You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

joseph177 ago

So rule 2 effectively neuters the sub from discussion religion, zionism or any type of historical revisionism.

At least on reddit/r/conspiracy, we are free to discuss this.

Mumberthrax ago

Would you be willing to elaborate on that? That hasn't ever happened with the current rule so far as I'm aware, and it certainly wasn't something that seemed liable to happen to me when I put together the proposed update.

For reference, the current rule is:

No overt attacks on people's race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or creed

and the proposed updated version is:

No bigotry or hate speech

  • This includes, but is not limited to, bigotry based upon ethnicity, age, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, and religion.

For additional reference, the definition of bigotry I find most useful is:

  1. extreme intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
  2. the actions, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

Bigot being defined as:

One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Similarly hate speech is:

Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social group or a member of such a group.


Based on this, I think it would be well within the realm of decency and within the bounds of the rule to discuss religion, Zionism, historical revisionism, etc. Discussion on these topics themselves is not forbidden by an anti-bigotry rule.

nokilli ago

We can point to how jew lies, cheats and steals to achieve power which is then used to commit us into war after war?

Mumberthrax ago

No. You can point to how a group of people do those things, but those people are not every member of a particular race or ethnicity.

nokilli ago

Which is what I mean when I say jew, I'm pointing to a group of people who do these things, and while fully acknowledging that it is not "the Jews", it is nevertheless a group that most if not all Jews are loathe to sanction on their own.

Been through the iterative process of finding the right appellation for this group; spent four or five years on reddit using "racist Jews"... well that was anti-Semitic I'm told. So went with "Jewish supremacists", no, that's anti-Semitic too.

Why isn't it racist to refer to "racist whites" or "white supremacists" then?

"Organized Jewry!" No, anti-Semitic.

Meanwhile, jew can engage in the full range of atrocities against people who actually are Semitic, like the Palestinians or the Iraqis or the Syrians.

Can't say "zionist", although it does sometimes apply, it doesn't always apply because it isn't always about Israel, esp. now with banks joining in the big push for war with Russia.

Part of the conspiracy is the game being played with the language. And it's a conspiracy that you as a moderator participate in when you work as you do to censor this conversation through prior restraint, and you're going to be called on that time and time again because it is THE conspiracy and not only is it not going away but its ruinous consequences grow more pronounced with the passing of time.

Rule #2 doesn't belong here. And if language that is potentially viewed as intolerant upsets you, then neither do you.

edit: the spells

pitenius ago

You're going to want to moderate behavior not topics. Your update emphasizes topic more than behavior because you make lots of definitions. Edit: By which I mean, you talk about "bigotry" (which is itself perhaps name-calling), rather than emphasize copy-pasta, personal attacks, spam posting, etc.

Here's my sniff-test: Would Eustace Mullins be allowed to post here? I'm not sure how deep your conspiracy roots go, but Mullins was a mid-century "Zionist Occupational Government" (ZOG) sort. His views were certainly "anti-semitic" but, for the most part, his opposition was more hateful and vitriolic than he was.

The rule and definitions are what they are. And no one will care or pay attention. The real question is what gets struck and why or who gets banned.

joseph177 ago

Hate Speech is a political term which is used to silence truth, since some truth is considered hate speech:

Simple Canadian example: http://i.imgur.com/aL4BiWc.jpg

Can't find the video, but I saw some bobble heads yapping and coming to the same conclusion.

Mumberthrax ago

That may be, I'm not really sure that I'm up to date on all the instances in which the term "hate speech" has been invoked. Would you care to propose any alternative terms which convey the same meaning to the common person?

How would you phrase the rule such that racist/sexist/etc. comments and submissions are understood to be not desired in our community?

nokilli ago

Simply adhere to the definition of what a conspiracy is. If the speech concerns itself with identifying a conspiracy for the purpose of exposing it and preventing and/or undoing the damage it intends, then it should be, must be, fair game.

joseph177 ago

This user actually said it better than I could have:

https://voat.co/v/Conspiracy/comments/250396/895302

samtrovaum ago

I think they mean things like 'catholics are fucking retards', not 'catholicism is veiled paganism'.

Mumberthrax ago

Yeah that'd be a fair example of how a common sense application of the rule would go.