A discussion on what name calling and personal attacks mean at Ars

[Aurich]

It seems that people are often confused about this topic, so this is the thread to reach some level of understanding.

One of the fundamental rules of Ars is "no personal attacks". This is I think pretty easy to grasp as something desirable. We don't want people to call other participants in our discussions names. If you don't agree with someone, or find their ideas distasteful you can find a way to express that without making it personal.

On a basic level that means don't call someone an idiot or stupid. Don't tell them to go fuck themselves, or fuck off.

Trying to find creative workarounds doesn't help. Please don't call people in our comments nazis or fascists or commies, those are personal attacks.

It doesn't matter if you protest "but I found their post to be advocating for fascist ideas!" Feel free to put that person on ignore, downvote them, just plain old don't respond to them—or, if you wish—address the substance of their post.

Don't type "found the fash!" Don't reply with "okay nazi!" No "nice post commie!"

Don't call other posters libtards or cucks. Don't call them groomers. Don't accuse people of being paid to be shills in our comments.

"But Aurich, what if they call for the systematic genocide of Jews? Can I call them a nazi then?" No. I will ban their stupid account, having you pile on with name calling doesn't help anything.

"What if they quote something from a book that I think Hitler might have read?" Nobody cares.

"But Aurich, why did the the person who said something I didn't like not get moderated, but the person who told them to fuck off did?" Because the first person didn't break the rules and the other person did. You not liking a post doesn't mean it was actually a problem.

You might be expected to be confronted with ideas and opinions at Ars you don't agree with. Not every person you don't like is a troll or a sealion or Russian agent or secret Nazi.

If I can help clarify anything else please feel free to ask.

 

[ImpossiblyStupid]

On a basic level that means don't call someone an idiot or stupid.

I demand the right to be called all manner of stupid.

 

[stormcrash]

Edit: NVM I don't actually feel like going down this discussion road right now

 

[Aurich]

This person apparently left Ars in a huff over this policy, and I really and truly do not care. Anyone who can't handle "no personal attacks" please follow suit.

But I will quote them for educational purposes:

The terms "Nazi" and "Fascist" are very heavy words and we absolutely should use them very sparingly and very carefully, but there are times that they are applicable and correct, and we should be able to say them when the label is accurate.

Yes, they are heavy words. That's why they're personal attacks.

There is simply no case where you should be calling someone else at Ars a nazi. Because the times they are applicable and correct are moderation issues.

That's it.

If they're calling for the death of Jews and ascension of the aryan race? I will simply ban them for breaking our rules. If they're not actually doing that? Then it's not applicable and correct. There really is no middle ground here where you get to decide the rules don't count for you because you have feelings and must express them to the world.

 

[Aurich]

Edit: NVM I don't actually feel like going down this discussion road right now

Please don't come into these threads, write a comment (which I saw in this thread and the other one) and then edit your post to avoid discussion.

You don't think calling someone an asshole or stupid is an attack. Cool, in your house you can teach your guests that.

In our house calling someone stupid or an asshole is an attack. Honestly, children understand this, so this is really a matter of your social acceptability scale being uncalibrated against the norm.

Regardless, your house can have your rules, in our house we have ours. Just don't do it.

 

[Aurich]

I demand the right to be called all manner of stupid.

I'm sorry, that's simply not possible.

 

[stormcrash]

Please don't come into these threads, write a comment (which I saw in this thread and the other one) and then edit your post to avoid discussion.

You don't think calling someone an asshole or stupid is an attack. Cool, in your house you can teach your guests that.

In our house calling someone stupid or an asshole is an attack. Honestly, children understand this, so this is really a matter of your social acceptability scale being uncalibrated against the norm.

Regardless, your house can have your rules, in our house we have ours. Just don't do it.

Sorry, I wasn't happy with how it was articulating in that comment and then decided I'm not in the right mood and space to really articulate myself or participate in the conversation so I was just trying to bow out without having to defend myself on a point I was struggling to describe to my satisfaction. That's all. The edit on the other thread was only to say that the comment to cease discussion there literally hadn't loaded until after it was posted.

Also how is "so this is really a matter of your social acceptability scale being uncalibrated against the norm." not a personal attack given the stated rules?

 

[Psychophant]

Also how is "so this is really a matter of your social acceptability scale being uncalibrated against the norm." not a personal attack given the stated rules?

Because that is engaging with the content of the post? Talking about the expressed views of a person and characterizing them compared to something else is discussion, talking about a person directly, not their views is a personal attack. Not that hard.

