3 deleted 8 characters in body
source | link

First of all, here is the whole paragraph in context:

Because "the people" is not an entity with a single unified opinion. Some people (and there are enough of them to form a significant voting bloc, and a part of any jury) tend to see the segment of the population that most often experiences the result of police misconduct as, to put it bluntly, scum who are just getting what they deserve.

This is really what the "Black Lives Matter" movement is all about. Though IMHO they're wrong about it being primarily racial: a poor young white man is likely to experience much the same sort of abuse from cops.

I thought a long time about whether to censor this answer or not.

In the end I decided against it, because pretending that hate speech does not exist does not help any victims of hate speech. If we want to fight discrimination in our society, we need to acknowledge that the problem exists and in what dimension. That means it needs to be legitimate to quote hate speech with the purpose of documenting it, as long as the author distances themselves from that hate speech. Pretending that hate speech does not exist does not help any victims of hate speech.

Now does the author make clear that they do not believe that the minority they talk about are "scum who are just getting what they deserve" but are attributing it to an unspecified segment they call "some people"? It is not 100% clear. I would prefer if the author would distance themselves more obviously. But in the end I believe it to be more likely that the author tried to make a point against discrimination than for it.

I know that the final arbiter of what's offensive to a demographic and what isn't should be people of that demographic. But unfortunately when you flag something, the admin panel does not show us your ethnicity next to the flag. So when you flag something as offensive, then there are three possibilities:

  • You actually belong to the demographic, so you are more qualified than us to judge if it is offensive or not.
  • You are not of the demographic, but believe that it might be offensive to people who are. In that case your judgment is as good as ours.
  • You don't actually care about hate speech, but you have a grudge on the author and look for some dirt on them to get them suspended (yes, that's something we have to deal with quite often). In that case we should not allow you to weaponize the mod team in your petty rivalry.

But we moderators can not know that. Even if you claim that you are in the demographic, we do not know if we should believe that. Internet trolls often slip into whatever role best fits their particular talking point. On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.

So, in dubio pro reo.

First of all, here is the whole paragraph in context:

Because "the people" is not an entity with a single unified opinion. Some people (and there are enough of them to form a significant voting bloc, and a part of any jury) tend to see the segment of the population that most often experiences the result of police misconduct as, to put it bluntly, scum who are just getting what they deserve.

This is really what the "Black Lives Matter" movement is all about. Though IMHO they're wrong about it being primarily racial: a poor young white man is likely to experience much the same sort of abuse from cops.

I thought a long time about whether to censor this answer or not.

In the end I decided against it, because pretending that hate speech does not exist does not help any victims of hate speech. If we want to fight discrimination in our society, we need to acknowledge that the problem exists and in what dimension. That means it needs to be legitimate to quote hate speech with the purpose of documenting it, as long as the author distances themselves from that hate speech.

Now does the author make clear that they do not believe that the minority they talk about are "scum who are just getting what they deserve" but are attributing it to an unspecified segment they call "some people"? It is not 100% clear. I would prefer if the author would distance themselves more obviously. But in the end I believe it to be more likely that the author tried to make a point against discrimination than for it.

I know that the final arbiter of what's offensive to a demographic and what isn't should be people of that demographic. But unfortunately when you flag something, the admin panel does not show us your ethnicity next to the flag. So when you flag something as offensive, then there are three possibilities:

  • You actually belong to the demographic, so you are more qualified than us to judge if it is offensive or not.
  • You are not of the demographic, but believe that it might be offensive to people who are. In that case your judgment is as good as ours.
  • You don't actually care about hate speech, but you have a grudge on the author and look for some dirt on them to get them suspended (yes, that's something we have to deal with quite often). In that case we should not allow you to weaponize the mod team in your petty rivalry.

But we moderators can not know that. Even if you claim that you are in the demographic, we do not know if we should believe that. Internet trolls often slip into whatever role best fits their particular talking point. On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.

So, in dubio pro reo.

First of all, here is the whole paragraph in context:

Because "the people" is not an entity with a single unified opinion. Some people (and there are enough of them to form a significant voting bloc, and a part of any jury) tend to see the segment of the population that most often experiences the result of police misconduct as, to put it bluntly, scum who are just getting what they deserve.

This is really what the "Black Lives Matter" movement is all about. Though IMHO they're wrong about it being primarily racial: a poor young white man is likely to experience much the same sort of abuse from cops.

I thought a long time about whether to censor this answer or not.

