Hate speech in a PDF from Son?

Satori said:So basically, being called hypocrites in every single post is totally fine... right? And since you clearly agree with it, you’re just tossing it out there like a plain old fact instead of an insult... good to know.

redmarlin3 said:Sorry, but I can't go around punishing people just for expressing an opinion. Calling someone a "hypocrite" isn't an insult like calling them an "idiot," a "scumbag," or some other trashy slur. Being a hypocrite is just a trait—you either have it or you don't. It's like trying to penalize someone for saying someone else is narrow-minded or mean. For crying out loud.

Besides, I can't punish something as an insult if it isn't even directed at anyone.

A sentence like "I think Mexicans are a hypocritical, evil, and ugly people" (just exaggerating here) IS NOT AN INSULT. Get it through your heads. If you happen to be a Mexican and you feel personally attacked by that (again, just an example), then tough luck.

My heart breaks every time someone writes that punks are narrow-minded stenches, so what? ☕

I've wiped out all the baiting from both sides, so please stop pushing this because you'll get appropriately rewarded for it.

Joseph Watson3, especially you. 😠

Look, I gotta say, redmarlin3's response above—which was aimed at the now-banned user Satori—really caught me off guard.
Seriously though, isn't that bold statement actually hate speech?
If any random user posted something like that in a sub like Religion or Politics, wouldn't they be slapped with a 500-point penalty?
(And here I was thinking calling someone a "hypocrite" was an insult punishable by 40 points. 😕)

Could redmarlin3 or anyone else on the admin team be so kind as to explain what exactly I'm failing to grasp here?

Thanks in advance.

Maybe Mexicans wouldn't react that way, but if you swapped that term out for something like certain other groups, you’d probably see a massive outcry from hundreds of people. There's absolutely no doubt that what was said was offensive...🙄🙄

I honestly don't think Satori deserved the ban... but hey, I guess someone else knows better than I do🤷...

Kate Fisher73 said:I’ve been sitting here thinking about this whole situation, and honestly, I can’t help but feel like we’re just spinning our wheels. It feels like everyone is shouting at once, but nobody is actually listening to the logic behind the arguments. We keep circling back to the same tired grievances, acting as if we haven't heard these exact points a thousand times before. It’s funny, really. You see people like Kate Fisher73 jumping into the fray, trying to make sense of things, while others just want to stir the pot for the sake of it. And then there's Roger Robinson682, who always seems to have an opinion on how things *should* have gone, even when the reality on the ground is completely different. It’s exhausting to watch... Look, let's be blunt. We can sit here and debate the finer points of policy or history all day long, but if we don't address the fundamental disconnect in how we view our own country, nothing is going to change. We’re too busy looking for scapegoats instead of looking in the mirror. It’s a pattern. A predictable, frustrating pattern that we seem to repeat every few years... I mean, look at the way certain groups handle dissent. It isn't about finding common ground anymore; it's about winning the argument at any cost. Even when someone like Joseph Watson3 tries to bring some semblance of order to the discussion, it just gets swallowed up by the noise. It’s almost impressive how quickly a productive conversation turns into a shouting match... Anyway, I suppose that's just how it goes sometimes. We talk, we argue, we pretend we've made progress, and then we wake up the next morning to find ourselves right back where we started. It makes you wonder if anyone actually wants a solution, or if we're all just addicted to the conflict itself...

I have to say, I’m pretty blindsided by that response from redmarlin3. It’s especially wild considering it was directed at Satori, who isn't even allowed on the platform anymore...
So, I have to ask... isn't that bolded sentence right there actually hate speech?
Wouldn't anyone posting about stuff like Religion or Politics on a PDF be slapped with a 500-point penalty... right?
And I actually sat there wondering if calling someone a "hypocrite" counts as an insult... you know, like something that could get me flagged for 45 points... 😕)

Would redmarlin3 or anyone else on the admin team be kind enough to explain exactly where my comprehension is failing me?

Thanks in advance...

I can't even begin to wrap my head around this... It’s just one thing after another lately, isn't it? Every time I think we've hit rock bottom, someone decides to dig a little deeper... anyway, where was I? Right. Sentence 1...

I honestly think Mexicans are just a mean-spirited and unpleasant people, and I don't have any love for them.

Sentence 2:

I honestly think Mexicans are just a bad, hateful people, and in my opinion, they ought to be wiped out...

Here’s a million-dollar question: where exactly do we draw the line between free speech and actual hate speech?

