“Hate-based racism”, “sexism”, and “hateful speech” are ambiguous and contingent
(I know this document is WIP and for now just a draft, but I want to leave a trace somewhere and kick off discussion [perhaps])
To my taste, this single line is the most important sentence in the 11-page-long document:
“Hate-based racism, sexism, and other hateful speech [are strictly forbidden on all instances within the UFI], but generally unpopular opinions voiced respectfully will be fine”
But those “acts” are ambiguous and debatable. Specifically:
- Does that mean that “racism” that is not “hate-based” is acceptable? (What does that “type” of racism look like?)
- Is it “sexist” to say that men are more competitive than women?
Is it “hateful”? - Is it “sexist” to say that women are getting better grades because they are smarter?
Because men don't work as hard in school?
Is it “hateful”? - Is it “sexist” to link (verbatim and without further commentary) to a blog post by Scientific American reviewing the literature on differences in personality traits between men and women? (On that Mastodon instance, I was privately given an “only warning” for “spreading sexist misinformation” for doing precisely that.)
- Is it “racist” to oppose affirmative action?
To call for more white players in the NBA?
To quote Charles Murray on political matters?
To quote Charles Murray on French architecture of the 19th Century? - Is it forbidden to publicly say that one hates any specific individual, group, institution or idea (“hateful speech”)?
To say “I hate Buddhism”?
To say “I hate religion”?
To say “I hate Gary Ridgway”?
To say “I REALLY hate all people who go camping and litter nature”?
To say “I hate the Tories”?
To say “I hate racists”? (ie, hating the haters)
To me, if we (the Fediverse, the internet, humanity) could converge in definitions and boundaries for all that, this document would be one page long.