35 10

Where is the line between acceptable and unacceptable speech on IDW?

Saw a video on a post that seemed really far right to me. Remember, I'm an Independent who stands in opposition to the drifting left. But, I'm probably not going to fit very well with the far right either. I'm not talking about normal religious types or anything like that. The KKK is too far out there for me. I'm not going to run from one divisive group to another divisive group. So, how has the site and its members dealt with extremism? What is extremism? Judging content is so problematic, but is there content before you get to yelling fire or encouraging violence that is also unacceptable? Is the intellectual dark web accepting of all speech?

I'm curious what members think about this. Thoughts on where the line is? I admit I'm a bit uncomfortable.

By chuckpo6
Actions Follow Post Like

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value evidence and civil discourse - the social network for the fans of the IDW.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


If you happen to see something that offends you, comment on it. Say why you think it's offensive. That's what the site is for. As the saying goes, "Sunlight is the vest disinfectant." I have a real problem with getting offended and saying someone else needs to fix what offends you.

FYI - I have had s discussion with a white supremacist on here. So what? I told him what i thought of his ideas and why. It wasn't insulting but., it was a long way from flattering. He argued just like a leftist and called me names. Neither his names or his ideas injured me in the slightest. I also learned that style of argument wasn't confined to the left. Up till then I thought it was.


Many topics ... and many peoples’ takes on those topics ... are going to make some people “uncomfortable”
Making people “uncomfortable” usually means making them step out of, Think, outside of their “Comfort Zone.
I view making people “uncomfortable” to be a valuable tool.
If one is made uncomfortable by something they can simply decline to engage.
No-one FORCES anyone to read or respond to anything. If they choose to pick up the pen ... or keyboard ... it is Their Own Fault if they find themselves being “made” uncomfortable.


“This speech makes me uncomfortable” equals a tacit request for censorship. You are either for free speech or your not. You can not have “Free speech as long as it doesn’t make me uncomfortable “ All opposing viewpoints should make you think.

@JimGamblainII This is exactly the argument offered by SJW's, thank you for putting it into a 'nut' shell, lol


By allowing more speech we have the ability to combat crap speech such as that spewing from groups such as the KKK and groups such as Antifa. That is how I handle speech. Open the Overton Window wide and let's have it out over ideas. More speech is the answer.


My way of dealing w/ "extreme" content is to simply move past it by NOT responding in any way to it. I don't even click a "dislike" emoji on it. There is nothing quite as effective as ignoring an obnoxious person. I figure if enough smart folks ignore them (don't feed the monkeys) they will eventually go away and if they don't drop off the site it's still of little or no consequence to me. I don't need a nanny to protect me from bad words. I'm a big boy and I can deal with such things on my own.

iThink Level 6 Apr 14, 2019

No, no speeches should be illegal. However, we should call out everything that goes too far on the left just like on the right. That's how free speech work.

shj648 Level 4 Apr 14, 2019

I love this question and I think it is a very fair one to ask. The way I understand the question is: is free speech such a fundamental value that one should be free to discuss and say whatever they want to say, no matter how depraved, detrimental, or divisive it may appear be? If this IDW, is going to be a so-called “intellectual gathering place”, then I am, perhaps, fine with any such speech on this site.

That being said, however, I think it is absolutely incumbent upon those thinking persons among us to not simply tolerate hateful speech, or even perceived hateful speech without a well thought out and reasoned response. I like to think that the original idea behind freedom of speech was to enable the marginalized or unfavored person to say something contrary to those in power or the ones that they favored without a tyrannical response from the ones they questioned. If you see something hateful, or even perceived hateful, call it out and ask the question in the public forum for the purpose of the speech. If this place is to be intellectually based, then reasoned dialogue should be the norm.

I think speech should be open and free because not all things are always as they appear at first. Maybe through open dialogue both sides can expand their understanding to better themselves and their respective communities. In order for that to happen everyone needs to be able to speak and someone needs to listen.

That’s my partial response to the question should speech be free at all costs, but I still am not sure about what to do about free speech that mobilizes a mob of ideologically bound persons that ultimately have decided that something or someone is their enemy. That type of thinking seems to inevitably lead to bloodshed, which most should be very wary of wading in to.

datguy Level 3 Apr 14, 2019

BEST response to a quarry of this nature ever.


I am for the least amount of restrictions possible. Anything that would call directly for harm to a person physically and maybe some ad hominems that don't deal with the issue would obviously be off limits. In order for me to make a fair judgment, I'd really have to see the post that you are talking about.
I don't want to see this site become today's version of the German social media Stasi.


Why are we even labeled i stand on morals values respect self responsibility individual choice why should that mean anything other then me?


