Boards›Discuss the Boards

Hate Speech should not be permitted on The Boards

AirKingNeo·3/21/2018, 11:02:38 PM·2 votes·1,742 views

#Hate Speech - Speech expressing hatred of a particular group of people

This is the definition by Meriam-Webster Dictionary, and similar definitions can be found at Oxford Dictionary and Cambridge Dictionary.

Hate speech, as of the last two to three weeks, has become a major issue of the boards. Normally, the downvote-upvote system should be able to deal with this, as users are expected to upvote good threads and downvote bad ones. However, it is very clearly the system has failed, the issue must be brought up to the grand stage. The Universal Rules clearly states hate speech is among the various things that should not be tolerated. Any speech, gesture, conduct, writing, and/or display that attacks a person or group is not to be tolerated.

You must also apply these violations of hate speech to the "Naming and Shaming Rule" and "The Golden Rule" under the basis that Naming and Shaming should also protect groups of people and protection with the Golden Rule based on this thread about threads made to address ridicule, harassments, and insults of the Riot Live Design/Balance Team. Posts that attack groups of people are not treating that group with respect.

This is the League of Legends official online forum. Having nearly 1/5th of League's playerbase feeling unwelcome due to hate speech in the forms of propaganda means there is something deeply wrong. I cannot post threads as examples as the "Naming and Shaming Rule" blocks me from doing so, but you should know exactly what I am talking about.

"I feel like ADCs have no problem with going into other lanes and taking their cs for no reason" "Last I checked junglers and tops don't show up mid and steal CS. Supports don't cs at all. So it's wholly and only the ADCs. You are confusing the scenario. The simple fact is it's only applicable to ADCs." "PSA to ADCs: you are not entitled to every cs once mid game hits." "PSA to ADCs: you are not a duelist." and, basically, every thread and comment saying, "Riot has a bias for ADCs" or some variation.

How can you could anyone call this a welcoming community when nearly 20% of players are discriminated against? How could you even be proud of this community? Better yet, let's take everything I quoted here and turn it into something racist, sexist, homophobic, or something.

"I feel like black players have no problem with going into other lanes and taking their cs for no reason" "Last I checked white people and Asians don't show up mid and steal CS. Native Americans don't cs at all. So it's wholly and only the black people. You are confusing the scenario. The simple fact is it's only applicable to black people." "PSA to LGBT players: you are not entitled to every cs once mid game hits." and the real world equivalent to saying "Riot has a bias for ADCs" would be the government having some bias for some group (trying to not make this political).

Literally, change it to any of these (whatever gets the point across) and, of course, you'd be offended. That's a natural reaction that you should have, but tell me why you don't care or don't do anything when it's about ADCs? Tell me why threads that insult me and other people are allowed. Tell me why others and I are allowed to be belittled, harassed, ridiculed, and insulted. I am not defined by the stereotypes that have been allowed to spread, yet every day I see someone talking down to about me and other ADC players.

36 Comments

MagicFlyingLlama3/21/2018, 11:05:50 PM6 votes

What a great troll post - i was expecting something actually intelligent and meaningful about the current boards circlejerk attitude..

BobaFlautist3/21/2018, 11:29:53 PM5 votes

clicks your link and scrolls down slightly

"Legal Definition of hate speech: speech that is intended to insult, offend, or intimidate a person because of some trait (as race, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, or disability)" A pretty fundamental part of "hate speech" is that the group is targeted over an aspect they themselves did not choose. That's why saying something like "vegans suck" isn't hate speech, but "lactose intolerant people can go fuck themselves" arguably could be.

General usage also tends to necessarily imply that the group in question is also subject to systemic discrimination or disadvantage, so there's also that...

I'm sorry the definitions you found were incomplete, it's always so embarrassing to be misinformed.

ModUlanopo3/22/2018, 12:50:56 AM5 votes

Your premise brings up a number of interesting questions.

Most compelling to me is whether or not something can be considered hate speech if it references a trait in which people do not self-identify in any meaningful sense. I, for example, can't stand raw tomatoes, but wouldn't feel in any way attacked if someone said, "People who make a special order rather than just pick the tomatoes off their food should just get over themselves." Similarly, I have never felt attacked as a support main, at least not by the often ridiculous generalizations people make about supports.

Much of that's because no part of my identity is under attack in any way. In this sense, I question whether or not the term hate speech applies. I don't think it does.