In the end I decided against it. If we want to fight discrimination in our society, we need to acknowledge that the problem exists and in what dimension. That means it needs to be legitimate to quote hate speech with the purpose of documenting it, as long as the author distances themselves from that hate speech. Pretending that hate speech does not exist does not help any victims of hate speech.

Now does the author make clear that they do not believe that the minority they talk about are "scum who are just getting what they deserve" but are attributing it to an unspecified segment they call "some people"? It is not 100% clear. I would prefer if the author would distance themselves more obviously. But in the end I believe it to be more likely that the author tried to make a point against discrimination than for it.

I know that the final arbiter of what's offensive to a demographic and what isn't should be people of that demographic. But unfortunately when you flag something, the admin panel does not show us your ethnicity next to the flag. So when you flag something as offensive, then there are three possibilities:

  • You actually belong to the demographic, so you are more qualified than us to judge if it is offensive or not.
  • You are not of the demographic, but believe that it might be offensive to people who are. In that case your judgment is as good as ours.
  • You don't actually care about hate speech, but you have a grudge on the author and look for some dirt on them to get them suspended (yes, that's something we have to deal with quite often). In that case we should not allow you to weaponize the mod team in your petty rivalry.

But we moderators can not know that. Even if you claim that you are in the demographic, we do not know if we should believe that. Internet trolls often slip into whatever role best fits their particular talking point. On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.

So, in dubio pro reo.

2 deleted 18 characters in body
source | link

First of all, here is the whole paragraph in context:

Because "the people" is not an entity with a single unified opinion. Some people (and there are enough of them to form a significant voting bloc, and a part of any jury) tend to see the segment of the population that most often experiences the result of police misconduct as, to put it bluntly, scum who are just getting what they deserve.

This is really what the "Black Lives Matter" movement is all about. Though IMHO they're wrong about it being primarily racial: a poor young white man is likely to experience much the same sort of abuse from cops.

I thought a long time about whether to censor this answer or not.

In the end I decided against it, because pretending that hate speech does not exist does not help any victims of hate speech. If we want to fight the normalization of hate speechdiscrimination in our society, we need to acknowledge that the problem exists and in what dimension. That means it needs to be legitimate to quote hate speech with the purpose of documenting it, as long as the author distances themselves from that hate speech.

Now does the author make clear that they do not believe that the minority they talk about are "scum who are just getting what they deserve" but are attributing it to an unspecified segment they call "some people"? It is not 100% clear. I would prefer if the author would distance themselves more obviously. But in the end I believe it to be more likely that the author tried to make a point against discrimination than for it.

I know that the final arbiter of what's offensive to a demographic and what isn't should be people of that demographic. But unfortunately when you flag something, the admin panel does not show us your ethnicity next to the flag. So when you flag something as offensive, then there are three possibilities:

  • You actually belong to the demographic, so you are more qualified than us to judge if it is offensive or not.
  • You are not of the pdemographicdemographic, but believe that it might be offensive to people who are. In that case your judgment is as good as ours.
  • You don't actually care about hate speech, but you have a grudge on the author and look for some dirt on them to get them suspended (yes, that's something we have to deal with quite often). In that case we should not allow you to weaponize the mod team in your petty rivalry.

But we moderators can not know that. Even if you claim that you are in the demographic, we do not know if we should believe that. Internet trolls often slip into whatever role best fits their particular talking point. On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.

So, in dubio pro reo.

First of all, here is the whole paragraph in context:

Because "the people" is not an entity with a single unified opinion. Some people (and there are enough of them to form a significant voting bloc, and a part of any jury) tend to see the segment of the population that most often experiences the result of police misconduct as, to put it bluntly, scum who are just getting what they deserve.

This is really what the "Black Lives Matter" movement is all about. Though IMHO they're wrong about it being primarily racial: a poor young white man is likely to experience much the same sort of abuse from cops.

I thought a long time about whether to censor this answer or not.

In the end I decided against it, because pretending that hate speech does not exist does not help any victims of hate speech. If we want to fight the normalization of hate speech in our society, we need to acknowledge that the problem exists and in what dimension. That means it needs to be legitimate to quote hate speech with the purpose of documenting it, as long as the author distances themselves from that hate speech.

Now does the author make clear that they do not believe that the minority they talk about are "scum who are just getting what they deserve" but are attributing it to an unspecified segment they call "some people"? It is not 100% clear. I would prefer if the author would distance themselves more obviously. But in the end I believe it to be more likely that the author tried to make a point against discrimination than for it.