In life, for as long as i can remember, you can say whatever you want or dare, but there are consequences. They could range anywhere from an immediate punch in the face, to a slow social death from friends and community dissing you, and not associating with you. It might even show up as a Subpoena or writ to appear in court to be tested for slander (speaking falsehood), or for uttering threats of violence to property or person.
If proven guilty, you can be sued substantially depending on the level of provable damage sustained by the offended party. If not proven, will be thrown out of court. Deal with it.

Freedom of speech is open to anything you are willing to go to court for. It's regulated by truth itself. Deal with it. And it works just fine like that!

But, there are lines. What enforces those lines? Good question. I was involved on another thread where someone was insulting--exercising his (or her) right to free speech. However, what he lost was an opportunity for reasonable discussion, and that's within my rights as well. Another way of thinking about it is to treat people like you actually cared about having a relationship with them. I'm not going to be a very good person to use to prove how free-speechy you are by insulting me. I immediately found little value in continuing, and I imagine a lot of people would react the same way. So, there are consequences. It's funny when people are rude as some type of open display of their right to be rude. Haha, whatever. Don't waste my time. It's inauthentic--unintentionally. I would make a case for decorum. SO, even in the case of free speech I think rules can be useful.

Like i said, there are consequences already in place. We don't need policy police.
Treat people decently and speak truthfully and you should be able to thrive, with few exceptions. Nobody benefits from policy police who wouldnt already, except maybe people who maybe shouldnt.


@Mortaqai, isn't that a little like saying disband the police?

Well i sure wouldnt say that, i love the police. They are those who deal with those who think its ok to steal and kill and do all kinds of damage to the innocent and hard working. They uphold the law and keep the peace. They look after what bad intentions become once they cross the line of verbal into physical.

In the world of verbal however, there is only truth and non-truth. people have every right o know and to speak the truth. It is when it is not truth that it becomes damaging and then falls under the jurisdiction of the courts to judged as slander and liable.


Y'all know, injecting a bit of humor into "confrontational" exchanges reduces friction better than KY jelly right?



Madmax Level 4 Apr 14, 2019

I bet that's not true. How about the words, 'I sentence you to...'? Haha, I'm just messing with you.


I draw zero lines.

AssHat posts regarding extremes, show the Vile Beast for what it is.

And It, should be ostracized.

Over-simplified. The truth is websites fail under the conditions you describe. The model sounds great, but the practical is more problematic. There has to be some rules, or you may as well close the site now. It'll die.


And some flourish.

There are rules.

Don't threaten.
Don't DOX.
Don't troll.

Either of the top 2 violated, ban.

Otherwise, from my experience at least, with lightly moderated sites, (I've owned 2, and Moderated 1) the "Dregs" are weeded out via silence.


Oh, and sometimes, simplified, or "boiled down" to common sense works best.

Interesting, @Guido_Provolone. That's not my experience at all. So, it was literally anything goes? I can post porn all day long, and you'll just ignore me?


LOL. I guess common sense eludes some


I'd likely make your posts Priority One!


sure - why not. @chuckpo

@iThink he already LOL'd

@iThink, because all decisions have repercussions. If we start posting porn, you'll alienate female and religious posters, and anybody who would find pornography outside the scope of the site's overarching mission. Sort of the entire discussion. The wild west comes with undesirable consequences for even the people who want the wild west. Do you want the site to succeed? If you do, then thinking in terms of what's best for the site is a reasonable thing to do. That's very simple, and it's worth the conversation.



I would think, a site comprised of as many self proclaimed intellectuals, would be able to discern the obvious.


P.S., Pretty language, and WordSalad/CopyPasta, does NOT an Intellectual Make.

@Guido_Provolone, what's obvious?

@Guido_Provolone, missing the point.


AND that actions have consequences.

@chuckpo also, "what's good for the site" is COMPLETELY subjective.

You have no clue as to the "ACTUAL" goals (LOL) of any site, unless you own it.
See: Facebook


Stop being afraid of other or difficult views, you are never going to be rid of crazy...especially if you ignore it or run away from it. The only place you are ever going to "fit" is your personal space, about 5' around you; everything else is going to be a messy fight...prepare yourself.


I haven’t seen anything too extreme or offensive here yet. I am a huge supporter of freedom of speech and feel that when the sunshine hits the really bad stuff, many will point it out. We are the market and the market will speak when appropriate. Until then we all have to assume that feathers will be ruffled, feelings will be hurt and people will be offended....but then again, there is no right to not be offended, upset or triggered.


