4

Politics SE seems to be plagued with hate speech, and not much seems to be done about it. Eventually the posts will get removed, but that doesn't stop the user from posting more hate speech. This is a recent answer from a user who repeatedly posts offensive, heavily biased answers, and in this case hate speech.

If you read the article, it actually states that those 23'000 are those who have been identified as subjects of interest in criminal investigations in the past.

But I think what you are really asking is "How many Islamic extremists are there in the UK?" to which I will try and provide a sufficient answer.

According to ICM polling statistics verified by the The Guardian, the most liberal newspaper in the UK, almost half of Muslims in the UK (47%) said they believe it is unacceptable for a homosexual to be a school teacher, and 52% believe that homosexuality should be illegal, compared with 5% of the normal population. More shockingly, the number of terrorist sympathizers (those who had sympathy for the actions of the people who carried out terrorist attacks) was 4%. If that's not an extreme view, I don't know what is.

The UK's muslim population is approximately 3 million and extrapolation of that data suggests that the extremist population of the UK is around 0.04 x 3'000'000 = 120'000 Islamic extremists in the UK.

Details about how the poll was conducted can be found here on the ICM web site. https://www.icmunlimited.com/polls/icm-muslims-survey-for-channel-4/

And to wrap up and summarise, no, it is not true that there are 23'000 extremists in the UK, there are a great deal more. The 23'000 is only those on police radar.

God bless and stay safe.

You may ask what makes this hate speech? Well first of all these statistics that are cited do not claim to be statistics for how many Islamic extremist there are in the UK. The statistic merely indicates how many have some sympathy for extremists, not how many are extremists. It is also worth noting the linked study has this statistic marked as having a small sample size, and therefor being potentially inaccurate. However this has not stopped the user from claiming this to be factual, and then using it to condemn Muslims as terrorists. Here is one of the users comments where he again claims this to be factual information:

Its a bad day for science when facts that answer questions honestly get downvotes. Come out of the shadows you little creeps!

This is also somewhat problematic as it is an attempt to bait other users.

However could this all just be an honest misinterpretation of the statistics and not intentional hate speech? No, I don't think so, and here's why.

And to wrap up and summarise, no, it is not true that there are 23'000 extremists in the UK, there are a great deal more. The 23'000 is only those on police radar.

God bless and stay safe.

This portion of the original post clearly attempts to relay the view that Muslims are dangerous terrorists. This user is deliberately telling people to be distrustful of Muslims.

So what is being done about hate speech on politics SE? It keeps popping up regularly.

  • 9
    Come out of the shadows you little creeps! should have been flagged as "rude and offensive" IMHO. Calling other users "little creeps" is NOT okay. – user11249 Sep 15 '17 at 22:58
  • 4
    @Carpetsmoker So much should be flagged, it's harder to find something this user posted there that doesn't deserve a flag – Braydon Sep 16 '17 at 1:24
  • All the more reason to flag stuff, to let mods know there is a clear pattern! – user11249 Sep 16 '17 at 1:35
  • 3
    The relevant policy is be nice / the code of conduct, specifically the "no bigotry" part. Though it's not enforced in the manner I would prefer here (at least not in answers or comments, more so in questions; see also here where a flag on an answer that obviously violated policy was declined; it's sadly not the only example, and imho banning or warning trolls takes way too long or sometimes doesn't happen at all). – tim Sep 17 '17 at 10:52
  • 3
    That is not hate speech. – Chloe Dec 8 '17 at 4:55
  • @Chloe The edited version of the "hate speech case" is now quite different. – user5751924 Jan 4 '18 at 16:28
  • Are you sure you are fighting against "hate speech" and not "speech concerning subjects that you hate to be openly discussed"? While the question could have been answered in a more sensitive way, I really think that there are some differences in cultural values. Thus I don't see how describing on which issues there seems to be a serious values clash counts as "hate speech". – Shadow1024 yesterday
7

So what is being done about hate speech on politics SE?

Using that particular answer an example, downvoting is what is being done about it. Seems to be working in this example.