The same cannot be said of races, genders, sexual orientation and the like. I absolutely find myself insulted when the antisemitic drivel starts pouring out of someone.

There's also the question of practical speech. You seem to be objecting to generalizations that paint a group in a mildly negative light. At some point, we have to let people talk about League. What you're suggesting seems highly restrictive, more than a little subjective and ultimately not worth the effort required to police the Boards to the degree you suggest.

Lastly, I find myself confused about how the example phrases can be considered oppressive.

"I feel like ADCs have no problem with going into other lanes and taking their cs for no reason"

This is poorly structured and a tad hyperbolic, but actually can segue into a conversation about roaming, who "owns" CS, etc.

"Last I checked junglers and tops don't show up mid and steal CS. Supports don't cs at all. So it's wholly and only the ADCs. You are confusing the scenario. The simple fact is it's only applicable to ADCs."

This is even more poorly constructed, containing no less than four unsupported assertions. If I saw this in an actual discussion, I would simply ignore it. People can be wrong on the internet.

"PSA to ADCs: you are not entitled to every cs once mid game hits."

Seems a little clickbaity to me, but not antagonistic.

"PSA to ADCs: you are not a duelist."

Properly geared, most of them are. I don't know what you're going for here.

~ Ulanopo

Sp33d Zer03/21/2018, 11:06:42 PM4 votes

There is a difference between hate speech and being annoyed at a playerbase. I get where you are getting at, but these are not really effective ways of framing an issue such as hate speech.

Saying something like "your opinion doesn't matter, you're an adc main" would fall under harassment under the boards, but saying that ADC are not entitiled to every CS is just common sense. There are 3 other people on your team who are reliant on farm and you need to work with your team as a whole to be successful.

You can change almost any sentence to be about another topic and suddenly it's innapropriate.

"I don't like baseball" -> "I don't like gays" "The golden guardians are shit" -> "The blacks are shit" "Being an ADC main isn't a good thing" -> "Being a woman isn't a good thing" "My bike broke, I need to buy a new one" -> "My asian broke, I need to buy a new one"

rework trundle3/22/2018, 12:59:10 AM1 votes

I wish hate speech was allowed on the boards because I would be seriously questioning your critical thinking ability

ModThe Djinn3/22/2018, 1:43:42 PM1 votes

Hey there.

So right off the bat I'm going to agree with Ulanopo. While this language may be negative-leaning language towards a group of individuals, it does not -- and will not -- fall under our hate speech policy. Ulanopo's definition of an attack against a trait that a subset of the population consider core to their personal identity is a good working definition of what I would consider hate speech, and "ADC Player" is, in general, no more identify-defining than "person who prefers pineapple to pepperoni on pizzas" (those monsters!).

With that out of the way, we can address the stronger point of your concern:

I'm basically saying if a thread's sole purpose isn't to be helpful and, rather, just a complain thread where people are bitching about a type of people, it should be removed. It promotes hatefulness against that type of people, which we're seeing right now.

I personally don't like this sort of thread either. In my view it's not really a great way to start a discussion, and it's often just made to complain.

Where we differ is that, while I don't like those threads, I do think that people have a right to vent their frustration and discuss trends they see in League. Not every thread will have a valuable discussion behind it, although we're looking into some ways to make good discussion more accessible to those who are looking for it.

Also, frankly, policing every thread to ensure it has "helpful value" is a highly subjective and very time-consuming process, that would likely leave the community feeling restricted and our moderation team feeling overworked.

As a result, we're unlikely to make a push against threads like "ADC players need to stop taking all the farm" or "ADC players need to remember defensive items exist" or "ADC players need to learn they're not the only person on the team." If it becomes "ADC players are trash humans" or "ADC players all need to die in a big bonfire," then we'll step in, obviously.

92571756DEL13/22/2018, 7:05:16 PM1 votes

The hypothetical examples you provide are insufficient and irrelevant. Free speech is not bounded by anything called "hate speech". Dissent is not hate speech; Incivility is not hate speech; Incitement is not hate speech; Fighting words are not hate speech; etc. The frequent correlation between those who invoke "hate speech" and those are trying to induce a heckler's veto is another reason for viewing the concept of "hate speech" with dubiety.

Furthermore, Merriam-Webster has definitions for "Blasphemy" and "Heresy"; the fact that a word appears in a dictionary in and of itself gives no legal force to the term.