For example: "Your conception of free speech is far more permissive than the norm, maybe even fringe, and would cause actual harm". Vs "only a Nazi would have that view of free speech, so they can spread their Nazi ideas"

 

[UNLK A6]

To say that Trump is a felon, or that Harris is a Democrat, or that Walz is a White man is not calling people names. Yet there are circles where each of those would be considered a pejorative. Sometimes whether someone is stating a fact or is calling someone a name is not “as simple as that”. There’s plenty of name-calling going on in these forums. But it is certainly possible to call a fascist a fascist without calling them a “name”. This is an extremely dangerous time in history. It is time to be truthful and persuasive. It’s not a time to be dismissive.

 

[Scandinavian Film]

To say that Trump is a felon, or that Harris is a Democrat, or that Walz is a White man is not calling people names. Yet there are circles where each of those would be considered a pejorative. Sometimes whether someone is stating a fact or is calling someone a name is not “as simple as that”. There’s plenty of name-calling going on in these forums. But it is certainly possible to call a fascist a fascist without calling them a “name”. This is an extremely dangerous time in history. It is time to be truthful and persuasive. It’s not a time to be dismissive.

I think the rule is only against name-calling other posters on the forum, and doesn't apply to people outside of it (like politicians).

 

[DerpGentley]

I love Ars, and I appreciate respectful dialogue. I recognize that that means I will have discussions with folks I don't necessarily agree with and wouldn't share a drink with. In most instances, that is enough to navigate forum discussions without incident.

At a time when the world is flirting with authoritarian government, I don't support an approach which says that so long as they don't explicitly threaten anyone in the forum or call for violence, they will be treated as good faith actors and tolerated. Further, the idea that the appropriate response is to convince them not to be authoritarians by engaging with them is extremely counterproductive. I understand that there is a downvote button that may make them less noisy over time. However, I still feel that this is setting up ground rules where they will edge ever closer to that line and spew horseshit, and we will get to tolerate and normalize it, rather than upset them.

At the end of the day, it's your bar. And if you want to set aside a section for well dressed authoritarians, so long as they keep their armbands politely covered, that's your prerogative.

 

[Aurich]

Also how is "so this is really a matter of your social acceptability scale being uncalibrated against the norm." not a personal attack given the stated rules?

If I said to you right now "you are too stupid to understand", would you accept that as an answer?

I rather doubt it, and suspect you'd take that personally. As well you should, that's a crummy way to respond to someone.

So my suggestion is to either stop and think about the fact that yes, most people understand that calling someone stupid or an asshole is in fact a personal attack, or understand that your inability to understand that means that your perspective is outside of the norm.

Regardless, it's not something we're going to discuss, because it's super obvious to just about anyone, and if it still doesn't make sense to you after thinking about it you'll just have to go with "I guess that's just their strange rules".

 

[UNLK A6]

I think the rule is only against name-calling other posters on the forum, and doesn't apply to people outside of it (like politicians).

I am against all name-calling in what that’s generally understood to mean. But I did not mean to imply from my examples that only politicians can be fascists or neo-Nazis or insurrectionists or what have you. You may encounter them on comments sections as well.

 

[Aurich]

I think the rule is only against name-calling other posters on the forum, and doesn't apply to people outside of it (like politicians).

This is accurate yes. Elon Musk is, indeed an asshole. Nobody has ever been moderated for expressing this. Nobody is getting side eye from the mods for posting the "christ, what an asshole" response.

But, as I wrote "We don't want people to call other participants in our discussions names. If you don't agree with someone, or find their ideas distasteful you can find a way to express that without making it personal." (emphasis added)

So that means if someone says "I rather like my Cybertruck, and I don't really care what Elon Musk says on social media, I don't read it and just enjoy my truck" you cannot then say to them "well, that makes you an asshole, make better choices".

I suggest just not caring that someone likes their truck to be honest. But if you wish to have a conversation with them about it, or the choices people make, please simply do so without making a personal attack.

 

[UNLK A6]

The reason “fascist” and “Nazi” have negative connotations is because they should. Someone with those views shouldn’t be masked by polite society. Would an Ars comment “That sounds like something a Nazi would say.” be against the rules? I certainly hope not.

 

[Aurich]

At a time when the world is flirting with authoritarian government, I don't support an approach which says that so long as they don't explicitly threaten anyone in the forum or call for violence, they will be treated as good faith actors and tolerated.

