#parenting, violent threats
I wish I knew how to get my four year old to stop screaming "I hate you! I'm gonna find a gun and kill you!" every time he's mad at me over anything at all.
I don't know where he got it from, but our world is full of guns, violence and death, especially on #YouTube (which I always block on our electronic devices, but his older brother Link always figures out how to hack back into it. But hey, at least they won't see any female nipples right?! 🙃)
He always apologizes after calming down, but I don't know how to get him to stop saying it in the first place. I've tried ignoring him, yelling at him, depriving him of electronics and toys, crying (somewhat but not entirely hammed up), calmly asking him to stop, putting him on time out (which just makes him more mad) and still... Every time he's angry, out it comes.
His brother used to say "I want to kill you" a lot, but he's dropped it off a lot, thank goodness. Maybe it's just an age thing. It hurts so badly everything, though. And if he says that at school he's going to be in a lot of trouble. I think enough already about the horrors of gun violence, and fearing my kids will be next... I don't want him adding anything to that, even through words.
I gotta get us out of this shithole country.
#parenting, violent threats
@toplesstopics In relation to the rules topic i tooted your way, this toot inspired an idea: should there be a rule against glorifying violence or weapons?
Maybe, that would be too far, as it might be very hard to moderate. Maybe it's the right thing to do.
I added an issue here: https://gitlab.com/ufoi/constitution/-/issues/3
Anyone who does not want to make a gitlab account can tell me to update with new thoughts, i will do so as long as it does not become too much work for one person.
🇳🇱
#parenting, violent threats
My personal stance is to keep the rules limited as is reasonable. Keep in mind instances can make up their own additional rules for their instance still, so there is a lot of freedom for them to customize the rules beyond those enforced by the UFI.
That said I think its good you added an issue, it is worth discussing.
discussion of violence, examples of bad things to say
@lucifargundam @freemo I am specifically talking about glorification of violence. I do not see a case to stop people from discussing it.
Examples would be:
"There is a war going on, the number of civilian deaths by artillery is x" - factual, not glorifying.
"It is so cool how the army totally smashes our enemies, i love gore!" - glorification, problematic.
discussion of violence, examples of bad things to say
I think glorification of violence might basically just be calls to violence, which might be worth making against the rules.
discussion of violence, examples of bad things to say
@freemo @lucifargundam So basically, what we are discussing is where exactly the cutoff should be.
The viable range is from (clearly criminal) calls to specific violence to generic affirmative expressions regarding violence.
What criteria could there be?
- specific: is the positive stance toward generic violence or targeted at a person or group
- time: is about a possible future occurrence of violence or talking about the past?
- adoption: does it adopt the stance of something cited or is it merely stating that another utterance exists
- ... what am i missing?
discussion of violence, examples of bad things to say
@admitsWrongIfProven @freemo
>>"It is so cool how the army totally smashes our enemies, i love gore!" - glorification, problematic.
<< What about in context of games, books etc? Citing someone else's conversation?
discussion of violence, examples of bad things to say
You should comment on the gitlab so your opinion is actually added tot he official discussion
discussion of violence, examples of bad things to say
@freemo @lucifargundam Maybe a quick exchange here is a good idea until the actual core of the idea is clearer? Gitlab would be quite slow, how long do you plan on keeping the discussion there open?
discussion of violence, examples of bad things to say
Yes i see no issue with using this space for faster coms to settle your opinions before chiming in on gitlab.
discussion of violence, examples of bad things to say
I just wanted to let you know about this project dangerousspeech.org/ which is a great resource to help you understand and recognize dangerous speech online & offline. They also seem to support & encourage different tactics like counterspeech to deal with these situations, here is a recent document they published about it - dangerousspeech.org/why-they-d…
I also recommend taking a look at their FAQ, its well worth a read - dangerousspeech.org/faq/
This one might be relevant to your discussion:
> Should dangerous speech be censored or banned?
We’re skeptical of censorship as a means of countering dangerous speech, especially as a sole method, for several reasons. First, it can fail or even backfire. It’s usually impossible to suppress speech entirely, and efforts to do so can only amplify its message. Removing it from social media sites, for example, can push it onto other platforms that act as ‘echo chambers’ where people repeat inflammatory messages to each other, making them seem more convincing and therefore more dangerous. A second reason for skepticism is that rules restricting speech are often interpreted too broadly, leading to the suppression of more speech than necessary. Prosecution for dangerous speech can backfire, by publicizing it and even making it - and its disseminators - more popular. For example, Geert Wilders, a far-right populist politician in the Netherlands, was prosecuted for incitement to discrimination, and then found guilty in December 2016, but during the trial the Party for Freedom, which he founded, only climbed in the polls. In national elections in March 2017, the party won so many seats that it became the second-largest one in the Dutch House of Representatives. Censorship can easily infringe, then, on freedom of expression, which must be protected as a basic human right and a vital component of a democratic society. In addition, people use freedom of speech to seek peaceful resolution of their grievances and without it, may resort to violence.
@roko @freemo @lucifargundam So, from a quick first glance, it seems this is relevant.
As a base line, i think we already established that we need to forbid calls to violence, both due to laws and because of ethics.
Since this link references "calls to violence" and expands on what besides them can incite violence, i think it is exactly the kind of information we need.
(Talking about the "What is dangerous speech category) We might have to exclude Speaker, Audience and Medium, since we have no control or certainty here.
The point of Context might also be hard to grip. On the internet, nobody knows you are a dog.
Of the rest, especially Dehumanization might be something we can use. It was a common way to incite violence used by the real nazis and should be relatively clear in its definition. As long as we clarify that discussing a message is different from actually adopting the message, i think dehumanization could be included in banned behaviours.
Does anyone have an idea how the other points could be used without eliminating free speech?
@admitsWrongIfProven I think this is ell thought out.. can you put this thread or some version of it on the gitlab as a discussion, I think it needs a wider audience.
discussion of violence, examples of bad things to say
#parenting, violent threats
@lucifargundam Added the clarification to gitlab
#parenting, violent threats
@admitsWrongIfProven @freemo
If anything, violence would mean flagging as CW instead of banning...