Let's go, let's go! 👋 [applause]

So, you're actually suggesting you'd go around sanctioning someone else? Honestly... Just my two cents...?
Look, I’m sorry, but... Whatever... everyone's just talking at once... The truth about this world is that... He just doesn't like Mexicans...Or anyone else, really...
Expressing a desire for specific action is one thing, and actually doing it is another... just look at the way sentence two is structured.

Another one...

I don't really see "hypocrite" as an insult. Honestly, if I can say something to my friends or my boyfriend with the intention of calling them out—without worrying they're going to take it personally or fly off the handle—then it isn't an insult to me. Calling someone "stupid" or "ugly"... yeah, that’s an insult. But "hypocrite"? To me, that's just on par with calling someone "narrow-minded." It’s more of a plain observation than anything else...
I can't wrap my head around why anyone would even think about sanctioning the word "hypocrite"... Especially... If you aren't actually calling out a specific individual, but instead you're taking aim at a certain group of people...

Look, I don't take it personally when people drop lines like "women are just gold diggers," or "punks are brainless and smell bad," or even that nonsense about how "thin women are just hysterical and cold." It doesn't move the needle for me. So, honestly, I couldn't care less if someone takes offense to me saying "vegetarians are hypocrites." It’s all just noise...

I'm not even going after that whole "carnivores are killers" thing, you know...

I hope I managed to get my point across to you... It’s like there’s this massive gap in how people actually process things... a total breakdown in basic comprehension. It's getting harder and harder to have a coherent conversation when half the people you're talking to seem to be operating on a completely different frequency. You lay out a point, clear and simple, and they just... miss it. They grab onto some tiny, irrelevant detail and run with it, ignoring the actual substance of what was said. It’s frustrating, honestly. It feels less like a disagreement and more like a fundamental inability to follow a logical thread... which makes everything feel like an uphill battle..

Roger Robinson682 said:Maybe they wouldn't mind if you just swapped out the word "Mexican" for something like "Muslim" or some other group... throw in a few hundred insults and nobody really dies from it. And yeah, if you're asking whether this is offensive? There's absolutely no doubt about it...🙄🙄

Who even are you, who invited you here, and why on earth are you sticking your nose in my business?... ☕

Raymond Anderson4 said:I don't think Satori deserved the ban... but hey, I guess someone out there knows better than I do🤷...

Satori just got screwed over by some tenth-tier moderator for some tenth-tier reason. Her ban has absolutely nothing to do with the controversial topic itself, especially since she didn't even get a warning on it.

And yeah, you're damn right someone knows better than you. 😁

Come on, people. It’s a beautiful day outside; do you seriously have nothing better to do than troll this forum? 🙄 Because these last two posts haven't been anything else.

Lock this thread, please.

redmarlin3 said:I suppose I’ve managed to point out your little perceptual flaws.

Who even are you, who gave you the authority, and why on earth are you sticking your nose in here? ☕

My apologies, Your Highness; I wasn't aware such topics were off-limits.
God, the sheer arrogance of it all...🙄🙄🙄

Roger Robinson682 said:Oh, my apologies, Your Highness... I didn't realize that was forbidden.
God, the sheer arrogance of this guy...🙄🙄🙄

Since you have exactly zero—that's Z-E-R-O—posts on that specific subforum, there really isn't any reason for you to be chiming in on anything happening there.

redmarlin3 said:Since you have exactly zero posts on that particular subforum, I suppose there really isn't any reason for you to be inserting yourself into anything related to it.

I wasn't even talking about "your" specific subforum; I was referring to this section entirely...

Kate Fisher73 said:I mean, wouldn't you say that the bolded sentence actually qualifies as hate speech?
I wonder if anyone has considered whether we should implement a policy where any user who decides to steer a discussion toward topics like religion or politics would be slapped with a 500-point penalty. It seems like it might be a reasonable way to handle things, though I suppose that’s just my two cents.

I was merely pointing out that if this were happening within the realm of politics, you’d probably be looking at a 500-point penalty. I had absolutely no intention of commenting on you specifically, nor was I trying to take aim at your little sub-forum...🙄🙄

There is absolutely zero hate speech or biased moderation happening here on Son—not at all! Just look at these beautiful examples of tolerance and acceptance:

Joseph Watson3 said:It’s perfectly justified to slap someone. Even under US law, it isn't defined as violent behavior or anything of that sort; it's just an insult that could potentially lead to a civil suit, nothing criminal. So, a slap is a totally appropriate response to some boring vegan's moralizing. 👍

Now, putting sarcasm aside for a second. Making broad generalizations by slapping negative labels onto an entire group of people based on one shared trait—whether that's their nationality, their religion, or even just being a vegetarian is hate speech, no matter how hard redmarlin3 tries to twist the definition or wrap it up in "freedom of speech."

