[Discussion] Hate Speech And MuffinKing.

[SirNitram]

Eliminate EVERY palestinian man woman and child. Occupy and fortify all the territories. This is the easiest way to secure internal peace in Isreal. The problem from that is the world's view after that.

Alot of tempers and opinions run high on IvP.. That's why we have the moratorium. But there's a tangible, definate line between taking most of the sides, and this, calling for exterination of an ethinic group throughout a nation. Ergo, I wish the Senate's thoughts on this post. Particularly because of this rule:

Controversial opinions are not punished (although dishonest arguments put forth to support them may be; see posting rule #3). However, there are certain exceptions to this rule. People who advocate pedophilia will be summarily banned. The same goes for white supremacists. For that matter, anyone whose behaviour would be considered a violation of Canada's hate speech law may be banned.

I've been told this does, indeed, qualify under hate speech laws.

[Sea Skimmer]

First of all, please provide a link to the original thread and post, and the text of this hate speech law. You cannot have a discussion without that.

But anyway his statement is totally correct, that is by far the easiest method to secure peace within Israel and probably the only totally effective one too. Its not like there MUST be a good solution to every problem, the world doesn’t work that way and based on that quote I don’t see him even advocating this, just suggesting it.

[Wicked Pilot]

We never banned Shep for his landmining the Mexican border idea, and he was outright advocating it, not just discussing it as a possible option.

[Surlethe]

Outside of the context of the thread, I agree with Sea Skimmer's interpretation of the post; in addition to that, I thought it was a little sarcastic as well. However, to give the post some context (SirNitram linked the thread below), he posted this on the first page:

Fuck it, I agree with Shep on this one except for the genocide. Find those responsible for the open hostilities and quietly "remove" them from existence. Nuke the "refugee" camps though to eliminate everyone.
[paragraph break added for clarification. ~Surlethe]
Theoretically it would be easier to destroy everyone and everything...it would quickly stop the problem, though the ramifications of such an action would be unfathomable.

I'm not quite sure what he's trying to say: the second paragraph seems to confirm that the post in question is facetious, but the "Fuck it, I agree with Shep on this one" makes me think that he's actually being serious.

[Gil Hamilton]

According to the Canadian Criminal Code: sections 318 and 319
To summarize, it is hate propaganda and a criminal offense by the Canadian Criminal Code to:

• Advocate genocide.
  Public Incitement of Hatred

(bolded the relevant one)

"Genocide" is defined as (1) killing members of an identifiable group or (2) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

"Identifiable group" is defined as "any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation."
(bolded the relevant one)

If he is actively advocating the course of action quoted by Senator Nitram, then he is, according to Canadian law, making hate propaganda and therefore is bannable by the rule Nitram cited.


However, if TheMuffinKing goes down for this, there are a few other candidates which should go down for this as well. TheMuffinKing hasn't been the only person on this board who has had a hard-on for advocating atrocities.

[SirNitram]

My mistake on not providing a link.

Link

Now, if people think others should be brought to task on this, I remind everyone that any Senator may bring up threads like these.

[CmdrWilkens]

Sylistically it does seem rather crass at best but I don't really see it as actively advocating this as a solution. He points out, in a very macarbe way, that such total destruction would end one problem (not solve it but end it for lack of there being two sides anymore) while creating a follow on problem. His dismissal of the awful wrongness of the action as being a matter of poor worldview (though he does at least use the words unfathomable in the first post it seems rather weak nonetheless) does seem rather poor.

That said its hard to call this a true act of advocating genocide. It was poorly worded, horrifically discussed and generally in worse than bad taste. Yet I don't see it as quite rising to the level of punishment. Perhaps someone should tell him to rein it in but I can't seem to work myself up to the point of saying anything harsher should be done.

[Edi]

I've gotten fucking sick and tired of seeing assholes like Shep and MuffinKing get away with casually advocating mass murder and genocide. I wouldn't mind seeing this kind of asshattery lead to immediate revocation of avatar, sig and PM privileges and stripping of custom title for no less than six months.