As for the poster of that answer, he has a particular POV and hasn't made that secret on this site. There are a lot of particular POVs on this site that one learns over a short amount of time mainly due to the low volume of participants on this site. I wouldn't say this site has any more or less "hate speech" than any other site, but a) I'd argue it's more noticeable due to the low volume here and b) perhaps more polarizing here simply due to the topic at hand (politics).

  • 7
    Down voting doesn't seem to work. According to his profile, he lost 18 from 9 downvotes, got 10 from an upvote on his post so he only lost 8. Plus he gained 20 from other sources today. So his rep isn't really hurt, and he doesn't care about peer pressure, since he deems everyone who downvotes to be at fault. (and little creeps.) <politics.stackexchange.com/users/14439/charlie?tab=reputation > – Braydon Sep 16 '17 at 1:23
  • 3
    @blip in what part of my answer do I incite hatred or violence? – Charlie Sep 17 '17 at 20:09
  • 1
    @Charlie your pov tends to align with similar povs from groups that actively push hatred and violence. Are you explicitly doing that? I don't know. But I also can't blame people that see the parallels. – user1530 Sep 17 '17 at 20:12
  • 2
    @blip in that case, you are wrongfully identifying my answer as hate speech. You cannot reasonably label something hate speech based on assumption based on implicit meaning. And I simply said "Stay safe" as there was another terrorist attack the day of that question and I have a friend who was caught up in the Manchester attacks already. From where I'm standing the situation is very real. – Charlie Sep 17 '17 at 20:16
  • 1
    @Charlie that you are constantly arguing this point is perhaps a sign that you could spend some time reflecting on your viewpoints. As for labeling you as hate speech, I didn't do anything of the sort in my answer here. I was merely responding to the OP's use of your question as an example. Whether or not your answer is universally agreed upon as hate speech, the community decided it wasn't a great answer. – user1530 Sep 17 '17 at 21:00
  • 2
    @blip that's fine, if you don't like my answer, you don't like my answer. Whilst slightly irritating, my major issue is how readily you have responded to this question here which clearly describes my well sourced answer as hate speech. Rather than disagree with the labeling as hate speech, you posted an answer. I'm also sorry to tell you I won't be going anywhere and won't be silenced by attempted bullying of this sort. – Charlie Sep 17 '17 at 21:12
  • 3
    @Charlie 'well sourced' and 'facts' do not forgive anyone of making inferences that could easily be seen as sympathizing with groups that adhere to hate speech. Which is ironic, as that's exactly what you were trying to do with your answer. I'd suggest you step back a bit and look at what you wrote from a bigger perspective. – user1530 Sep 17 '17 at 21:14
  • 2
    @blip think about what you're saying. Telling people to stay safe is an inference of hate speech? You don't know what it's like living on the forefront of this. Come over here and spent a week living in Luton or Birmingham and let me know how you feel. There's 12 extremist mosques within 50 miles of where I live. – Charlie Sep 17 '17 at 21:20
  • 4
    @Charlie Your "well sourced facts" contradict the source, as mentioned above. The source never claimed that many Muslims were extremists and never claimed to be factual proof. In fact the sited statistic has an asterisk by it to indicate that it is unreliable due to small sample size, and thus certainly not factual. You are spreading misinformation in order to instill fear of Muslims, and fear and hate are intrinsically linked. Nobody likes the proverbial monster under the bed. – Braydon Sep 18 '17 at 5:38
  • 6
    @Charlie False cautionary tales are the perfect vehicle to spread hate. People hate things they fear because they think they can harm them, and people hate people they fear because they believe them to be evil. You can use this as an excuse and claim to only be spreading cautionary information, but the reality is that you are spreading hate by another name. – Braydon Sep 18 '17 at 5:47
  • 7
    From what I read the poster is a "white nationalist" (ie a white supremacist). Downvoting should be for bad answers, not for answers that violate stackoverflow policy; That is what flags and moderators should be for. I think that this answer is borderline, but the problem that OP brings up is genuine and really does deserve an answer (OP should maybe add better examples). – tim Sep 18 '17 at 17:38
  • 4
    To add on @Braydon 's comment that downvotes do not work, that answer is now +4/-12 meaning that has netted a positive +16 reputation to the poster – Federico Sep 20 '17 at 13:34
5

Let's back off a bit and forget about the hate speech and focus just on the content of the answer. We immediately see that there's a bigger problem: it's not an answer to the question.