This post offers much, thanks for presenting it this way, it is a valuable one. Everyone should try to keep in mind, commenting and sharing actual factual news, is not the same as supporting an ideology. If anyone is concerned enough about someone having the power to incite negative views, why not engage them directly? Or as someone else has mentioned, simply decline to engage at all. My opinion is also, 'you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater'. Expecting to be able to straddle both sides of a view may be wise counseling practice, but some issues need to be recognized and dealt with in a focused view. What is that other saying, 'if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen'.

Not throwing the baby out with the bathwater is so important right now. I think a lot of our social problems are because of that very thing. It's also relevant to be bold where being bold is warranted. It's an important part of the conversation. HOWEVER, these aren't simple topics, and they're clouded with extraordinary nuance. A real question is when do you go from being conciliatory to taking a stand. Is EVERY hill worth dying on? And, dogma can be found at the end of that path. It's complicated.


Thanks for you post! I'll be following the conversation here as I'm working on a more clear policy of conduct. I want to allow as many views as possible, even some of the angry one provided that we have a quorum of honest, civil people to discuss them.

Here's my first draft... [idw.community]

Also the image is something I'm calling the "Humanist Horseshoe" where there is a spectrum of views that go from civil to not (I will refrain from saying "asshole" ). I have rework the graphic as I want clarify the point off effective humanist extremists... I mean, in order

Admin Level 8 Apr 14, 2019

Thanks for giving some attention to the topic. It hasn't been drawing much interest, but it's sort of a 'who are we' topic--kind of important. I've been surprised more haven't jumped in, but it is really complicated. I'll take a look at your new community guidelines.

By the way, there's part of this conversation happening at [idw.community] --near the bottom.

@admin, okay just looking at the topics, I love it so far.

@admin, the horseshoe is sensible. Why is it a humanist view? Why did you choose not to include religion, or is that a separate horseshoe?

@chuckpo My thesis, and the one I want the IDW to consider more, is that the growing demographic divide between the Religious Right and the non-Religious Left (e.g., people under 30 are MUCH more non-religious than before) has to be bridged with a focus on shared values. Fundamental to good people, regardless of their views of the supernatural, is Humanism. Humanism, here defined as "being good to others" is one of the bedrocks of religion, that is, Religion = Humanism + Rules from the supernatural (codified by it's church/etc). There are MANY non-religious people who are sick of Identity Politics, being called "bad" for being white, etc who want to leave the Left but are afraid of the Religious Right (shall I say "Abortion Bans"?). Frankly, the Right, demonizes non-believers as "if they don't believe in a god, they'll believe in anything" idiots. We need a way to carve out the "good non-religious people" from the indoctrinated Left. AND, these good people will be critical in reaching out to the Far Left as they don't have the Pro-Life hammer. (Thanks for the vent).

Your thesis, have gone to the top of my favorite posts thus far. People making assumptions about other peoples views, on topics that garner interest and are considered worthy in that individuals view of further exploration, is at risk of becoming problematic on this site, in my view. also, which is what I am getting out of it.....but that's just my biased opinion, lol

@Admin Religious Right is the least of your worries. They are like bees, you leave them alone they leave you alone. I am not on the Religious right but co-exist with them, with no issues.

@admin Thats an interesting concept (Humanist Horseshoe). Visually, it implies the "Humanist/Social Extremist" axis has a sliding scale aspect, much like the "Left wing/Right wing" does. The definition of Social Extremists is very helpful in understanding that side; do you have a corresponding definition for the Humanist side?

Also, correct me if I misunderstood, but you seem to regard the "Religious Right" as a specific group. I'm not sure I buy that .... I bet there are religious people scattered all across the Humanist Horseshoe. Not equally distributed, but enough to make the "Religious Right" moniker inaccurate.

It's funny, because recently I was considering the so-called "Left/Right" political spectrum, and I wondered in passing whether a ring/donut might make for a more accurate representation. Did you consider that shape for your thesis?

@jneedler maybe this is why not, lol [images.app.goo.gl]

We should expect civility from people most of the time, but remember that the social contract is broken when certain groups of people are not treated as equal citizens. When that happens, those people have a moral right to use non-civil means to restore their civil liberties. Isn't that what the American Revolution was all about?


@WilyRickWiles yes it is, but not many are ready yet to consider that as the only option and the chaos and blood that must be spent. Many still believe this ship can be righted, which is for many of us why we are here. And it would seem that the only revolution being respresented at the moment, in main stream, is the Anti-American revolution. Which is why, I don't underestimate, nor seek to invalidate any patrotic man's viceral response to these issues. As a matter of fact, if it comes down to it and all talking ends up running its course without satisfactory resolution, there will be only 2 options, submit or fight. I don't plan on submitting and thank God patriots seem more than willing to take the fight to them if necessary. Just hoping it doesn't have to come to that!