I know that the final arbiter of what's offensive to a demographic and what isn't should be people of that demographic. But unfortunately when you flag something, the admin panel does not show us your ethnicity next to the flag. So when you flag something as offensive, then there are three possibilities:

  • You actually belong to the demographic, so you are more qualified than us to judge if it is offensive or not.
  • You are not of the pdemographic, but believe that it might be offensive to people who are. In that case your judgment is as good as ours.
  • You don't actually care about hate speech, but you have a grudge on the author and look for some dirt on them to get them suspended (yes, that's something we have to deal with quite often). In that case we should not allow you to weaponize the mod team in your petty rivalry.

But we moderators can not know that. Even if you claim that you are in the demographic, we do not know if we should believe that. Internet trolls often slip into whatever role best fits their particular talking point. On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.

So, in dubio pro reo.

First of all, here is the whole paragraph in context:

Because "the people" is not an entity with a single unified opinion. Some people (and there are enough of them to form a significant voting bloc, and a part of any jury) tend to see the segment of the population that most often experiences the result of police misconduct as, to put it bluntly, scum who are just getting what they deserve.

This is really what the "Black Lives Matter" movement is all about. Though IMHO they're wrong about it being primarily racial: a poor young white man is likely to experience much the same sort of abuse from cops.

I thought a long time about whether to censor this answer or not.

In the end I decided against it, because pretending that hate speech does not exist does not help any victims of hate speech. If we want to fight discrimination in our society, we need to acknowledge that the problem exists and in what dimension. That means it needs to be legitimate to quote hate speech with the purpose of documenting it, as long as the author distances themselves from that hate speech.

Now does the author make clear that they do not believe that the minority they talk about are "scum who are just getting what they deserve" but are attributing it to an unspecified segment they call "some people"? It is not 100% clear. I would prefer if the author would distance themselves more obviously. But in the end I believe it to be more likely that the author tried to make a point against discrimination than for it.

I know that the final arbiter of what's offensive to a demographic and what isn't should be people of that demographic. But unfortunately when you flag something, the admin panel does not show us your ethnicity next to the flag. So when you flag something as offensive, then there are three possibilities:

  • You actually belong to the demographic, so you are more qualified than us to judge if it is offensive or not.
  • You are not of the demographic, but believe that it might be offensive to people who are. In that case your judgment is as good as ours.
  • You don't actually care about hate speech, but you have a grudge on the author and look for some dirt on them to get them suspended (yes, that's something we have to deal with quite often). In that case we should not allow you to weaponize the mod team in your petty rivalry.

But we moderators can not know that. Even if you claim that you are in the demographic, we do not know if we should believe that. Internet trolls often slip into whatever role best fits their particular talking point. On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.

So, in dubio pro reo.

1
source | link

First of all, here is the whole paragraph in context:

Because "the people" is not an entity with a single unified opinion. Some people (and there are enough of them to form a significant voting bloc, and a part of any jury) tend to see the segment of the population that most often experiences the result of police misconduct as, to put it bluntly, scum who are just getting what they deserve.

This is really what the "Black Lives Matter" movement is all about. Though IMHO they're wrong about it being primarily racial: a poor young white man is likely to experience much the same sort of abuse from cops.

I thought a long time about whether to censor this answer or not.

In the end I decided against it, because pretending that hate speech does not exist does not help any victims of hate speech. If we want to fight the normalization of hate speech in our society, we need to acknowledge that the problem exists and in what dimension. That means it needs to be legitimate to quote hate speech with the purpose of documenting it, as long as the author distances themselves from that hate speech.

Now does the author make clear that they do not believe that the minority they talk about are "scum who are just getting what they deserve" but are attributing it to an unspecified segment they call "some people"? It is not 100% clear. I would prefer if the author would distance themselves more obviously. But in the end I believe it to be more likely that the author tried to make a point against discrimination than for it.

I know that the final arbiter of what's offensive to a demographic and what isn't should be people of that demographic. But unfortunately when you flag something, the admin panel does not show us your ethnicity next to the flag. So when you flag something as offensive, then there are three possibilities:

  • You actually belong to the demographic, so you are more qualified than us to judge if it is offensive or not.
  • You are not of the pdemographic, but believe that it might be offensive to people who are. In that case your judgment is as good as ours.
  • You don't actually care about hate speech, but you have a grudge on the author and look for some dirt on them to get them suspended (yes, that's something we have to deal with quite often). In that case we should not allow you to weaponize the mod team in your petty rivalry.

But we moderators can not know that. Even if you claim that you are in the demographic, we do not know if we should believe that. Internet trolls often slip into whatever role best fits their particular talking point. On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.

So, in dubio pro reo.