-6

What specific language was deemed "rude or abusive" (the answer has the following label attached by moderator)

This answer was marked as spam or rude or abusive and is therefore not shown - you can see the revision history for details.

at user rs.29's answer that has been deleted by moderator at What are the main arguments made for White Nationalism?

The deletion of the answer appears to be the result of a bug in the system.

12
  • Keep in mind this context for answers that deal with bigoted viewpoints.
    – lazarusL
    Commented Jan 18, 2019 at 17:26
  • @lazarusL Interesting. Does "If an answer uses white supremacist sources, I would flag it and maybe additionally use the "Contact us" option to make sure the appropriate action is taken." apply when the U.S. Government is the white supremacist source? For example, Chief Justice Taney's opinion in Scott v. Sandford; or Indian Removal Act of 1830; Fugitive Slave Act et al enacted by the U.S. Congress? There does not appear to be any specific language in the answer which is either "rude or abusive". "Offensive" is not listed. Link to YouTube at the answer is bad now if that was the issue
    – guest271314
    Commented Jan 18, 2019 at 17:41
  • @lazarusL According to the revision history moderator x "Rewrote to not be offensive anymore." then moderator y deleted the answer. The latter action makes no sense. Thus, the action must be a bug. The original answer was fine as well. If the policy is to not permit answers to questions about "race" or "racism", the clear option would be to remove those tags and not allow the question (which occurs at Politics SE as well via close and delete votes, though without the clear policy statement that Politics SE moderator or user at will contrive an emotional "reason" to delete q/a).
    – guest271314
    Commented Jan 18, 2019 at 17:51
  • A different moderator deleted than the moderator who edited.
    – lazarusL
    Commented Jan 18, 2019 at 17:52
  • @lazarusL Yes, am aware of that fact.
    – guest271314
    Commented Jan 18, 2019 at 17:52
  • Originally it seemed like it was advocating for the beliefs which is never good in an answer, they should always be impartial. When you're dealing with bigotry and viewpoints that violate stack exchange's code of conduct, it is especially important to be completely detached and impartially describe opinions rather than advocate in favor of them. This might be a bit unfair to bigots, but the majority of us are mainstream non-racist westerns so there's little sympathy to be had.
    – lazarusL
    Commented Jan 18, 2019 at 17:58
  • @lazarusL If SE was not hypocritical re their own policies/promotion of their politics that might be a valid point. "After all the mess caused by changing the logo just because Joel is homosexual, I thought the team would have learned the lesson that it's better to avoid political matters on Stack Overflow" meta.stackoverflow.com/a/342940; meta.stackoverflow.com/a/297871; politics.meta.stackexchange.com/users/2120/ben-voigt. Either state you cannot handle potentially contentious q/a eg re "race" or focus on the facts w/out emotion. First SE can delete own answer.
    – guest271314
    Commented Jan 18, 2019 at 18:13
  • @lazarusL Besides the above point, relevant to this question, if edits are for the purpose of making a question or answer "better" (within the purview of moderator/user/SE policy) then what specific language is currently at the edited answer which is deemed to be "rude or abusive"? Have not been able to objectively or subjectively point to any words, phrases or content at the current answer which is "rude or abusive" or the term "offensive", which is not included in the actual label attached to the answer in lieu of the actual answer by user rs.29. Was the defunct YouTube link the issue?
    – guest271314
    Commented Jan 18, 2019 at 18:16
  • Like I said earlier, I don't think the edited version is delete worthy. That being said the last paragraph could be phrased in a more detached, neutral way.
    – lazarusL
    Commented Jan 18, 2019 at 18:20
  • @lazarusL "White nationals might genuinely feel threatened by what they perceive as a sharp push of anti-White groups where within those groups some have developed academic courses where the syllabus is abolish Whiteness, or openly call for genocide of Whites, "anti-White discrimination" (some White nationalists might point to Affirmative Action as example), they might believe their only recourse is some form of nationalism or racial awareness. It is a simple principle - when some group of people feels endangered it is completely rational/normal to self-organize and fight to survive."?
    – guest271314
    Commented Jan 18, 2019 at 18:29
  • 2
    Technical note: The "This answer was marked as spam or rude or abusive...” label is attached automatically when an answer that has gathered spam or rude flags is deleted. It is not attached by moderators, and it doesn't necessarily reflect their opinion for the answer.
    – yannis Mod
    Commented Jan 18, 2019 at 19:14
  • 1
    @yannis Why did you delete the answer? What specific language in the current answer is considered to be "rude or abusive" or "offensive"?
    – guest271314
    Commented Jan 18, 2019 at 19:17

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
7

The "rude or abusive" flag links to the Code of Conduct.

Regarding this specific answer, this section is relevant:

No bigotry.
We don’t tolerate any language likely to offend or alienate people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion — and those are just a few examples. When in doubt, just don’t.

The answer in question alludes to the white supremacist idea of a so-called white genocide and pushes lies about supposed calls to "abolish Whiteness" or calls for a "genocide of Whites". It white-washes white supremacism by falsely stating that it is "simply [about the] survival of [the] White race". It uses white supremacist code words like "anti-White discrimination" and "racial awareness".

The answer promotes this "racial awareness" to "fight to survive" against a "white genocide" braught about by "destructive ideologies". This sort of white supremacism certainly is "likely to offend or alienate people" based on the categories listed in the CoC.

