Please clarify the rules about what is "hateful"
 

Regarding the thread about LGBT adoptions that was locked recently:

With all due respect, I don't see what was hateful about it. It was very carefully worded from my side and, in my opinion, not the slightest disrespectful to homosexuals. It seems to me that it's simply not allowed to say anything that's politically incorrect here.

If someone is allowed to post a thread about LGBT adoptions, then people must be allowed to have dissenting opinions. Otherwise everyone will just sit around and agree with each other, and then what is the point of discussing it?

You also state that the topic could not be discussed in a civil manner. There was no flaming. How was it not civil?

It's your forum (and I think it's very useful to Linux / BSD users) so I will of course respect that, and only comment on purely technical topics from now on. But maybe you should clarify exactly what you mean by "hateful" in the rules.

Further, I don't think defending free speech reflects poorly on Linux users or LinuxQuestions. Freedom of expression means that people are allowed to communicate ideas that you don't like. By the way, that's a human right too. ;-)

I sincerely apologize for getting the thread locked. You could just have told me to stop discussing it and I would have obeyed. You didn't have to lock the thread. If you re-open it so other people can discuss it, then I promise to stay out of it (feel free to delete my contributions to it; I tried to edit my posts but I see I'm no longer able to, I guess too much time has elapsed). I didn't mean to be disruptive, and I am sorry if I offended anyone.

I must agree. I was surprised to find the thread locked, i can't find anything hateful there.
I agree with Jeremy that the thread is completely unrelated to LQ & GNU/Linux though.

Thank you.

This has happened before too, in the marijuana thread. A moderator just stomped in and locked the thread without warnings. It's a real shame for those who wanted to discuss marijuana (even if the moderator was correct in his judgment that the rules had been violated). By killing the threads, you are ruining it for everyone who want to discuss them, and I think you could give a warning before you do that.

[For the record, I actually thought I had learned from my mistake, but apparently not. It won't be a problem in the future though.]

On all other forums that I've been to, threads are nearly always given a chance to continue once disruptive posters have been corrected, but here you just take them out and shoot them.

It is unrelated to GNU/Linux but it was in the general forum.

You mean the thread in which you were pointing to Hitler and the Nazis as examples of good governance? You were surprised that was closed? Really?

Freedom of speech is something we take very seriously and value highly here at LQ. That said, so is fostering a safe and friendly atmosphere that is welcoming to all. It's often a very difficult line to walk. While dissenting opinions are certainly fine, where things moved toward closure in the case of the thread mentioned is when the topic of race purity/preservation was mentioned. Soderlund, I appreciate (and think it would be for the best) the offer to stick to technical topics moving forward. You can add General to the list of ignored fora in your UserCP. We're still evaluating the situation now, but it's possible we'll edit some content in the thread and re-open it.

If anyone has any additional questions or comments, feel free to post them in this thread. We're committed to running LQ in as transparent a manner as possible.

--jeremy

I wasn't going to do this, but since you've asked for an explanation publicly, you'll get one.

Soderlund, let's be clear on this. In the context of the rules, racism, white supremacy, white nationalism and neo-Naziism fall under the umbrella term "hateful". Both threads were locked specifically you used them to advance positions that fall into the above category.

In the case of the LGBT adoptions thread, there were two replies below yours, including one from me, that pointed out exactly where you crossed this line. I am therefore surprised that you would still feel a need to start this thread to ask why that one was locked. Yes, basing your argument on the premise that "white Europeans" of "the European race" need to "secure their future" from, for example, "African women" in order to "preserve their people and culture" was indeed racist and hateful.

And this is exactly why the Marijuana thread was locked. In your last post in that thread, you self-identified as "national socialist" (neo-Nazi) and proclaimed that your views were heavily shaped by Mein Kampf. No, that's not okay here.

If you see nothing wrong with the above and you still feel that your behavior was okay, then, well, you'll be making the right decision if you decide to stick to technical topics

ntubski:

I never expressed hatred toward any single person or group of people. I just promoted fascism / national socialism / authoritarianism as a better form of government (because of the meritocracy) than democracy. And it follows that under such a government -- which is only concerned with ensuring the survival of mankind -- marijuana can obviously not be tolerated; if you follow the reasoning, you will see that it is even on-topic.

No, I'm not surprised it was locked, but I don't think merely stating your allegiance to national socialism (without ever bringing up eugenics, which is only a small, albeit I admit central, part of the ideology) is hateful. Neither is a book recommendation, in my opinion -- surely you can make up your own mind about the book.

---

jeremy:

Thank you for your reply.

I actually never said anything about racial purity (or superiority / inferiority), just that Norwegian women were not having as many children as African women, and therefore we need to encourage them to have more children so we don't go extinct. I don't see how that is hateful. Do you mean it could be offensive to non-whites?