As long as they don't break our rules they will be tolerated, yes. That might mean expressing opinions you don't agree with. It's okay to be exposed to things you don't agree with.

We have posting guidelines that people need to follow. They are more complete than "don't explicitly threaten people or call for violence". So long as they follow them they can participate.

Further, the idea that the appropriate response is to convince them not to be authoritarians by engaging with them is extremely counterproductive. I understand that there is a downvote button that may make them less noisy over time. However, I still feel that this is setting up ground rules where they will edge ever closer to that line and spew horseshit, and we will get to tolerate and normalize it, rather than upset them.

You can simply not engage with them if you wish. Nobody said you have to reply to anyone.

If you think calling people names is going to be productive then we share different perspectives. Do you find in general that strangers on the internet insulting you and calling you derogatory things makes you introspective and open to their ideas? I don't.

Furthermore, in terms of the big picture, it's often not the person you're replying to you're actually trying to convince. It's all the lurkers and people on the sideline. If you post a compelling argument they might find it really helpful, even if the person you replied to isn't listening.

If you just post empty insults the only people you're going to reach are those who already agree with you who will high five you for being a jerk to someone they didn't like. You could turn off anyone who might have been open to your thoughts though.

At the end of the day, it's your bar. And if you want to set aside a section for well dressed authoritarians, so long as they keep their armbands politely covered, that's your prerogative.

It's honestly not healthy or productive to go through life thinking everyone who isn't seeing eye to eye with you on some things is actually a secret nazi with a tan uniform hanging in their closet.

There are intelligent people who simply have different perspectives on things. Including topics you personally hold sacred. That doesn't mean they're just waiting to shove everyone in ovens.

 

[Aurich]

The reason “fascist” and “Nazi” have negative connotations is because they should. Someone with those views shouldn’t be masked by polite society. Would an Ars comment “That sounds like something a Nazi would say.” be against the rules? I certainly hope not.

Yes, of course it's against the rules. Just like if I replied to you with "you sound like another libtard, constantly finding nazis under every bed and shadow" I would be attacking you. I wouldn't let that pass from someone any more than your remark.

Stop trying to lawyer some kind of loophole to call people in our comments nazis.

If you really feel like someone is saying things that feel like Nazi ideology there are ways to point that out without making it personal. That might mean you have to stop and think about what you write and make a compelling argument, instead of dashing off a quick and pointless attack. That's a feature, not a bug.

 

[stormcrash]

If I said to you right now "you are too stupid to understand", would you accept that as an answer?

I rather doubt it, and suspect you'd take that personally. As well you should, that's a crummy way to respond to someone.

So my suggestion is to either stop and think about the fact that yes, most people understand that calling someone stupid or an asshole is in fact a personal attack, or understand that your inability to understand that means that your perspective is outside of the norm.

Regardless, it's not something we're going to discuss, because it's super obvious to just about anyone, and if it still doesn't make sense to you after thinking about it you'll just have to go with "I guess that's just their strange rules".

Thanks for dragging me into the exact conversation I decided I didn't actually want to litigate when I removed what I had said.

For the record I agree that calling someone stupid or an asshole is rude and insulting. It's not something I would be likely to say to someone in person. But this is also the internet where lots of things get said that you wouldn't say to someone in person all the time. Perhaps it's just a breakdown in terminology and you're using personal attack to mean all insults and I failed to interpret it that way. If so then fine.

There's more I would like to say but I think I'll just duck out of this conversation instead like I tried to do in the first place

 

[DerpGentley]

As long as they don't break our rules they will be tolerated, yes. That might mean expressing opinions you don't agree with. It's okay to be exposed to things you don't agree with.

We have posting guidelines that people need to follow. They are more complete than "don't explicitly threaten people or call for violence". So long as they follow them they can participate.


You can simply not engage with them if you wish. Nobody said you have to reply to anyone.

If you think calling people names is going to be productive then we share different perspectives. Do you find in general that strangers on the internet insulting you and calling you derogatory things makes you introspective and open to their ideas? I don't.

Furthermore, in terms of the big picture, it's often not the person you're replying to you're actually trying to convince. It's all the lurkers and people on the sideline. If you post a compelling argument they might find it really helpful, even if the person you replied to isn't listening.

If you just post empty insults the only people you're going to reach are those who already agree with you who will high five you for being a jerk to someone they didn't like. You could turn off anyone who might have been open to your thoughts though.


