Hate Speech should not be permitted on The Boards

AirKingNeo·Mar 21, 2018·2 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

MagicFlyingLlamaMar 21, 20186 votes

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

AirKingNeoMar 21, 20181 votes

It is. I defined hate speech and then proved something followed the definition.

What else is there to talk about? The weather?

MagicFlyingLlamaMar 21, 20186 votes

{quoted}

It is. I defined hate speech and then proved something followed the definition.

What else is there to talk about? The weather?

You gave a logically crippled definition that is a gross insult to most of the minorities you used as examples.

AirKingNeoMar 21, 20181 votes

I gave you the Meriam-Webster definition. I also gave the similar Oxford and Cambridge definitions. These are very reliable sources. What is crippled about them?

I have insulted no one. All they wanted in the world was to be treated equally with fairness. I want the same for me. They wanted a world where they could go where they pleased and not be shouted out. I want the same. I am honoring those people by fighting for the same cause.

Bolds claims require an argument.

MagicFlyingLlamaMar 21, 20183 votes

{quoted}

I gave you the Meriam-Webster definition. I also gave the similar Oxford and Cambridge definitions. These are very reliable sources. What is crippled about them?

I have insulted no one. All they wanted in the world was to be treated equally with fairness. I want the same for me. They wanted a world where they could go where they pleased and not be shouted out. I want the same. I am honoring those people by fighting for the same cause.

Bolds claims require an argument.

A bold claim is trying to argue that game mechanics and balance are equal to social demographics and are worthy of similar treatment as if they are sentient beings.

Also the other responses to this are hilarious..

I am just humoring you with this ludicrous debate, i know you are a troll and just looking for free lulz...

AirKingNeoMar 21, 20181 votes

I'm not talking about game mechanics. I have been and only have been talking about insulting people.

BobaFlautistMar 21, 20185 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.

AirKingNeoMar 21, 20181 votes

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.

No, it isn't. Nowhere in the definition does it define hate speech by something 'not of choice'. Also, that definition includes religion, which is of a person's choice.

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...

Then maybe we should stop it before it becomes systemic?

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

I did list the complete definition and 2 additional sources backing it up.

BobaFlautistMar 21, 20181 votes

You did, but you're still misinformed.

I was offering guidelines for understanding, not a strict hard fast rule. Religion is...iffy. Not everyone gets to choose their religion.

Either you're misunderstanding the spirit of the phrase, or you're willfully misinterpreting it. Language is descriptive, not prescriptive.

AirKingNeoMar 21, 20181 votes

You gave guidelines, but at the end of the day, I'd still be correct that this is morally wrong and something needs to be done about it. Doesn't matter if it fits the word perfectly.

ModUlanopoMar 22, 20185 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

AirKingNeoMar 22, 20181 votes

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.

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.

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.

At least point, I get what you're saying, but also you get what I'm saying, right? I don't choose how people define themselves nor want to choose for them, but I do want to protect them from unjust attacks. Even if you don't think it falls directly under hate speech (though it does by definition), it's the same concept and it doesn't provide a healthy environment.

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

Maybe it's better if I post what the thread said in its body.

".. but then the moment someone touches the cs in their lane the ADC starts screaming and crying and threatening to afk, screaming "GG WE LOSE NO GOLD FOR THE ADC". Maybe im just circlejerking or overreacting but is it just me?"

Terrible grammar aside, this isn't a thread trying to help anyone. It's just to complain and put blame on a group of people. It's not discussing the game either. It's a thread to promote hate for a group of people.

Trust me; I want better discussion, but it's hard to do that when we're letting people promote stereotypes and attack a group of players.

Sp33d Zer0Mar 21, 20184 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"

Vapor Wave VibesMar 21, 20183 votes

[{quoted}](name=Sp33d Zer0,realm=NA,application-id=6heBIhQc,discussion-id=Pc8WQBbA,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2018-03-21T23:06:42.605+0000)

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.

I think this post might be a joke

AirKingNeoMar 21, 20181 votes

It was a serious post and it deserves an answer. Why am I allowed to be discriminated against just because people don't like a group I am a part of?

Sp33d Zer0Mar 21, 20181 votes

You aren't allowed to be discriminated against. That's the entire point of being able to report posts and comments for harassment. But not everything is going to be discriminatory against us as ADC mains just because it's something we don't like the sound of.

AirKingNeoMar 21, 20181 votes

But not everything is going to be discriminatory against us as ADC mains just because it's something we don't like the sound of.

Then look at the intent of the post. Is it made to belittle, insult, or create stereotypes a group of people? If yes, then it is discrimination.

You aren't allowed to be discriminated against. That's the entire point of being able to report posts and comments for harassment.

What happens when moderation fails to do their job and doesn't see it as an issue or doesn't see it as hate speech, despite it following the definition? That's why this post exists.

AirKingNeoMar 21, 20181 votes

You're not insulting baseball though. Vague statement. Are you talking about the playing of Golden Guardians? Their morals? Management? Or are you just hating on them meaninglessly? The point is that people are being specific when they target ADC players. How does an Asian break? Just asking because that makes no sense to me.

"Being an ADC main isn't a good thing" -> "Being a woman isn't a good thing"

That supports me. It supports me because you didn't give a reason why being an ADC is a bad thing, just like everyone else when they spout hate speech. It's literally what I'm talking about. Senseless hate posts against a group of people just because they don't like them.

Sp33d Zer0Mar 21, 20182 votes

I'm not insulting gays either. I'm not saying what it is about blacks that is bad. More in reference to the basically slave wages used for the railroads. You can break someone mentally, physically, etc.

Not really because I once again am using something arbitrary. As you mentioned earlier, what is it about being an adc main that isn't a good thing? Is it the attitude? Is it the ease of playing the class? Is it any other xyz reason?

I hate the ADC hate thread spam as well, I think it is pointless especially considering it has already been addressed by Riot as something that is getting a much larger look at; I wouldn't call it hate speech to throw out a "PSA: ADCs should share their CS", much like I wouldn't call it hate speech to put "PSA: Mid laners should roam" "PSA: Junglers should take objectives" "PSA: Supports should ward".

AirKingNeoMar 21, 20181 votes

No, you'd be making a statement, not an insult. Cool, but these posts are saying what they don't like about ADCs and making stereotypes. Yeah... Not really relevant.

Not really because I once again am using something arbitrary. As you mentioned earlier, what is it about being an adc main that isn't a good thing? Is it the attitude? Is it the ease of playing the class? Is it any other xyz reason?

Except people are giving reasons, making stereotypes, and therefore promoting hatred (hate speech) of ADCs.

I hate the ADC hate thread spam as well, I think it is pointless especially considering it has already been addressed by Riot as something that is getting a much larger look at; I wouldn't call it hate speech to throw out a "PSA: ADCs should share their CS", much like I wouldn't call it hate speech to put "PSA: Mid laners should roam" "PSA: Junglers should take objectives" "PSA: Supports should ward".

These threads are being made to insult people and belittle them. I don't think 1/5th of the playerbase should be discriminated against.

PrimaquariusMar 22, 20181 votes

#My asian broke

rework trundleMar 22, 20181 votes

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

AirKingNeoMar 22, 20181 votes

I just want people to not make useless threads made to insult and attack people. I want to get back to discussing the game instead of insulting players. I want a forum that isn't attacking a large sum of players.

What's illogical about that?

rework trundleMar 22, 20181 votes

They are not insulting the player behind the computer. They are critizing the class

AirKingNeoMar 22, 20181 votes

When there are threads with the title, "I feel like ADCs have no problem with going into other lanes and taking their cs for no reason," they are talking about the players and not the gameplay of the class.

rework trundleMar 22, 20181 votes

In which way is it insulting exactly? It's a repetitive behavior they noticed from ADCs and they wanted to point it out, as poorly worded as it came out. I'm not sure as to why you would compare constructive (arguable) feedback vs racism or homophobia. It's not even close.

AirKingNeoMar 23, 20181 votes

How is this constructive feedback? Literally making stereotypes about people and complaining about them like a bunch of drunk man complaining about black people in the 1900s to 1960s. Both are discriminating.

ModThe DjinnMar 22, 20181 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.

AirKingNeoMar 23, 20181 votes

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!).

You don't decide for people how they choose to define themselves. I don't identify with my religion at all, but I'd still feel offended if people shit talked them. I also think hating on people who like pineapple on pizza as stupid. You're just hating on people for no reason. Sure, 'pineapple doesn't belong on pizza' is a meme, but I'm talking about serious people.

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.

Then moderation better and have basic restrictions against posting garbage. I think the benefit of having a community that isn't discriminating against a large sum of players and bring better exposure of good discussion (by removing bad discussion) outweigh whatever complaints you'll get about 'censorship' or whatever.

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.

I'll help you then and give you basic guidelines that should make it less subjective.

If a thread is a complaint about a player or group of players, remove the thread under 'naming and shaming'. (Adjust naming and shaming to protect groups.)

That's it. I'm not allowed to make a thread addressing how, for example, Rubick plays the game and attack him under 'naming and shaming'. Same should I apply if my thread is the same, but about a group of players. For example:

"I feel like Rubick has no problem with going into other lanes and taking other player's cs for no reason" This isn't allowed under naming and shaming.

"I feel like Yasuo players have no problem with going into other lanes and taking other player's cs for no reason" This, for some odd reason, is allowed. It shouldn't be under 'naming and shaming'.

It's pretty obvious to tell when a thread is complaining about a person (or group of persons) as opposed to talking about the game. You guys banned shit talking Riot Live Design/Gameplay Balance, so it's not that impossible to just apply both The Golden Rule and Naming and Shaming to protect groups of people.

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.

I don't even care if it was ADC players. Mid players, Supports, junglers, yasuo players, riven players, doesn't really matter. People shouldn't be allowed to promote stereotypes and attacks on those people no different than if I was talking about race or religion.

ModThe DjinnMar 23, 20181 votes

{quoted}You don't decide for people how they choose to define themselves.

Correct. Hence the "in general." I'm aware exceptions could exist.

Then moderation better and have basic restrictions against posting garbage.

In general, the statement I made above is accurate to what we currently feel is the best combination of reasonable moderator work with reasonable community allowance. I'm not saying it's not potentially subject to change in the future, but it is not something I believe we are prepared to change the way you want it at this time.

It's pretty obvious to tell when a thread is complaining about a person (or group of persons) as opposed to talking about the game. You guys banned shit talking Riot Live Design/Gameplay Balance, so it's not that impossible to just apply both The Golden Rule and Naming and Shaming to protect groups of people.

We didn't ban complaining about them. Heck, you can even say "Riot designers just can't balance mid lane" or "Riot designers can't make a balanced Marksman." We banned certain problematic behavior against them that we saw.

AirKingNeoMar 23, 20181 votes

In general, the statement I made above is accurate to what we currently feel is the best combination of reasonable moderator work with reasonable community allowance. I'm not saying it's not potentially subject to change in the future, but it is not something I believe we are prepared to change the way you want it at this time.

Why not? Can't you make that change? Why make this change:

If a thread is a complaint about a player or group of players, remove the thread under 'naming and shaming'. (Adjust naming and shaming to protect groups.)

You know the difference between an insult and criticism. You can apply that to groups of people, can't you? What would stop you?

ModThe DjinnMar 23, 20181 votes

{quoted}Why not? Can't you make that change?

We could, but A: although I don't personally like those threads either I'm more in agreement with Ulanopo thta, while not great, they're not really that terrible either (for the most part), and B: I have to be cognizant of the extra burden on moderators as well before we push out any new rule. A new rule, inconsistently applied, is not an ideal situation to be in, and adding this would create a lot more moderation, as it would naturally extend to ANY thread with takes any group and applies some level of negativity to it.

At the moment, that's not really something we can realistically support without demanding more from the volunteer team than I can reasonably ask right now.

That may possibly change later if we increase the team size, or if posting habits improve and our other workload decreases, and if that happens we may well consider whether additional rules such as this would improve the community experience.

AirKingNeoMar 23, 20181 votes

I don't really care about team size. Simply make this change:

You know the difference between an insult and criticism. You can apply that to groups of people.

It is that basic request that fixes this issue pretty much.

ModThe DjinnMar 24, 20181 votes

{quoted} I don't really care about team size.

I know you don't, but it's something I have to consider.

It is that basic request that fixes this issue pretty much.

I'll raise it internally and see what people think. Can't promise anything.

92571756DEL1Mar 22, 20181 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.

AirKingNeoMar 23, 20181 votes

I wasn't talking about free speech. This is an online forum, not a government-owned website. Free speech isn't a right here.

I was simply addressing the circlejerk issue we have.