The question is pretty specific and quotes a source, which claims:

Intelligence officers have identified 23,000 jihadist extremists living in Britain as potential terrorist attackers, it emerged yesterday.

The answer doesn't address any of this at all. Instead it independently tries to prove that there are many "Muslim extremists" in the UK, but this isn't what the question was about at all.

In other words, it's a "magic eye answer":

enter image description here

If you stare at it long enough and look cross-eyed enough it sort of looks like an answer, but it's not really.

This on its own makes it a poor answer.

  • 2
    What part of my answer is not relevant to the number of extremists in the UK? Perhaps if the OP wanted a different answer they should have better defined "extremist". In any reasonable view, a person who sympathises with jihadist terrorists is an extremist but of course if the term extremist is not adequately defined then no answer could ever be sufficient. – Charlie Sep 17 '17 at 20:06
  • 8
    @Charlie you've made it clear you side with white nationalism. Does that make you an extremist? That's using the same logic you are using. – user1530 Sep 17 '17 at 21:03
  • 3
    @blip it may do, I don't dispute that. I would classify my own views as extreme, as they are clearly outside of the mainstream. In the context of views on immigration into Britain, I am an extremist. In terms of views on terrorism, those who sympathise with terrorists are also extremists. – Charlie Sep 17 '17 at 21:15
  • 1
    @blip though saying that, my views are only extreme from a liberal perspective. White nationalism isn't much of an extreme view here in England, especially within conservative or old labour constituencies – Charlie Sep 17 '17 at 21:17
  • 3
    @Charlie I can't convince you of anything. You have your strong opinions and it's clear you are going to stick to them. That's fine. Just assume not everyone is going to agree with them. – user1530 Sep 17 '17 at 21:18
  • 7
    @Charlie "the number of extremists in the UK" was NOT the question. It was about a specific report which mentioned jihadist extremists living in Britain as potential terrorist attackers. – user11249 Sep 17 '17 at 21:31
  • @blip that's all I ever expect mate – Charlie Sep 17 '17 at 21:44
  • @Carpetsmoker the title is are there "23'000 extremists in the UK?" – Charlie Sep 17 '17 at 21:45
  • 6
    @Charlie So you did not bother to read the question beyond the title? Or the source it links? – user11249 Sep 17 '17 at 21:53
-6

TLDR: anything that doesn't conform to my worldview I can classify as hatespeech.

