Constraints of Code of Conduct

Could you propose an operational definition of "Hate Speech"?

From a moderation perspective, some of the proposed categories that could get fuzzy seem like age and religion (probably others, too), and a clear mutually agreed upon definition could help with that. For instance, I could see some challenges around determining whether something like griping about 'Millennials' or 'Baby Boomers' would rise to the level of a violation of this rule, and a theist might experience an atheist asserting the non-existence of the theist's God as hate speech, but would it be?

Mhhh, maybe something like:

Hate speech is speech that advocates or practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards protected groups. (taken from hate group Wikipedia's definition and adapted)

Pinning down what exactly constitutes hate speech is going to take a bit more discussion though. This would exclude criticism like you mentioned in the religion example and exclude generational dicussion.

Though, US situation is more about us vs all others. (Ie, ethnonationalism, only part not covered would be nationalism but it would be a bit too broad if added plainly; any suggestions?)

EU Refugee Crisis has strong ethnic/religious xenophobia and it is already covered.

@paulmwatson, ableism is included. Ageism I am not sure how to word it. Do you have any suggestions for either?

Hi @paulmwatson, does this last change address your concerns?

Everyone else: Do you still agree with this proposal?

Yes, thank you

One wording question around the "sexual activity" phrase: I think you're going for activity vs. non-activity, but it could potentially be interpreted as tolerance for pedophilia, rapists, etc. I think "orientation" and "identity" are probably sufficient, as one's identity is not itself potentially harmful to others, but some forms of "activity" could be, if interpreted through that lens.

Yeah, definitely aiming for aphobia and slut-shaming. And reading more about sexual identity it does seem to include what I was aiming for so sexual activity could definitely be dropped.

Let's try this again. It's not recording my comment.

I think we need to explicitly state some important exclusions to these rules before going forward, besides the one exclusion mentioned (co-option by marginalized group).

1. Discussions concerning works of literary, artistic, or academic merit that contain slurs. (e.g. Mark Twain)

2. Directly quoting someone without endorsing hate speech. (e.g. quoting Lee Atwater talking about the Southern Strategy in a discussion about systemic racism)

3. Earnest satire of hate ideologies.

4. Genuine, constructive criticisms of religious ideas and ethically questionable cultural practices.

I suggest requiring a content warning for these exceptions.

Further clarify the block - there is clearly a discussion going on alongside the proposal, and then amendments seem to be being made to the proposal as the vote goes on.

I think best practice would suggest (i) starting a thread, (ii) discuss the proposal, (iii) amend as necessary and (iv) proposer brings a proposal and it's voted on.

My point is process-based, not content-based.

And thanks once again for being active on this @fabianhjr - really hate getting in peoples way like this.

Yeah, messed up. Thought I got the first version Just Right™ and turns out it totally wasn't.

Though hopefully with this feedback and a bit more time we might be able to propose a better version soonish that hopefully will be The Right Thing™. Getting some barebones Code of Conduct is important to create some basic moderation and federation policies.