It's honestly not healthy or productive to go through life thinking everyone who isn't seeing eye to eye with you on some things is actually a secret nazi with a tan uniform hanging in their closet.

There are intelligent people who simply have different perspectives on things. Including topics you personally hold sacred. That doesn't mean they're just waiting to shove everyone in ovens.

I'm going to have a good chuckle about this on the way to the ovens, but like I said, it's your bar. Besides, the totally reasonable people who I don't see eye to eye with have already bought the other bars in town, and the seating there is with- or without- jackboots.

 

[Aurich]

I'm going to just suggest that anyone who is maybe still feeling confused about what a personal attack is, and how it relates to discussions in our forum read this, it's a good example of breaking down the basis of our rules:

https://effectiviology.com/ad-hominem-fallacy/

An ad hominem argument is a personal attack against the source of an argument, rather than against the argument itself. Essentially, this means that ad hominem arguments are used to attack opposing views indirectly, by attacking the individuals or groups that support these views.

Ad hominem arguments can take many forms, from basic name-calling to more complex rhetoric. For example, an ad hominem argument can involve simply insulting a person instead of properly replying to a point that they raised, or it can involve questioning their motives in response to their criticism of the current state of things.

As it says in our posting guidelines:

• Ad hominem and personal attacks are not permitted. Again: criticize the ideas, not the people. An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy describing the attempt to discredit an argument by merely attacking the credibility of the arguer. Excessive flaming will not be tolerated. Users who verbally assault the character or person of other posters on a regular basis will be banned. Moderator's judgment applies here. "You are wrong" is not a personal attack; "You wrong because you are an idiot" probably is. Persistent name-calling will likely be assessed as a violation of this rule.

There are many useful examples of how ad homs work on that page. I'll call out a couple that are directly relevant to this conversation:

---

Poisoning the well​

Poisoning the well is a rhetorical technique where someone presents irrelevant negative information about their opponent, with the goal of discrediting their opponent’s arguments.​

​

An example of poisoning the well is the following:​

​

Alex: I think that we should increase the federal spending on education.​

Bob: you’re a fascist, so clearly we shouldn’t listen to what you have to say about education.​

---

Association fallacy​

The association fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone is attacked based on their supposed connection to something that is unrelated to the discussion at hand.​

​

An example of an association fallacy is the following:​

​

Alex: I think that we should increase the federal spending on education.​

Bob: well, the Nazis also thought that, so you’re like the Nazis.​

​

---

Abusive fallacy (abusive ad hominem)​

The abusive fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument attacks a person in a direct and abusive manner, instead of addressing the point that they are trying to make.​

​

An example of the abusive fallacy is the following:​

​

Alex: I think that we should increase the federal spending on education.​

Bob: I think that you’re stupid and that nobody cares about your opinion.​

 

[UNLK A6]

Yes, of course it's against the rules. Just like if I replied to you with "you sound like another libtard, constantly finding nazis under every bed and shadow" I would be attacking you. I wouldn't let that pass from someone any more than your remark.

Stop trying to lawyer some kind of loophole to call people in our comments nazis.

If you really feel like someone is saying things that feel like Nazi ideology there are ways to point that out without making it personal. That might mean you have to stop and think about what you write and make a compelling argument, instead of dashing off a quick and pointless attack. That's a feature, not a bug.

Except that the characteristics/platform of the Nazi party are well understood. Not so with libtards. If you think that I’m in the business here of attacking other Ars posters, you clearly haven’t looked at my history. It’s pretty short; it won’t take long. I’ll simply close with: if you’re in the business of protecting the feelings of your posters (your house; your rules) that’s fine. But consider that many may have felt you were a bit too dismissive with your “simple as that” point of view. You may have been able to find another way to put that. Just some friendly advice in these trying times.

 

[Ecmaster76]

This is accurate yes. Elon Musk is, indeed an asshole. Nobody has ever been moderated for expressing this. Nobody is getting side eye from the mods for posting the "christ, what an asshole" response.

So that means if someone says "I rather like my Cybertruck, and I don't really care what Elon Musk says on social media, I don't read it and just enjoy my truck" you cannot then say to them "well, that makes you an asshole, make better choices".

I suggest just not caring that someone likes their truck to be honest. But if you wish to have a conversation with them about it, or the choices people make, please simply do so without making a personal attack.

I agree though, while its not the kind of thing I want to write, would a response like "you shouldn't support an asshole like Musk" pass muster in that scenario?

People will definitely use implication

 

[Aurich]

Except that the characteristics/platform of the Nazi party are well understood. Not so with libtards.

That has absolutely no relevance to anything. Your understanding, correct or otherwise, doesn't make it less of an ad hom.

And the "otherwise" carries a lot here. Someone I had to warn for calling someone a "fash" today did so because the person was arguing for government not controlling people's speech.

They clearly haven't the first clue what fascism even is, it's just become a word to throw at people they see on "the other side". I see nazi abused in the same clueless way constantly, it's become a catchall the way conservatives use "woke" to mean anything that doesn't support one side's ideology. If it's not directed at another poster we're not going to try and deal with it, because that sounds exhausting.

 

[Aurich]

I agree though, while its not the kind of thing I want to write, would a response like "you shouldn't support an asshole like Musk" pass muster in that scenario?

People will definitely use implication

That doesn't sound over the line, unless there's more to it.

I would personally rephrase it more like "I wouldn't want to support an asshole like Elon Musk".

 

[Aurich]

Just to add a different example, in the Star Wars Acolyte thread someone brought up some film critic I'd never heard of. So I looked them up and found their Twitter feed. This was one of the first things I saw:



Gross. I said they sounded like a piece of shit. It felt warranted.

The thing is, if that person was at Ars and pulled that I'd just moderate them for trolling. That kind of misogynistic nonsense isn't welcome here. I wouldn't call them names to their face, and I wouldn't want other people to either. Let the mods handle it.

But as a public figure on the internet, not someone you're actually arguing with, you can certainly say what you think about them. This isn't about censoring impure thoughts. It's about carrying yourself with a certain level of maturity within our community with other people here.

Hopefully that helps add some context.

 

[SarahSparkles]

The best advice I once read about interacting on forums was to express yourself as though you were at an in-person group meeting with co-workers/friends and their acquaintances, and you're going to see these same people every day.

Before clicking that "Post reply" button, re-read your post and think, would I really use these words if I was at a family brunch, or hanging with friends on the couch, or in a classroom? Would I put it this way if I was explaining something to my coworkers?

If you wouldn't feel entirely comfortable expressing it in the same way in those contexts, where you going to have to face those people the next day and the next, it's probably a good idea to think on it.

It was stated "this is the internet". There's truth there. But you can be responsible for yourself. Suggesting that the "internet" is responsible for how you conduct yourself on the internet is kind of a cop-out.

 

[poochyena]

mmm, I understand not allowing calling people fascist/nazi as a generic insult, but uhh, that legit describes some people or their views.
I'm reminded of this video

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvgZtdmyKlI

(turn on captions)

"But Aurich, what if they call for the systematic genocide of Jews? Can I call them a nazi then?" No. I will ban their stupid account, having you pile on with name calling doesn't help anything.

someone could say something like "We need to get rid of elections" and that wouldn't be against the rules, but could reasonably be called fascist.

 

[Aurich]

someone could say something like "We need to get rid of elections" and that wouldn't be against the rules, but could reasonably be called fascist.

You can choose to engage seriously with a comment like that or not. It sounds like a very unserious statement from someone who is trying to get a reaction out of people, I would probably not personally waste my time.

I doubt they are actually a fascist, hanging out in the comments, sincerely explaining to people why we don't need elections. But the truth is it doesn't matter. Feel free to engage with their argument, feel free to just ignore them because who cares. Just don't call them names.

I don't subscribe to the "we need to counter every opinion posted in the comments or someone might believe it" theory myself. But if someone does feel that way that's cool, we are here for discussions after all. Just, you know, actually discuss. We're not interested in a "all comments I don't like must be insulted so people know I didn't like it" approach.

 

[Vulcan_r]

I'm certainly not one of the veterans of Ars and I can't speak to how things were before, but I've been here around 5 years now and I've been pleasantly surprised at the quality of commentary on Ars' articles. I've seen insightful explanations, informative additions and generally well-worded and fact based discussions. There have been so many fantastic comments debunking or deep diving into the minutiae of subjects that I often lose track of time reading people's thoughts.

However, after certain highly contentious world events there has been a lot of what I would call unnecessary name-calling, which doesn't add to the discussion at hand. I've seen a multitude of fantastic posts clearly written by someone who cares deeply and who aligns with my personal beliefs, absolutely marred by sudden and inexplicable flinging of filth.
I've caught myself having to filter through comments on the front page because a good portion of posts are so focused on calling someone out by way of name-calling that it loses all value. Yes, we know they're Nazis, no we don't agree with them, no you don't have to explicitly state that you believe someone to be a Nazi. It adds nothing.

Do you know what adds value to a discussion? Absolutely tearing into their beliefs. Hammering into them that we won't stand for their ideology. Explaining how and why and how much they are factually, morally, absolutely wrong.

Yelling into the void "Hey, HEY, I FOUND THE NAZI" isn't that, even in otherwise well meaning posts.

 

[Voix des Airs]

I'm going to just suggest that anyone who is maybe still feeling confused about what a personal attack is, and how it relates to discussions in our forum read this, it's a good example of breaking down the basis of our rules:

https://effectiviology.com/ad-hominem-fallacy/


As it says in our posting guidelines:

• Ad hominem and personal attacks are not permitted. Again: criticize the ideas, not the people. An ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy describing the attempt to discredit an argument by merely attacking the credibility of the arguer. Excessive flaming will not be tolerated. Users who verbally assault the character or person of other posters on a regular basis will be banned. Moderator's judgment applies here. "You are wrong" is not a personal attack; "You wrong because you are an idiot" probably is. Persistent name-calling will likely be assessed as a violation of this rule.

There are many useful examples of how ad homs work on that page. I'll call out a couple that are directly relevant to this conversation:

---

Poisoning the well​

Poisoning the well is a rhetorical technique where someone presents irrelevant negative information about their opponent, with the goal of discrediting their opponent’s arguments.​

​

An example of poisoning the well is the following:​

​

---

Association fallacy​

The association fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone is attacked based on their supposed connection to something that is unrelated to the discussion at hand.​

​

An example of an association fallacy is the following:​

​

​

---

Abusive fallacy (abusive ad hominem)​

The abusive fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument attacks a person in a direct and abusive manner, instead of addressing the point that they are trying to make.​

​

An example of the abusive fallacy is the following:​

​

So something like this would be well over the line then?

 

[ramases]

I get where you are coming from: People use words like Nazi much more than is good for either discussion or society.

But I also think that you're going to far with what you're proposing now, which is in essence a zero-tolerance policy on things like calling people Nazis, even if they actually are Nazis. While politeness in a discussion is important, unequivocally placing politeness over calling out extremist speech as what it is runs in danger of normalizing said speech.

I know that policies like this would make moderation easier, because it attempts to remove the need of nuance. Unfortunately that doesn't quite work in situations where nuance is required, and will lead to all sorts of silliness. For example Nazism is a crime in most of Western Europe, often a quite serious felony; consequently, there are a non-trivial number of people who not only are genuine Nazis, but so much so they were charged and convicted for Nazism, by Western Democracies with a firm Rule of Law.

So if one of them got on here, and started a string of 'Nazi posting Nazi things', you end up with a policy that essentially says (to go with a less politically charged analogy) "Can't call a convicted shoplifter a thief, even if they argue in favor of legalizing shoplifting, because that would be inpolite". That'd be quite silly, no?

 

[Vulcan_r]

I get where you are coming from: People use words like Nazi much more than is good for either discussion or society.

But I also think that you're going to far with what you're proposing now, which is in essence a zero-tolerance policy on things like calling people Nazis, even if they actually are Nazis. While politeness in a discussion is important, unequivocally placing politeness over calling out extremist speech as what it is runs in danger of normalizing said speech.

I know that policies like this would make moderation easier, because it attempts to remove the need of nuance. Unfortunately that doesn't quite work in situations where nuance is required, and will lead to all sorts of silliness. For example Nazism is a crime in most of Western Europe, often a quite serious felony; consequently, there are a non-trivial number of people who not only are genuine Nazis, but so much so they were charged and convicted for Nazism, by Western Democracies with a firm Rule of Law.

So if one of them got on here, and started a string of 'Nazi posting Nazi things', you end up with a policy that essentially says (to go with a less politically charged analogy) "Can't call a convicted shoplifter a thief, even if they argue in favor of legalizing shoplifting, because that would be inpolite". That'd be quite silly, no?

Part of the problem is that the more people use it, the more it's being applied where it shouldn't be. I've seen countless posts that loudly exclaim someone to be this or that when at least I, personally, wouldn't classify them as such. It also degenerates whole threads because half of the posts are people yelling names at each other. It adds nothing of value, other than padding out the number of pages.

Edit because my brain didn't process the "convicted" part:
Your example is also flawed; if someone argues to legalise shoplifting they're not a thief, they're commenting on current legislation and how they want to change it. Would you call someone arguing to legalise selling cannabis a drug dealer?