  • 5
    Hmm. . . No I can't. Actually I could fill a library with books listing things I cannot reasonably call hate speech. The reason I can classify this as hate-speech is because it is hate-speech. I cannot for example classify the idea that all cities should have community gardens as hate speech. I don't think community gardens are necessary or a priority, (not that I dislike them) but I cannot call this hate speech, as it is clearly not hateful to any group. – Braydon Sep 19 '17 at 0:05
  • 5
    @Braydon: this user's sympathies towards racism and antisemitism are well documented on this site. – Denis de Bernardy Sep 19 '17 at 18:26
  • 3
    @DenisdeBernardy being against NGOs collaborating with humman traffikers in order to smuggle people into Europe means i'm an anti-semite? You're a joke dude. Not worth my time. – easymoden00b Sep 19 '17 at 18:33
  • 3
    Not even against -- providing evidence that NGOs are actively collaborating with smugglers means I'm proliferating "hate speech". This is exactly what I'm talking about. Denis, you are suppressing truth because you are an ideologue. – easymoden00b Sep 19 '17 at 19:18
  • 4
    Your Soros source doesn't mention human trafficking, only humanitarian aid. Either way, these sort of dog whistles aren't working as well as some might think. Why bring Soros up at all, if it's really about NGOs? Because what your answer is really saying is "Rich Jew is secretly smuggling millions of refugees" (Why? You don't say, but those addressed will interpret the implied goal as "undermining western/white civilization"). Valid sources for any this? Of course not. – tim Sep 19 '17 at 19:19
  • 4
    This tactic isn't new, and it's not fooling anyone. It's the same as saying "The Rothschilds control the banks". Everyone knows it's a stand-in for Jews in general. I don't know if you are purposefully using Soros this way, or if you have just picked this up from some far-right site without questioning, but either way it shouldn't be in an answer, and it is antisemitism. – tim Sep 19 '17 at 19:19
  • Well actually... Specifically content that would label any classification of people as somehow "bad" or worse than another classification can be considered hate speech. – Sam I am Sep 19 '17 at 20:30
  • 3
    This is insane. One cannot mention George Soros directly bankrolling organizations that bring hundreds of thousands of migrants into the EU without being labeled an anti-semite. I didnt even know he was jewish. – easymoden00b Sep 19 '17 at 20:40
  • 1
    @tim you are projecting way way too hard. I am not allowed to offer evidence to back off my claim if that person just-so-happens to be jewish? Anyone of that particular designation is off limits of criticism. Okay. I'll find someone else from the United States with billions of dollars to throw at social issues across the western world then. You are outrageous. – easymoden00b Sep 19 '17 at 20:43
  • 3
    @easymoden00b Looking at your source, Soros wasn't "bankrolling" smugglers, so your source does not back up your claims. And as I said, it doesn't really matter what you know or what your intentions are. I also didn't label you an antisemite, I said that your answer contains antisemitism (which you may or may not realize, and which you may or may not have picked up (possibly unknowingly) somewhere else). But either way, the answer does contain antisemitism. – tim Sep 19 '17 at 20:52
  • 1
    @tim Again, you are projecting your own bias into my answer because of your ideology (original point). Criticism of a single person regardless of identity is not something that should be discouraged or banned. And, once again, he is not bankrolling smugglers. He is, however, bankrolling to the tone of tens of millions annually, those who actively work with human traffickers in order to bring people illegally into Europe. They communicate with smugglers in Libya and pick them up at agreed locations and take them into EU. This is happening. – easymoden00b Sep 19 '17 at 20:59
  • @Braydon The people calling for more community gardens often mean to use them to foster community in mostly poor or minority places. Calling for community gardens is tantamount to saying "black people's problems are caused by not doing enough unpaid farm work". By supporting CG's you really mean to bring back slavery. /s the problem with reading more than one link into what is said is that it is a big interconnected world and correlations are everywhere. – user9389 Sep 19 '17 at 21:06
  • 3
    @notstoreboughtdirt You made a nice go at making it seem racist but I did say "reasonably." The mental gymnastics you had to do to contest my statement are pretty extreme. – Braydon Sep 19 '17 at 22:59
  • 4
    @tim Conspiracy theories about Soros have left the neo-Nazi crowd and entered the mainsteam in right-wing circles. I've seen a number of people who are very pro-Israel also spread Soros conspiracy crap. It's clearly nonsense – in the specific case of this answer it completely misrepresented the source it gave – but I don't think it's necessarily anti-Semitism. That being said, I can't blame you for jumping to conclusions given that this user has literally suggested that "certain segments of the population" are generically inferior. – user11249 Sep 20 '17 at 4:10
  • 1
    @Carpetsmoker Sure. But again, these sorts of theories do originate from Nazis and antisemites (Soros isn't the only canard that the right - or the left for that matter - have adopted). It doesn't matter so much if this user is using them that way or not, it is still practically spreading antisemitism. I would actually believe the user when they say they are doing it unknowingly, and looking at their other answers (including the above which I have flagged and which is now edited for containing bigotry), it's easy to see where they could have picked this up without even realizing it. – tim Sep 20 '17 at 5:46

You must log in to answer this question.

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