Edi

[The Yosemite Bear]

da

I too shaare the shame in letting some get away with too much of this...

[Coyote]

It seems that he is trying to take things to an extreme in a way of making a point. He says that "the best way to make peace... is to destroy everyone on one side.... but the ramifications would be problematic". I can't get a sense whether he is simply stating a cold hard fact, or regretting that the killing is not allowed to take place due to the reaction expected.

It may be an unpopular and even antagonistic viewpoint, but it is allowable, especially since "Benefit of the Doubt" tells me that he is simply making an extreme argument albeit poorly presented.

If we run across something like this in the future, I say we demand an explanation/clarification regardless of who is making the post; then, if they fail to adequately explain or clarify then it gets brought up here. The Senate will pick apart the comment and the explanation and then go from there-- and of course if it is determined that the person is advocating some racist bullshit, then no fucking around with sigs or avatars, it's straight to Parting Shots and bye-bye.

[Pablo Sanchez]

It doesn't appear to me that he meant to say, "Israel ought to kill all Palestinians," as much as he was saying that such a course of action was possible. I just think he worded it very, very poorly.

[Darth Wong]

In cases like this, it may be instructive to examine the individual's posting history to get an idea of whether this is an aberration or a continuation of a longstanding trend.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

In cases like this, it may be instructive to examine the individual's posting history to get an idea of whether this is an aberration or a continuation of a longstanding trend.

Checking his posting history turns up the following gems:

Here, perhaps.

Hey, let's put someone worse than Saddam in power. And use anthrax!

Gas prisoners with chlorine and mustard gas, A-OK!

[Pablo Sanchez]

Here, perhaps.

That post is either satirical or retarded. I'm not taking bets.

Hey, let's put someone worse than Saddam in power. And use anthrax!

Poorly advised but not actually "hate speech" (to the same extent that Shep's "NUKE'M ALL!" attitude isn't. I think the tipping point is whether or not he refers to a specific ethnic/religious/whatever group. He can say "kill all insurgents" but he can't say "kill all Iraqis."

Gas prisoners with chlorine and mustard gas, A-OK!

Well, in that one he seems to be qualifying his own statement:

Sigh, I guess its a good thing desicions like those are never made..."

and again it falls short of hate speech.

I think the gist of examining his posting history is that he probably isn't a bigot but isn't very smart, either.

[Darth Wong]

He sounds like a childish moron to me. And there is indeed a trend: he likes to casually advocate acts of mass murder as solutions to problems. No doubt he thinks it's hilarious, but it's not. And it's also utterly mindless; I notice that he exhibits a distinct tendency toward no-brain zero-effort one or two-line posts.

[Pablo Sanchez]

He sounds like a childish moron to me. And there is indeed a trend: he likes to casually advocate acts of mass murder as solutions to problems. No doubt he thinks it's hilarious, but it's not. And it's also utterly mindless; I notice that he exhibits a distinct tendency toward no-brain zero-effort one or two-line posts.

Considering his previous run-in with the law 'round here, I don't think he'd be a very big loss, exactly. But at the same time I'm not sure we should go about banning him for this one. What if we let this one slide but ban him if he sends us another string of these retarded anti-social jokes.

[Alyeska]

If we punish Muffinking, Shep deserves identical treatment for past actions. Anything else would be hypocracy.

[Surlethe]

I think the gist of examining his posting history is that he probably isn't a bigot but isn't very smart, either.

At the very least, if these are satire or sarcasm, he's failing to qualify them. Now, this is something that everybody does once or twice (I did it on the first page of the recent IvP thread, in fact), but without an established posting and debating history which will lead people to assume he's actually being sarcastic, it's very dangerous to flirt with making statements sarcastically advocating genocide and not clarifying them as satire either when called to or in the post itself.

This optimistic assessment of his record on this count, combined with the previous run-in with the Senate, indicates that, leniently, TheMuffinKing possesses very poor judgment. I would think this is grounds for at least a warning.

EDIT: TheMuffinKing has apparently apologized for his actions here.