For context, the user in question is a white supremacist who in other answers said that Jews control finance, media, academia, politics, etc and promote third world immigration, abortion, feminism, homosexual agenda, etc. The answer in question is along the same lines, just with a bit more dogwhistles thrown in.

5
  • What was the basis of your question re U.S. Rep. Steve King R-Iowa and the reason(s) cited for deletion?
    – guest271314
    Commented Jan 18, 2019 at 20:09
  • Your answer to the same question also addresses all the same bigoted ideas as the deleted one. Can you highlight how you handled the subject matter in a more respectful way with some specific examples?
    – lazarusL
    Commented Jan 18, 2019 at 20:27
  • 5
    In my opinion, the one time it's okay for an answer to lay out arguments in favor of white supremacy is when the question is 'What are the arguments in favor of white supremacy'. I don't think the answer should be deleted. In fact, it may be the ideal answer given what the question is.
    – Sam I am says Reinstate Monica Mod
    Commented Jan 18, 2019 at 22:00
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
    – Sam I am says Reinstate Monica Mod
    Commented Jan 18, 2019 at 22:30
  • 3
    Sorry, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. Contextualizing the explanation makes it less credible. This user could be a bigoted bastard and yet he could still make a good point from time to time. Using the user's history to judge his current answer makes it seem like you may be over-interpreting it. On the other hand, a bigoted answer is bigoted even if it comes from a well-meaning individual. Having said that, I do agree with your analysis of this particular answer.
    – grovkin
    Commented Jan 19, 2019 at 0:08
3

Claims Should be Referenced Appropriately

I was not a part of the decision to apply the "rude or abusive" tag. However, after reading the text of the answer it's pretty clear that it is.

A great answer to this question would discuss the perspective of white nationalists - and attribute it to appropriate sources, such as notable leaders in their community, theorists who articulated their moral theory, etc. The error by rs.29 was to write in a tone that suggests they are a white nationalist and are describing their own views.

Example

I'll provide only one example. rs.29 said:

It is no longer a secret that Whites would become minority in US (and in other European countries) very soon.

The word "soon" links to an Al Jazeera article about low birth-rates among white people. If this is the argument used within the white nationalist community it should be attributed to a notable source. That would be an appropriate answer. However, they instead articulated their own argument which was not referencing the claims of the white nationalist community.

That's really a standard that applies to all questions like this. We aren't here to construct our own arguments, we are here to relay the arguments being used in the wild. The fact that this involved white nationalism pushed it over the edge into hate speech.

8
  • No, actually, any answer which follows your guidelines would almost automatically fall into the bigotry criteria. A well-sourced answer describing a white nationalist perspective would without a doubt "offend or alienate people based on race, gender, sexual orientation, or religion". To avoid accidentally normalizing such a perspective, a good answer would have to have solid (preferably well-sourced) counter arguments to all arguments presented. Any answer which doesn't strive to avoid even an appearance of trying to normalize White Nationalism will inevitably appear bigoted.
    – grovkin
    Commented Jan 19, 2019 at 0:26
  • 2
    @grovkin Unless there is some established precedent, I disagree entirely. You are of course free to post your own answer to that effect, but I won't include it here. It would be bad advice.
    – indigochild
    Commented Jan 19, 2019 at 1:22
  • what do you disagree with? The policy of not allowing content which may be bigoted enough to be offensive to many? Or do you disagree that following your guidelines one could run afoul of the policy? Because it's not my policy. Tim's answer to this question does allude to a segment in the code of conduct of this site which states the "no bigotry" policy. Just so we are clear, if you disagree with the policy, that's a reasonable position. But your answer is advising others to violate the policy. That's not very helpful.
    – grovkin
    Commented Jan 19, 2019 at 2:02
  • @indigochild "soon" is not solely based on an Al Jazeera article. The United States Census Bureau published projected demographics for 2050 (a key for various industry, economic, and other projections), relatively "soon". The reports have been cited by a wide range of individuals and institutions - from Gloria Steinam to the Bookings Institute The US will become 'minority white' in 2045, Census projects
    – guest271314
    Commented Jan 19, 2019 at 16:54
  • 2
    @guest271314 You seem to have missed the point. The point is that the poster didnt attribute the argument to any source. Instead they made their own argument for white nationalism. That is the de facto difference that is important.
    – indigochild
    Commented Jan 19, 2019 at 17:05
  • @indigochild The information was well-known at the time. A cursory fact-check of the information posted in the answer confirms its veracity. The information is not inflammatory whatsoever. If an individual has an issue with the information they should protest to the U.S. Census Bureau for publishing the data. Further, "soon" is actually sooner than 2045 or 2050. The current generation, individuals who are children right now, is that very new "majority" which the reports reference. "low-birth rates" is but one cause; examining why low-birth rates is one cause is interesting: career v. housewife
    – guest271314
    Commented Jan 19, 2019 at 17:07
  • @indigochild Gloria Steinam stated the above last sentence in plain terms. Am still trying to find the exact quote from an interview within the last 5 years. Disagree that the OP of the answer "made their own argument for white nationalism" the OP simply reiterated one concern of white nationalists, or white nationalism - which the question specifically asks for. If users are incapable of reading an answer to the question without emotional response, or expect only anti-white nationalist answers, they should, perhaps, move on from the question, as their expectations are biased.
    – guest271314
    Commented Jan 19, 2019 at 17:17
  • @indigochild In your view, does this answer to the linked question politics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3790#comment9213_3790 make an "argument for white nationalism"?
    – guest271314
    Commented Jan 19, 2019 at 17:33

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .