Page 5 | "Hate Speech" on MumsNet

AmaryllisNightAndDay · 2022-09-10T10:18:39+00:00

Has anyone else noticed that when we report a post, one of the buttons to give a reason for the report is now "Hate Speech"? I have raised this on Site Stuff because I find the term really disturbing. And I'm raising it here because isn't this the term that's used by the police to harrass gender critical women?

ImNotAnExpert · 14/09/2022 11:20

AmaryllisNightAndDay I'd be happy to, but I can't find the relevant thread?

ArabellaScott · 14/09/2022 11:23

Oh, wait, found it. It's me, by the way, I'm as good at name changes as I am at most tech stuff.

Original poster

AmaryllisNightAndDay · 14/09/2022 11:28

Thanks @ArabellaScott

OP posts:

DdraigGoch · 14/09/2022 11:30

WiseUpJanetWeiss · 12/09/2022 10:30

Is there a reason you have omitted sex from this list?

Show quote history

And added "gender identity", even though the term has no real significance.

DdraigGoch · 14/09/2022 11:42

Brefugee · 13/09/2022 08:45

I'm ok with having Hate Speech as a category. I am hoping that MN use the reports, and how to check if they should be upheld or not, as part of ongoing training and statistics to be used internally by them to build a picture of who is using the site and what for.

I reported a post the other day for something in the title. I got a reply that it was being looked at but nothing further and i did see that they changed nothing. That is entirely up to MN but i would have appreciated a quick reply as to why (unless that post has now been zapped, i forgot to check)

If people think that a group, say TRAs, or MRAs are coming here and indulging in hate speech the best BEST BEST thing to do, surely, is to report it to MN.

Because that way it a) adds to their statistics 2) potentially zaps the post and iii) if not you can decide if you think MN is still the place for you (and then if not tell them why you're going)

Many on here feel that it's better if those posts are left to stand. Sunlight and all that. If you censor things you give them an excuse to pose as victims. Remember Nick Griffin? The BBC got a load of flack for having him on Question Time, loads of people thought that he shouldn't be allowed to speak. After the episode his popularity collapsed, people saw him for who he really was. It's much better to let the posts be judged openly.

TheBiologyStupid · 14/09/2022 11:45

DdraigGoch · 14/09/2022 11:42

Many on here feel that it's better if those posts are left to stand. Sunlight and all that. If you censor things you give them an excuse to pose as victims. Remember Nick Griffin? The BBC got a load of flack for having him on Question Time, loads of people thought that he shouldn't be allowed to speak. After the episode his popularity collapsed, people saw him for who he really was. It's much better to let the posts be judged openly.

Show quote history

Absolutely agreed, unless the post is illegally defamatory etc.

ImNotAnExpert · 14/09/2022 11:47

If it's illegal and defamatory it is anyway, regardless of any 'hate speech' angle.

DdraigGoch · 14/09/2022 11:53

beastlyslumber · 13/09/2022 12:42

Offensive to whom, though? Not being offended isn't a right.

MangyInseam · 14/09/2022 12:28

Ofcourseshecan · 12/09/2022 09:43

Brilliant bit of straw-man nonsense here! An utterly pointless bit of posturing — is any Mumsnetter likely to say “ns should be killed” etc? Has this ever happened on Mumsnet?

But the point becomes clear in the last line: yet another attempt to exploit gender critical feminism as a trojan horse for far right extremism and white supremacy

Yup, it’s that funny US transactivist concept that women defending their rights are far-right nutters. And we’re all white supremacists, including the numerous women of colour who have fought for our rights in court cases recently.

Show quote history

Where did you pick up the idea that disagreeing with hate speech legislation, or thinking the concept of hate speech is altogether too spongy, is "far right"?

That kind of thinking is a serious problem. It's what's killing the left.

MangyInseam · 14/09/2022 12:43

I think "offensive" could work as a button if they clearly signposted what it would include. So, things like slurs, illegal stuff like threats, and so on.

I have no real issue with a site deciding that they want that kind of language out. I used to post on a site that didn't allow swearing, it really wasn't an impediment to talking about anything you wanted to. In a lot of ways it meant there was a more diverse group of posters.

But hate speech is such a problematic concept. I totally agree with whomever said it should have been pushed back against more when these laws were being passed. The thing is, it was by a lot of conservatives who pointed out the conflicts with free speech and freedom of belief, the left just accused them of being bigots. The seeds of what we see now were starting to grow then.