The LQ rules do not mention anything about race-related discussions, and therefore I thought it was OK to make such statements:

It would make more sense if it had said:

---

dugan:

In this post, you accuse me of being a white supremacist. That is incorrect because "supremacy" implies that I think other races are inferior, which I don't. The correct term is "white nationalist". Thus, that is the only post in the thread that was a flame. Everyone else kept a civil tone.

And I did not say that we need to defend ourselves from Africans. You are twisting my words, and mixing and matching statements from different posts. I just said that they give birth to more children by comparison, so we should try to do better. I you read my post again, without trying to read between the lines, I think you will see that I did not express hatred toward Africans. I really just intended to compare birth rates; maybe it came out wrong.

There is no need to be so hostile, dugan. I thought people who promoted free software and freedom of information / expression would be a little more open-minded about freedom of speech, but maybe you think we should live in a society where opinions that we don't like are suppressed.

By the way, dugan, it's not possible to send private messages until you have 150 posts (discrimination against people with low post counts! ;-)), so I had to take this publicly. I would much rather just have sent a private message to the one who locked the thread.

[edit] Just to lighten up the mood a little ;-) http://xkcd.com/984/

It's difficult to cover ever case in the rules, so we try to be as general as possible. I'm explicitly letting you know it's not okay now.

--jeremy

The following quote is from here to keep that thread clean: LGBT adoption: ......

free speech and a safe and friendly atmosphere are _not_ the same thing!

The LQ rules clearly state that: Excluding certain topics from the discussions that can be held means limited free speech! Don't tell us that you are (a) huge proponent of free speech here at LQ, because that isn't true.

Free speech entitles one to express his/her opinions, any opinion, and have an open, honest and civilized debate about it. And this is also true for opinions that aren't currently accepted or are frowned upon by the masses and/or current social standards.

Don't get me wrong; I strongly believe LQ should have a safe and friendly atmosphere and that certain "sensitive" subjects should not be discussed here, ever! LQ is a forum that (mainly) deals with Linux related subjects, there are other, dedicated forums one can go to to discuss "sensitive" opinions.

Stick to tech posts, LQ is not where I want to see any social proclamations.

"I'm a Hero" does not mean anything to my PC.

I have always thought that LQ was a place to share Linux Questions, and the other hijackers are just spammers who need to find the right avenues to protest, or claim their victories.........

Just suggesting some of these things leaves doubt in many minds.
I love LQ and I won't be bullied!

"Hateful" is people who think they can drown out everything said or posted by people who have an opposing opinion.

I like the option to discuss non-technical questions. i don't want to join any other forum just because of it. There are some very smart people here, and exchange of ideas and opinions is always beneficial, especially if they differs from mine.

--------------------------------------
and by they i mean these

One doesn't have free speech anywhere in social life, you can't say everything you want without being held accountable for it. There are things like slander and libel that are frowned upon even by proponents of free speech, so free speech in itself has to be defined clearly. In Germany we have free speech, but, as always, only to a certain extent, for example there is the crime of hate-speech, we have even symbols and gestures that are considered against the constitution, like the swastika (as used by the Nazis, not the religious Indian symbol) and the Hitler salute.
Nonetheless only few people in Germany think that we don't have free speech.
I would like to see it the same way on LQ.

If you define it clearly it must be applied evenly, unfortunately that is not the case. There has to be give and take, people must allow others to have opinions and to express them freely. As long as those opinions do not directly attack an individual or group then what is the problem?

As long as you make qualifications like that, you are not describing free speech.

LQ is a private operation that doesn't and shouldn't have free speech. Jeremy might "value" free speech, but he (quite legitimately) suppresses it when it conflicts with the operation of the kind of forum he wants.

Governments should not suppress the free speech of their residents. Private organizations should not be held to the same standard.

Public Universities claim to allow free speech and suppress only "hate speech", which ultimately gets defined as any right wing opinions that offend or scare the leftist leaders of the University. The same arguments are used there to defend the suppression of "hate speech" that have been used here.

Here those arguments are unnecessary. Whatever Jeremy doesn't want said in his forum, he has the right to suppress.

In Public Universities those same arguments are insufficient. Allowing free speech means allowing opinions that offend and/or scare you. (Most Private Universities are so dependent on and interlocked with government, that they should also be considered Public for questions of "free speech").

I missed the actual right wing opinions that started this debate. I expect those specific ones would offend and/or scare me. Most right wing opinions suppressed in Universities, not only don't offend me, they are my opinions. But on the "free speech" question, I don't believe my "right" to express certain right wing opinions trumps Jeremy's right to operate his forum as he sees fit. And I don't believe my being offended (which I'm only guessing) by Soderlund's right wing opinions would be a basis for suppressing those opinions in some other forum controlled enough by the government that "free speech" should apply.

Of course, I think left wing opinions are also entitled to the same protection from Government suppression (and subject to Jeremy's discretion in Jeremy's forum). But in the real world, left wing opinions (even very offensive and scary ones) already receive almost complete protection almost everywhere as free speech.