π³π±
@doot I think its important to include the full context here... the wording is specifically:
> No "hate speech", speech that nefariously expresses a form of prejudice or threatens a people of a protected characteristic (such as age, disability, ethnicity, gender, pregnancy, religion, sex or sexuality - unpopular opinions
voiced respectfully is fine).
What is being said here is that no hate speech or attacks or anything of that sort are allowed against any of the protected and marginalized groups... **outside** of that if you have an opinion which is not an attack on one of these groups, but people just dont like it, then its fine.
Forcing people to only speak popular opinions and banning people for unpopular ones is highly problematic IMO. As long as you are respectful, and do not disenfranchize marcganialized groups I think not having fear of being banned just for being unpopular is a good thing.
I'd be happy to hear your opinions on why "you can only say popular things" would be a good thing?
@freemo @doot I raised this on your discussion system, but as there's no answer there and your site has gone live despite the numerous outstanding and unanswered discussions on your organisation's Gitlab I'll repeat it here. Of all the things that are prohibited, why is hate speech in air quotes?
Your Code of Ethics prohibits four things: hate speech; Calls to violence; intentionally circumventing blocks; and harassmnent [sic]
Only one of these things has air quotes.
Please explain.
(ref: https://gitlab.com/ufoi/constitution/-/issues/17#note_1195337741 )
Hate speech is never an opinion. There is no hate speech that can be considered an opinion. They are mutually exclusive terms.
Adding this qualifier infers that some hate speech at least to you and your federation can sometimes be considered an opinion, and - apparently - an acceptable one.
Respectful bigotry, if such a thing exists, is still bigotry.
The air quotes int he proposal, constitution, and the website have all now been removed.
You misinterprited the intent, and if you have a better wording that prevents such miscommunication in the future I am welcome to hear it.
The point here is to say as long as you arent uttering hate speech or being nefarious to a protected group, then opinions which are not hateful or attacking but are just not popular are ok... how can we express that better?
>how can we
Remove the qualifying sentence.
Hate speech is hate speech. It cannot be qualified otherwise.
"any kind of communication in speech, writing or behaviour, that attacks or uses pejorative or discriminatory language with reference to a person or a group on the basis of who they are, in other words, based on their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, colour, descent, gender or other identity factor."
End. Of.
There is no need, ever, to add an exception.
Thats fair.. iw as going to respond saying it is needed at least in a seperate section, but I agree with you, it isnt needed. Because if we say respectful opinions are allowed then that is forced upon all instance moderation, and frankly i think instances should have the flexibility to moderate locally.
Did you already create a MR for this? if not i can create one.. ill support it and I suspect the federation will approve your suggested wording.