AlienatedChildGrown · 14/09/2022 13:27

MangyInseam · 14/09/2022 12:43

I think "offensive" could work as a button if they clearly signposted what it would include. So, things like slurs, illegal stuff like threats, and so on.

I have no real issue with a site deciding that they want that kind of language out. I used to post on a site that didn't allow swearing, it really wasn't an impediment to talking about anything you wanted to. In a lot of ways it meant there was a more diverse group of posters.

But hate speech is such a problematic concept. I totally agree with whomever said it should have been pushed back against more when these laws were being passed. The thing is, it was by a lot of conservatives who pointed out the conflicts with free speech and freedom of belief, the left just accused them of being bigots. The seeds of what we see now were starting to grow then.

That was me, on the left when it started, chuntering at objections cos … Evil Tories.

I’m not in Edith Piaffe’s Tribe

I never engaged with the arguments, I just looked at the sides, pro was the Goodies (team lefty nicey), against was the Baddies (team right wing bastards) so I swallowed my own teams arguments wholesale cos. I wanted to be a Goodie, not a Baddie.

In my defence I was at least 22 years younger then. But still should have been more internally honest about what fuelled my opinions.

MangyInseam · 14/09/2022 13:59

AlienatedChildGrown

I didn't think of it that way, I never fit into a political box, but I did think "Nah, people would never be that silly. "

I really did not understand that the slippery slope is a thing that happens, and these days a lot faster than it used to.

I now tend to believe that if an idea could take us to a bad place, it almost certainly will.

AlienatedChildGrown · 14/09/2022 15:23

MangyInseam · 14/09/2022 13:59

AlienatedChildGrown

I didn't think of it that way, I never fit into a political box, but I did think "Nah, people would never be that silly. "

I really did not understand that the slippery slope is a thing that happens, and these days a lot faster than it used to.

I now tend to believe that if an idea could take us to a bad place, it almost certainly will.

Agreed. I have revised my position on the slippery slope fallacy.

It needs to be be deleted from the fallacy list. Or at least be marked with an asterisk, and a note (*please see Trans Rights Activists early 21stC before decrying opposing argument as fallacious)

MangyInseam · 15/09/2022 02:18

You will be glad to know that it isn't a logical fallacy as such! It's more that if someone argues the slippery slope, it may not be a slam dunk - it does not always follow that it will happen. So you need to make a further argument or show evidence that it is likely.

NecessaryScene · 15/09/2022 06:54

Agreed. I have revised my position on the slippery slope fallacy.

I call it the "slippery slope fallacy" fallacy: the naive belief that A definitely won't lead to B. A might not inevitably lead to B in every case - and hence be an actual "slippery slope" - but it could still happen in our case! Possibly because someone's pushing...

Regardless, A potentially being a step or prerequisite for B cannot be a clinching argument against A, unless B truly necessarily or logically follows from A. If A is the right thing to do in isolation, you do have to argue it on its merits, then hold the line against B.

But you also need to apply cost-benefit analysis. How much benefit is there in A. If it's something like "gay marriage", then clearly it's a huge benefit to many. If it's something like "normalising kink" or "drag queen story hour", then it's rather hard to spot the benefit.

SapphireSeptember · 19/09/2022 00:13

Discovereads · 12/09/2022 08:44

Identity in this context is referring to the characteristics that make a person or group different from others.

So an identity based insult would be calling an Arabic person a “towel head” as part of what marks out an Arabic person is the keffiyeh they wear. Classic identity based insults also include “limey” referring to English habit of ensuring sailors ate limes or had a dose of lime cordial to prevent scurvy (the science was unknown and other nations thought we were ridiculous). And another is “Frog” for the French obviously from the fact the French ate frogs legs…ie something different about them that is used as an insult toward them.

There’s no list, but they’re all wrong and shouldn’t be used. There are tons of lists and examples online of hate speech. StopHate is a good place to start if you genuinely want to understand hate speech better.

Show quote history

That's as clear as mud then. 🙄 Limey is wrong and shouldn't be used? I didn't realise it was an insult! More an observation that we used limes to treat a terrible disease. But okay then...

MangyInseam · 19/09/2022 01:20

NecessaryScene · 15/09/2022 06:54

Agreed. I have revised my position on the slippery slope fallacy.