@purdyday What is "Americanism" and what does it have to do with being treated as an equal citizen?

@WilyRickWiles I didn't say Americanism, there's one of the SJW 'ism' terms. And as for being treated as an equal citizen, who or what group are you saying are not? Think I already explained my stand, what is not clear is yours.

@purdyday You used "anti-American" as an adjective describing a purported revolutionary political movement. To me that implies an ideology (i.e., an "ism" ) based on some quality of being American, i.e. nativism, rather than one based on universal ideas, like liberalism or republicanism.

Why does it matter what group I am talking about not being treated as equal citizens? They should have the same moral rights regardless of their identity. Would you deny rights from some groups of people?


@Admin i see alot of assuming in your post. How many people on the " far right side of religion" spectrum have you spoken to or vice versa to come come to this conclusion? I myself am excepting of anyone who is the same of me. As with anyone i know.

@WilyRickWiles it is not a purported political movement that seeks to undermine the American Constitution and pervert the Bill of Rights to their own ends. The only Revolution I would compare their actions to is the Russian one. And I deny no one their rights, they have the right to live in any country, as long as they accept that country's laws and respect the culture found there. There are plenty of socialist countries they could choose to live in, if thats what/who we are talking about here, this country happens to be a republic.

@purdyday Last time I checked the Constitution didn't read "you have an obligation to culturally conform," or "it is an act of sedition to break the law," or "you have a right to leave the country," or "you have a right to citizenship in another country." It seems you are the one perverting our founding documents!


@Gerri4321 I grew up in a loving, religious family. I know that the majority of religious people are not imposing their thoughts on others. I am focusing more on how hard-line religious people are seen by those on the Left who are not religious.

@Admin i can see see your view my mother was as i day a bible thumper. But to respond to a post or comment should be self control and self responsibility to some degree. We need or shouls have learned to control our are emotions and respond to thing's at the age of becoming Adults


I'm not sure what specifically you saw and perceived as very far right but if you are an over sensitive narc who can't understand that noone is forcing you to read things you may not agree with, thus triggering an urge to tattletale on the content provider, then go hang out on "now this, or democracy now, or the root".

@NativeJo, missed the point. Completely. Hey, at least you didn't just barely miss it. Nobody tattled about anything. I started a 130 comment conversation between adults about a complex social issue, no?


The way I see it is, I would prefer to know what people are thinking even when it is uncomfortable. As long is there is no call to violence or something. Even then I would like to know. That way I know who and what I am dealing with. I can then choose because I have knowledge and ergo freedom and the power to decide : I can call them out or block to avoid or debate or plant a seed of wisdom, etc.

I have a friend who (with whom I argue with often as we come from different idealogical stand points) decades before we met , was involved with the skinhead movement for a short time as a teen. 2 things happened with this person. 1. They don't like indoctrination of any kind. Which the movement was. 2. This person met an elder gentleman of colour who changed this person's mind, just by being themselves. My friend learned something important about the value of the content of someone's character being more important... to losely quote Dr King Jr. A Seed of change was planted. My friend abandoned that ideology and stands by the quote from MLK to this day.
My friend still sometimes says some truly offensive things but i understand it is to be provocative for the sake of it. We argue about it. Sometimes it makes me uncomfortable. But that is part of what my friend likes to do. Both of us have mentally stretched ourselves because we are so different.

University was once like this. To stretch the knowledge base and critical thinking. To learn.

In high school I recall in debate club taking and arguing for the opposing position.
Would this not help to create and practice empathy as well? To understand someone your opposed to will also help one to better understand their own position and self? Beyond debate, war or conflict? It helps in life. "To know thy enemy, know thyself. " (The Art of War; Sun Tzu) Just thoughts.

Thank you.

LLpea Level 4 Apr 15, 2019

To me, unacceptable is hurting or attacking others, kind of dumping with no concern for anyone else.

@2FollowHim I would like to know that so I can decide for myself. Unless it is an illigel act like inciting violence. From what I understand there is a block button if there as well if that is what one would like to choose. I would rather know what I'm dealing with whether I agree, disagree or find it offensive.
From what i am understanding from your statement, do you mean harrassment?


Peterson put it aptly when he asks the questions, "Who gets to define harm?" & "What level of harm is tolerable or even necessary to give occasion for a meaningful discourse?" Whatever wouldn't be grounds for a lawsuit or breaks any current laws (in the US / Not Canada). Other than that, I accept that freedom is messy and even dangerous at times- but its better than the alternative of tyranny.