[Joe]

Warning. Not a serious enough offense to warrant immediate action, and he did admit he was wrong (though in the interest of fairness, only after it was brought up in the Senate). If he does it again a tempban might be in order.

[CmdrWilkens]

In general I think this thread did exactly what was needed without any real effort. He apologized and will, hopefully, stop and take notice of his own postings for some time and all the Senate had to do was bring it up as a matter of discussion. I personally think its a great solution system.

[Gil Hamilton]

If we punish Muffinking, Shep deserves identical treatment for past actions. Anything else would be hypocracy.

I'd argue worse. While MuffinKing's one-liners about atrocity are bad, let's not pretend that Shep isn't 10x worse and he actually means it. In the very same thread as the one cited, Shep not casually but cheerful advocated cordoning and massacring Palestineans. He's never drew a line between combatants and non-combatants. Worse, he not only things it is necessary, but is downright gleeful about it. I've never seen someone with a bigger hard-on for having a nuclear war than Shep.

Hell, even if we don't punish MuffinKing, we should get Shep on the above rule. I will be searching his posting record and posting relevant examples in my next post here, but I'm sure we are all familiar enough with him that we all know what I'm talking about.

[Stuart Mackey]

If we punish Muffinking, Shep deserves identical treatment for past actions. Anything else would be hypocracy.

I'd argue worse...............snip. I will be searching his posting record and posting relevant examples in my next post here, but I'm sure we are all familiar enough with him that we all know what I'm talking about.

Shep is an odd case, he seems to have rope that is light years long, almost an instituion one might say; The eccentric uncle. Nevertheless there is a line and we must be clear about where that line is given Sheps longevity and posting rule three.
Are Sheps more' interesting' posts made for irrational or rational reasons?. Does he say 'nuke *target X*' because they are a millitary threat to democratic values, that we have fought for previously, or because *Target X* is Islamic, or German or because they have dandruff and should die for that reason alone?.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Shep's not going anywhere anytime soon, you'd have a more productive day arguing a dog to stop licking its balls. The subject of the matter is MuffinKing and whether he warrants a warning, revocation of privileges or a total ban. I, personally, would give only a warning right now; we've let bigger threats to the sanctity of the board off the hook when told to reform or be dropkicked out the door.

If you want to use Shep as the rule to gauge how intolerable King's statements are, then fine. But they barely register next to taking overt glee in wiping out a whole ethnicity.

[Darth Wong]

If we punish Muffinking, Shep deserves identical treatment for past actions. Anything else would be hypocracy.

I'd argue worse...............snip. I will be searching his posting record and posting relevant examples in my next post here, but I'm sure we are all familiar enough with him that we all know what I'm talking about.

Shep is an odd case, he seems to have rope that is light years long, almost an instituion one might say; The eccentric uncle. Nevertheless there is a line and we must be clear about where that line is given Sheps longevity and posting rule three.
Are Sheps more' interesting' posts made for irrational or rational reasons?. Does he say 'nuke *target X*' because they are a millitary threat to democratic values, that we have fought for previously, or because *Target X* is Islamic, or German or because they have dandruff and should die for that reason alone?.

This may seem like a tenuous distinction, but it seems to me that Shep, for all that he and I have flamed each other in the past, is simply an example of a person whose thinking is stuck in a World War 2 military strategy mindset. In World War 2, if you were at war with somebody, you bombed the shit out of them. Cities, military bases, whatever. That was the accepted military strategy of the era, and I think it's quite telling that Shep is a huge WW2 buff, not to mention exhibiting an obsessive interest in the nuclear weapons programs and delivery systems that popped up in the period shortly after WW2.

That, to me, while exhibiting an archaic military mindset, is not quite the same as advocating a Palestinian version of Hitler's Final Solution: something that was beyond the pale even by WW2 standards.

[Sonnenburg]

Since the matter (regarding Muffin King) appears settled, it would probably be advisable for others to learn from this. If your position is "this is the most efficient, but we shouldn't do it" or "this is what we should do, ha-ha just kidding", then in both cases the second part is really kind of important.