago
    >I heave heard this claim that rape jokes somehow contribute to the prevalence of the problem. Is there any empirical proof for that? Are you seriours, how would you even attempt to prove something like that? Funny that everyone agrees that overtly racist/anti-semitic (and recently) homophobic images on social sites are wrong, but banning rape jokes is somehow taking things too far.
    - jiggy2011 13y ago
      You can think something is wrong without necessarily seeking to ban it.
    - spindritf 13y ago
      > how would you even attempt to prove something like that? How do we measure whether access to pornography increases the number of sexual assaults? We rely on the natural experiments: measure the consumption of pornography in the area and correlate it with crime rates. For more reliable results, we look at changes in time, or control for other factors. > images on social sites are wrong I don't use Facebook and they can ban whatever they want. The more stuff they ban, the quicker will their grip on the web fade. What I find weird is the disconnect from physical reality. Speech that makes people uncomfortable is banned but videos showing people being assaulted, hit with a plank are not? Or are they?
- smegel 13y ago
  And sincere discussions of alternative political systems could lead to another Stalin/Mao/Hitler. Criticizing Islam might lead to another holocaust. At what point do you let people share ideas freely without holding them responsible for what "might happen"? When can a joke "just be a joke"?
  - lowboy 13y ago
    A joke with "tape her and rape her" is not a sincere discussion. People posting on Facebook is a privilege granted at the sole discretion of Facebook, it's not a right. While I support free speech, it's completely at FB's discretion as to whether or not content is acceptable. Also, this could help you: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope
egillie 13y ago
Whenever I start to worry about this I remember that Canada has laws against hate speech http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada but doesn't seem to have slipped down any slopes.
- smegel 13y ago
  So does Australia...you might want to look up the case of Andrew Bolt, a journalist who was convicted over making flippant remarks about indigenous Australians. Many consider this case to be a prime example of excessive application of hate speech laws against speech that was clearly not "hateful".
  - egillie 13y ago
    Interesting, it looks like Australian law also forbids speech that is "reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people". That's going a bit further than the "inciting hatred" standard Canada uses....and yeah, seems very abuse-able.
omd 13y ago
Trying to keep a certain level of civil discourse on a social website is not a slippery slope. Banning rape jokes is not a slippery slope. For as long as I can remember Facebook has had the option to report posts about: - Hate speech or symbol - Spam or scam - Graphic violence - Drug use - Nudity or pornography That is not trampling the First Amendment. There are plenty of other hate forums where people who are afraid of a slippery slope can freely enjoy and share rape jokes.
- theorique 13y ago
  That is not trampling the First Amendment. Correct - that only refers to prohibition of government censorship. I suspect that Facebook wants to keep things "nice" (for some value of "nice") so that the advertisers won't get spooked away and they can continue on their trajectory of world domination. The trouble is that not every user, advertiser, or activist group agrees on what is "nice", or at least "permissible".

by smegel 13y ago

lowboy 13y ago

At least you invoked the name of the logical fallacy. And it's more than just offense in this case. Sexual assault is a very serious and terrible thing to have happen. Joking about it legitimizes and normalizes it, contributing to incidents. I imagine it's the same thing as with hate speech: it could prompt acts of violence toward people of the targeted group.

spindritf 13y ago
> Sexual assault is a very serious Are videos where people actually get hurt[1], not just their feelings, also banned from Facebook? Or are those less serious? I heave heard this claim that rape jokes somehow contribute to the prevalence of the problem. Is there any empirical proof for that? [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNuaaPoLu1Q&t=44s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNuaaPoLu1Q&t=44s (unpleasant to watch)
- adamors 13y ago
  >I heave heard this claim that rape jokes somehow contribute to the prevalence of the problem. Is there any empirical proof for that? Are you seriours, how would you even attempt to prove something like that? Funny that everyone agrees that overtly racist/anti-semitic (and recently) homophobic images on social sites are wrong, but banning rape jokes is somehow taking things too far.
  - jiggy2011 13y ago
    You can think something is wrong without necessarily seeking to ban it.
  - spindritf 13y ago
    > how would you even attempt to prove something like that? How do we measure whether access to pornography increases the number of sexual assaults? We rely on the natural experiments: measure the consumption of pornography in the area and correlate it with crime rates. For more reliable results, we look at changes in time, or control for other factors. > images on social sites are wrong I don't use Facebook and they can ban whatever they want. The more stuff they ban, the quicker will their grip on the web fade. What I find weird is the disconnect from physical reality. Speech that makes people uncomfortable is banned but videos showing people being assaulted, hit with a plank are not? Or are they?
smegel 13y ago
And sincere discussions of alternative political systems could lead to another Stalin/Mao/Hitler. Criticizing Islam might lead to another holocaust. At what point do you let people share ideas freely without holding them responsible for what "might happen"? When can a joke "just be a joke"?
- lowboy 13y ago
  A joke with "tape her and rape her" is not a sincere discussion. People posting on Facebook is a privilege granted at the sole discretion of Facebook, it's not a right. While I support free speech, it's completely at FB's discretion as to whether or not content is acceptable. Also, this could help you: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

egillie 13y ago

Whenever I start to worry about this I remember that Canada has laws against hate speech http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech_laws_in_Canada but doesn't seem to have slipped down any slopes.

smegel 13y ago
So does Australia...you might want to look up the case of Andrew Bolt, a journalist who was convicted over making flippant remarks about indigenous Australians. Many consider this case to be a prime example of excessive application of hate speech laws against speech that was clearly not "hateful".
- egillie 13y ago
  Interesting, it looks like Australian law also forbids speech that is "reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people". That's going a bit further than the "inciting hatred" standard Canada uses....and yeah, seems very abuse-able.

omd 13y ago

Trying to keep a certain level of civil discourse on a social website is not a slippery slope. Banning rape jokes is not a slippery slope. For as long as I can remember Facebook has had the option to report posts about: - Hate speech or symbol - Spam or scam - Graphic violence - Drug use - Nudity or pornography That is not trampling the First Amendment. There are plenty of other hate forums where people who are afraid of a slippery slope can freely enjoy and share rape jokes.

theorique 13y ago
That is not trampling the First Amendment. Correct - that only refers to prohibition of government censorship. I suspect that Facebook wants to keep things "nice" (for some value of "nice") so that the advertisers won't get spooked away and they can continue on their trajectory of world domination. The trouble is that not every user, advertiser, or activist group agrees on what is "nice", or at least "permissible".