In a nutshell:

And I've been told, these guys were pretty intellectual,..

And smart.

( smile002.gif )


Personally I think policing acceptable speech is a community based thing dictated by willing interaction.

I operate in this mindset. If I find a post I find too extreme I ignore it. If I notice it's a pattern of behavior I ignore that person.

I will interact with people who have a bad framing of their arguement if I believe they may have a valid arguement past the nonsense.
Only to the extent of pointing out they could have a persuasive arguement if it wasn't predicated on prejudice.

I don't know how to reverse extremism without some measure of contact. I don't believe the method of kicking extremist into smaller more extreme groups is necessarily productive in combating it.

True, but what you can end up doing is discouraging membership. If a site's a crapshow, visitors are much more likely to leave and not even give it a chance. So, if someone new comes and sees all of this extreme content, they're gone, man. Ghost. They were never here. The community starts choking for life, and then declining. This is not a simple problem.

@chuckpo I can understand that as well. I wouldn't be completely against the removal/time out of someone if there was a clear and fair clear system or tribunal.

I was speaking as a general rule as an individual but I know some will intentionally target to create incendiary content with the intent to push the bounds of acceptable.

@chuckpo a squeaky wheel shouldn’t discourage the thoughtful but it is a concern (see the perceptions around Gab) but as Tim Pool has so clearly argued, if you begin to censor speech (aside from calls to violence, doxing or crime etc) you force into the shadows this community where tribes are convinced they need to go. Whites convinced they are oppressed so much that the only place to go are places that say it is ok to be you but then funnel to white supremacy. As said in another post, sunlight is the best disinfectant. Let the bloviators spew, they will be easily and quickly seen for who they are and what they are and ignored into irrelevance. Once you start down the censorship road you end up like FB and YouTube and Twitter which is why this forum started in the first place. If those platforms hadn’t become infected with ideological censorship and bias the IDW wouldn’t have had enough support to even come into existence.IMHO


OK ... Let us start. The KKK ? how many members, how active, how relevant ?

Most far right or neo-nazi sites are monitored or as in Germany run by government agencies.
Israel produces alot of racist and antisemitism sites ... it's at war and needs sympathy.

You deal with this by blocking the site. Very simple.
I joined Gab. The left produces false flag Nazi/racist sites to discredit that site.
They have a prominent Block function.
If blocked they don't reappear and don't get the clicks. Sorted

There are extreme lunatics on the Far Right.
But few and far between.
Have you ever met one ?

Thought EVERYTHING Nazi, was outlawed Von Deutschland?

Haha, actually @LesMahagow, I've met one on this site.

But, as a rule, no. I don't run into many on the far right. Those on the left define any Christian as the far right. That's not the case really, though some 'Christians' are.

I actually made the point on this thread I'd rather not have anybody poking at that bear (far right). We should let that one sleep.

@Guido_Provolone A few years ago the German Parliament security scrutiny committee discovered that the largest far right group in Germany was financed by money given by spys sent to infiltrate the group.
The deputy leader was a government plant. They were so heavily infiltrated that it couldn't survive without that (government) spy cash.
They shut down some of the activities of the Secret Service infiltrators and the group collapsed into debt and infighting. ??

Government ! You just can not make up the levels of stupidity they employ


@LesMahagow sounds a LOT like how Hitler, became A NAZI!!


As one person said where is the link to the video? Actually the far left is far more dangerous these days. Anybody who is conservative is characterised as a far right extremist by the leftist clowns.

The far left is far more dangerous only because they outnumber far right by at least 1,000 to 1. The far left also has very effective support from MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, NY Times, Washington Post, Facebook, YouTube, etc. As far as I know there are no high profile organizations who pander to or support the far right. Fox News certainly doesn't. Contrary to what most leftists want to believe Fox News is far and away more "balanced" in their presentation and content than any of the ones I listed above. If the far right had that kind of support it would be every bit as dangerous as is the far left. Extremism of any kind is just evil. very very evil.


Have you a link to this video? I see no evidence to work with re: your claim.

I posted it somewhere down there, but it's not needed. The conversation isn't about forming a judgment about an incident. It's more about what happens if extremism gets a foothold on the site? Most people seem to advocate letting it exist. It will be interesting to watch.

But, we all just come here. This site is part of the site owners' identities. My point is it's not as simple as many make it out to be, because they're not thinking about the same things the owners have to think about.


God, I love this conversation. Great contributions!

Write Comment
IDW.community does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content read full disclaimer
  • IDW.community is the largest community for fans of the Intellectual Dark Web! We're non-commercial, fan-operated, and independent of any public figure.