Kate Murphy40 said:Setting aside the sarcasm for a second—applying negative labels to an entire group based on a single shared trait (whether it’s nationality, religion, or being a vegetarian) is hate speech, regardless of how much redmarlin3 tries to spin the definition or wrap it up in "freedom of speech."

How so? When you go around calling people murderers just because they eat meat—which is factually incorrect, since murder is specifically the illegal taking of a life—then nobody cares. But the moment someone calls out that hypocrisy, suddenly it's "hate speech." 🤣🤣

What’s next? Is calling Americans overweight considered hate speech? Even if you back it up with NIH statistics? 😁

On the linked thread, I called certain poultry enthusiasts hypocrites, and I backed it up quite thoroughly—which moves it out of the realm of mere insult (assuming an insult is even possible here).

As for the resident crybaby—with an ego the size of a Graf Zeppelin and the sensitivity of a snowflake on the equator who started this thread—I won't be wasting any more detailed comments on them this time. 😁

redmarlin3, I honestly find it hilarious how you basically don't get flagged for anything, yet—and look, I spent twelve years in that special education program back in Central Park😲—they drilled this into my head: hate speech is any talk targeting someone based on their race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, or even just attacking specific groups in a way that could spark hatred or some kind of aggression.

Both examples you brought up fit that definition of hate speech perfectly.

As for the rest of your post... sorry, but I’m not even going to touch it because your logic is all over the place when you try to explain what counts as an insult—I’m assuming it’s just a lack of focus or maybe you were just rushing to reply.

Anyway, even though I totally disagree with you regarding those "controversial" sentences, thanks for getting back to me regardless.

Can some other moderator please answer my question?
because
I’d love to just put "I think Mexicans are a hypocritical, evil, and ugly people" in my signature and then dive into high-level debates in the Politics subforum without getting slapped with a seven-day ban.

(I'm asking because I'm genuinely trying to follow the rules here, which—for some reason, probably due to my poor circulation or whatever—are still a bit fuzzy to me. Then again, maybe the problem is just that special school training.)

Kate Fisher73, you’re dragging us straight back into some dark, medieval era of censorship and punishing people just for having an opinion, no matter how much you try to sugarcoat it. 😁

Look, let me be clear—that kind of thing doesn't fly with me. 🙂

Let them hate Mexicans if they want to! 👋

And since you didn't say a single word regarding that vegan post about how meat-eaters are nothing but immoral killers, I reckon you are... (take a guess)....hypocritical! :klap:

Look, I’ll admit it—I’m a hypocrite. A massive, biblical-scale hypocrite. People have been more than happy to lay that out for me right here on this forum, and honestly, they explained it way better than you ever could!
I’m bad, I’m ugly, I’m the whole package. But hey, maybe that’s just because I’m a Mexican? 😕

Anyway, don't come at me with that censorship nonsense. Sure, I’m a hardline opponent of drug addiction, nationalism, racism, and all those other "isms" that clutter up the world, but that’s a different story. 😁

As it happens, a user going by N'Dug—whom my own retarded brain somehow thinks is a total genius—just got slapped with 500 points for hate speech after claiming he thinks Canadians have a bandit mentality. See?

(And that little comment you made—"Let's make sure they don't love Mexicans!"—is so incredibly condescending it actually gives me a headache. 😵)

Kate Fisher73 said:Can some other board member please answer me?
because
I’m honestly thinking about putting "I think Mexicans are a hypocritical, evil, and ugly people" right in my signature, just so I can jump into high-level debates over on the Politics subforum without getting slapped with a seven-day ban immediately after.

Sure you can.

On Son, that wouldn't even count as hate speech. If you said it on Politics, maybe they'd give you grief. On the General Discussion board, nobody gives a damn about Mexicans. Over on Tech, you'd get banned for being off-topic, not for hate speech. It’s clearly stated in the FAQ that every single subforum has its own set of rules—it's pretty straightforward. What goes in one doesn't necessarily apply to the others. Plus, mods moderate their own sections however they see fit.

Best,