I call it the "slippery slope fallacy" fallacy: the naive belief that A definitely won't lead to B. A might not inevitably lead to B in every case - and hence be an actual "slippery slope" - but it could still happen in our case! Possibly because someone's pushing...

Regardless, A potentially being a step or prerequisite for B cannot be a clinching argument against A, unless B truly necessarily or logically follows from A. If A is the right thing to do in isolation, you do have to argue it on its merits, then hold the line against B.

But you also need to apply cost-benefit analysis. How much benefit is there in A. If it's something like "gay marriage", then clearly it's a huge benefit to many. If it's something like "normalising kink" or "drag queen story hour", then it's rather hard to spot the benefit.

I wonder though - what if you can't hold the line?

Here in Canada we have had a recent scandal around assisted death, which is legal here. This was a fairly recent change, and brought in with all kinds of safeguards against abuse in the legislation.

As soon as it was passed two things started happening. The bodies that had pushed for the law began to come out with emotive stories to the public about how these safeguards caused situations where people were not able to access this "right."

And then they took some of these instances before the courts, to argue that these safeguards were in fact illegal - if people had the right to choose to die, you couldn't deny it on grounds of things like mental illness. So that law changed.

We now have documented cases where people have pursued assisted death because they couldn't stand the idea of being locked into a care home if there was another covid lockdown, or where someone thought it was a good idea to suggest assisted death to a person looking for help with persistent depression. The latter not strictly speaking a change in regulation but clearly indicated some change in what people feel about the nature of what makes a life worthwhile.

Anyway - to sum up - I increasingly wonder if it's always possible to get a grip on whether a thing is right on it's merits, without understanding that making that change will fundamentally change the way people think, and they will then follow that change to it's logical conclusions.

At this point I'm also not very sure that any of the big social changes of the last 60 years included that kind of long term projection.

ArabellaScott · 19/09/2022 08:04

Maybe that's what happened in Holland, where a very young depressed woman was approved for euthanasia. Very sad. And quite frightening given so many possible routes to asking to be euthanised.

ImherewithBoudica · 19/09/2022 10:08

MangyInseam · 19/09/2022 01:20

I wonder though - what if you can't hold the line?

Here in Canada we have had a recent scandal around assisted death, which is legal here. This was a fairly recent change, and brought in with all kinds of safeguards against abuse in the legislation.

As soon as it was passed two things started happening. The bodies that had pushed for the law began to come out with emotive stories to the public about how these safeguards caused situations where people were not able to access this "right."

And then they took some of these instances before the courts, to argue that these safeguards were in fact illegal - if people had the right to choose to die, you couldn't deny it on grounds of things like mental illness. So that law changed.

We now have documented cases where people have pursued assisted death because they couldn't stand the idea of being locked into a care home if there was another covid lockdown, or where someone thought it was a good idea to suggest assisted death to a person looking for help with persistent depression. The latter not strictly speaking a change in regulation but clearly indicated some change in what people feel about the nature of what makes a life worthwhile.

Anyway - to sum up - I increasingly wonder if it's always possible to get a grip on whether a thing is right on it's merits, without understanding that making that change will fundamentally change the way people think, and they will then follow that change to it's logical conclusions.

At this point I'm also not very sure that any of the big social changes of the last 60 years included that kind of long term projection.

Show quote history

This is why strong boundaries are required. They will disadvantage a small minority, perhaps tragically, but they are required for the protection of the majority who cannot be sacrificed in the hope of meeting the needs of that small minority in the context of a lot of collateral damage.

In short: it's been repeatedly demonstrated. Give an inch; there are bad actors who will snatch a mile and then work on the next mile, it will always be the salami tactics of gaining the next slice. Such people need strong, immoveable boundaries for the protection of everyone else.

Rediscovering boundaries and the word 'no' is going to play a large part in the pendulum swinging back. And it will probably swing further back than any of us would have wished because of those who had to push as far as they could for a whole range of agendas, a lot of them personal agendas with no capacity for real care for others or society as a whole.

Ereshkigalangcleg · 20/09/2022 10:14

That's very interesting, MangyInseam.

It reminds me of the endgame of allowing male trans people to compete in female sport (and other things but most visible with sport). There can't be any safeguards or minimum testosterone levels when you accept that TWAW and that all "women" have the right to not be discriminated against. The whole lie has caused this.