If someone is convicted, I guess it's reasonable to be able to comment on that fact. However, how many of the people being called Nazis in these threads are actually proven to be a Nazi? Sure, call Hitler one. Comment on articles that mention actual neo-Nazi members and call them what they are. For people in the comment section, it's rarely that clear-cut and sometimes it's a matter of perspective or a misinterpretation of meaning (as I just did, hence my edit).

Just because you think someone might have fascist beliefs, doesn't mean that they necessarily are a fascist. You might be mistaken, they might have adjacent beliefs or they might actually be one (or whatever else they're being called). You're welcome to call them out on their beliefs but running around labelling them only starts an "us vs them" discussion that benefits no one other than the ones out to sow discord.

 

[ramases]

Your example is also flawed; if someone argues to legalise shoplifting they're not a thief, they're commenting on current legislation and how they want to change it. Would you call someone arguing to legalise selling cannabis a drug dealer?

Please read my post again. Specifically the bolded part in "Can't call a convicted shoplifter a thief, even if they argue in favor of legalizing shoplifting, because that would be inpolite".

Just because you think someone might have fascist beliefs, doesn't mean that they necessarily are a fascist. You might be mistaken, they might have adjacent beliefs or they might actually be one (or whatever else they're being called). You're welcome to call them out on their beliefs but running around labelling them only starts an "us vs them" discussion that benefits no one other than the ones out to sow discord.

Likewise, I did not write about fascists. I wrote specifically about Nazis, and unlike facism where there argument about is definition[0], Nazism is a quite well defined thing, just like theft and shoplifting[1]. Likewise, the question of whether you truly have Nazi beliefs is secondary in a discussion to the question of whether you are willing to act like you have, for reasons Ken White has summed up quite succinctly, if perhaps with a bit of earthy language, in Popehat's Law of Goats.

We don't have to relitigate over and over again why those beliefs are bad, and calling the concept by its name has, besides other benefits, the advantage of not falling to the bullshit asymmetry principle. Any discussion forum whose rules ipso facto pretend there is no asymmetry between making up shit -- or claiming it totally ain't a duck even though all it does is quack like one -- and debunking it will end up being just as utterly useless as one where people constantly insult each other.

[0] Though it could also be argued that societal consensus lies somewhere between the relatively wide definition of Umberto Eco's Ur-Fascism and the relatively narrow definition of Ian Kershaw; it isn't like people haven't tried to define what fascism means with some sort of rigor.

[1] Note that I do not intend to imply here that the laws of countries that outlawed Nazism ought to apply here on Ars, they don't. The salient point is, those countries have a sufficiently rigorous definition of what a Nazi is or isn't to be able to use it in a Rule of Law courtroom. That is useful in itself, because it allows you to use it as a philosophical razor to tell Nazis apart from others, even if you do not think that being a Nazi should be a crime.

 

[Dr. Jay]

I get where you are coming from: People use words like Nazi much more than is good for either discussion or society.

But I also think that you're going to far with what you're proposing now, which is in essence a zero-tolerance policy on things like calling people Nazis, even if they actually are Nazis. While politeness in a discussion is important, unequivocally placing politeness over calling out extremist speech as what it is runs in danger of normalizing said speech.

You can absolutely call out extremist speech by focusing on the speech. Explain to your heart's content why a given comment echoes Nazi propaganda. Describe the parallels between what a person is advocating and the Nazi rise to power. Absolutely, by all means, make it very clear what the person seems to be advocating.

But, unless they have said "I believe in national socialism", don't call the person a Nazi.

We are not verbally tying both hands behind your back as you engage in verbal pugilism. You can use whatever terms you feel fit the speech in question. We're just asking you to keep the terms you choose focused on where they fit.

(Seriously - do you have any idea if the person posting is clueless, trolling, or an actual nazi? If you don't, then don't call them one. It should not be that difficult to grasp.)

 

[Vulcan_r]

Please read my post again. Specifically the bolded part in "Can't call a convicted shoplifter a thief, even if they argue in favor of legalizing shoplifting, because that would be inpolite".

Indeed, that was a mistake on my part. I edited my post right after but I should have gone over it once more before posting. My apologies.

I was going to say something to the effect of us being in agreement in principle, yet far apart in how we apply that in practice. Dr. Jay however articulated my position far more eloquently than I ever could, so I'll refer to that comment instead.

 

[ramases]

You can absolutely call out extremist speech by focusing on the speech. Explain to your heart's content why a given comment echoes Nazi propaganda. Describe the parallels between what a person is advocating and the Nazi rise to power. Absolutely, by all means, make it very clear what the person seems to be advocating.

But, unless they have said "I believe in national socialism", don't call the person a Nazi.

I am terribly sorry, but I am not going to not call people who quite unambigiously behave like genuine Nazis Nazis just because they do not openly self-identify as one; given the current social context of actual, genuine Nazis trying to rehabilitate part of their ideology, that sounds like a ... little bit silly?

Certainly no one who held such convictions would ever stoop as low as lying. Not.

I am not going to call someone a Nazi because they're "only" your garden variety racist. Yet if they go as far as categorizing other people as subhuman based on their ancestry, or bring out shit like the various Holocaust Denial conspiracy theories, then yes, I am going to call a Nazi a Nazi. No matter the amount of fancy rhetorical footwork used to justify it and argue the "totally not a Nazi, how dare you call me such" angle.

We are not verbally tying both hands behind your back as you engage in verbal pugilism. You can use whatever terms you feel fit the speech in question. We're just asking you to keep the terms you choose focused on where they fit.

This isn't what Aurich wrote, or at least how I understood Aurich, because what Aurich wrote does not have a "where they fit" qualifier; it is a blanket ban on calling advocates of certain ideologies by the ideologies name.

Based on what Aurich wrote a person could quote out of "Mein Kampf", say "this is my core beliefs", and yet calling them a Nazi would still be verboten. Perhaps I misunderstood this, in which case I would appreciate having explained how I misread what Aurich wrote.

(for the record I believe the only persons, participants or otherwise persons of general political interest, I've called Nazis on here are people with things like SS tattoos)

(Seriously - do you have any idea if the person posting is clueless, trolling, or an actual nazi? If you don't, then don't call them one. It should not be that difficult to grasp.)

There's certain subjects where I quite frankly do not differentiate between people cosplaying or trolling, and the genuine thing. Hence the Law Of Goats: People who fuck goats are, first, foremost and regardless of their intentions, goatfuckers. Even if they only do so ironically, or because it triggers others, or because they wanted to troll people by fucking goats; they perhaps are insincere goatfuckers, but goatfuckers nonetheless.

(Neo)-Nazism certainly is one of those subjects.

 

[Dr. Jay]

I am terribly sorry, but I am not going to not call people who quite unambigiously behave like genuine Nazis Nazis just because they do not openly self-identify as one; given the current social context of actual, genuine Nazis trying to rehabilitate part of their ideology, that sounds like a ... little bit silly?

Completely outside of moderation, I don't really get this, so maybe you can explain it to me. I don't see the functional difference between "you're a Nazi" and "the things you're saying are difficult to distinguish from what the Nazis said". I find both of them much, much less damning than a paragraph illustrating the parallels between their position and Nazism.

I guess I just don't understand what personalizing it does for people - what do you get out of calling someone a Nazi that you couldn't get in some other way?

 

[Demento]

Completely outside of moderation, I don't really get this, so maybe you can explain it to me. I don't see the functional difference between "you're a Nazi" and "the things you're saying are difficult to distinguish from what the Nazis said". I find both of them much, much less damning than a paragraph illustrating the parallels between their position and Nazism.

I guess I just don't understand what personalizing it does for people - what do you get out of calling someone a Nazi that you couldn't get in some other way?

More importantly, and it grieves me to say this because my sentiments agree with you @ramases, if they really are all that bad you're just feeding them and giving them the attention they so desperately crave. Ignore them, block them, whatever. It won't matter if they're screaming hate into an empty box. Musk would have fucked off and found something better to do by now if people would just ignore him.

 

[Aurich]

So something like this would be well over the line then?

I honestly cannot tell if you are serious or trying to troll this thread. No, of course not.

 

[poochyena]

You can choose to engage seriously with a comment like that or not. It sounds like a very unserious statement from someone who is trying to get a reaction out of people, I would probably not personally waste my time.

I doubt they are actually a fascist, hanging out in the comments, sincerely explaining to people why we don't need elections. But the truth is it doesn't matter. Feel free to engage with their argument, feel free to just ignore them because who cares. Just don't call them names.

mmm, people come very close. There are no shortage of people supporting Trump's call to become dictator for life, and no shortage of people who suggest no one should run against Democrats because anyone who does is putting the country at risk.