Are we now allowing obviously false information to be posted as truth?

[philipma1957]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5363378.msg58066829#msg58066829

I think this thread is an example of yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. Not proper free speech.

I can not find the ruling on SCOTUS website.

I also think this type of posting could cause bitcointalk grief since it is a blatant falsehood present as truth.
It is inflammatory and justifies killing since vaxxed people are no longer human.

[jackg]

I'd hope people analyse the P&S board as essentially a meme/parody by this point - it would not be something I'd live by. (a bunch were moaning people couldn't change gender and then couldn't define what gender was).

Also if badecker in reality is the same as their persona online, they likely got the vaccine...

[suchmoon]

I also think this type of posting could cause bitcointalk grief since it is a blatant falsehood present as truth.
It is inflammatory and justifies killing since vaxxed people are no longer human.

This isn't even the worst example. There is that Bootlicker or whatever the name is who openly promotes terrorism - mass killings of certain groups of people (and their families) that he dislikes.

This should (at the very least) fall under low value rule since it's not about "politics" or "society" anymore, it's just about someone's mental issues. But I'm not holding my breath.

[nutildah]

Its inflammatory garbage and makes Bitcoiners collectively look like morons to outsiders who aren't aware of the libertarian "freak flag fly" bent to how this place is run.

This thread is more a testament to BADecker's masterful trolling skills that he could evoke this kind of response from a post. His posts are stupid, but at least they are creative enough to bait the unsuspecting.

I have him on ignore, so its not a problem for me. It works.

[Poker Player]

But has anyone reported the thread? I imagine that the moderators are reluctant to delete certain threads on the P&S board on the one hand out of respect for freedom of speech and on the other hand so as not to be accused of political censorship, as happened with the Spartacus letter.

That thread is pure garbage and should be deleted. I had already read the part about vaccinated people not being human beings when I was still on the P&S board. I think it was Arielbit or another member who is retarded who I put on ignore for insulting. That part is already in itself untrue but I can understand letting that opinion be expressed if it is argued. But the Supreme Court ruling part is obviously false and makes the whole thread garbage that should be deleted.

I'm going to report the post and see.

[suchmoon]

I'm going to report the post and see.

Let us know how that goes. I've reported some of BADecker's far more shitty posts without success so I'm not wasting my time on this. He seems to have solid immunity (no pun intended) here.

[krishnaverma]

I'm going to report the post and see.

Let us know how that goes. I've reported some of BADecker's far more shitty posts without success so I'm not wasting my time on this. He seems to have solid immunity (no pun intended) here.

It may take some time to be checked by the mod and then proper action to be taken. There must be a lot of pending reports as this is a very busy forum.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

I also think this type of posting could cause bitcointalk grief since it is a blatant falsehood present as truth.
It is inflammatory and justifies killing since vaxxed people are no longer human.

I don't think the forum has anything to worry about, and hopefully if any government agency started giving Theymos any grief about it, he'd tell them to fuck off.  We do still live in a country that allows free speech, you know.  Youtube might have caved in and started banning accounts that take an anti-vaccine stance, but they're in bed with everyone from their advertisers to the government.  Bitcointalk is not.

You might not like what BADecker posted, but that's the whole point of free speech (which Theymos believes in, if I'm not mistaken).  The only speech that needs to be protected from censorship is the type that people don't like.

I'd hope people analyse the P&S board as essentially a meme/parody by this point

I don't know why people even post there.  This is a bitcoin forum first and foremost, and there are other sites where discussion about politics is better by orders of magnitude than the P&S section.

[o_e_l_e_o]

>90% of the P&S board is obviously and provably false information at this point. Most threads are a circle jerk of ignorance.

If they break one of the other rules regarding low value threads then by all means delete them, but we should not delete threads or posts just because they are provably incorrect. Free speech is more important than silencing a bunch of conspiracy nutjobs and trolls.

[Poker Player]

I also think this type of posting could cause bitcointalk grief since it is a blatant falsehood present as truth.
It is inflammatory and justifies killing since vaxxed people are no longer human.

I don't think the forum has anything to worry about, and hopefully if any government agency started giving Theymos any grief about it, he'd tell them to fuck off.  We do still live in a country that allows free speech, you know.  Youtube might have caved in and started banning accounts that take an anti-vaccine stance, but they're in bed with everyone from their advertisers to the government.  Bitcointalk is not.

You might not like what BADecker posted, but that's the whole point of free speech (which Theymos believes in, if I'm not mistaken).  The only speech that needs to be protected from censorship is the type that people don't like.

I love the defense of free speech on this forum, and I myself have expressed opinions on this forum that would have been censored elsewhere. But freedom of speech is not about being able to say anything without any limits.

Here we are talking about patently false statements. If you don't deal with that for supposedly defending freedom of speech, you shouldn't delete low value shitposter posts because you also restrict their freedom of speech.

[acroman08]

This isn't even the worst example. There is that Bootlicker or whatever the name is who openly promotes terrorism - mass killings of certain groups of people (and their families) that he dislikes.

do you mean this guy B1tUnl0ck3r? I was gonna reply on one of his thread regarding killing a leader and its family if the people of a democratic country finds the leader incompetent of his position. but I realize that it was gonna be a waste of time. the dude is a lunatic and probably a danger to society.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Here we are talking about patently false statements. If you don't deal with that for supposedly defending freedom of speech, you shouldn't delete low value shitposter posts because you also restrict their freedom of speech.

Good point, I think.  I'll have to give that some thought.  Part of me sees the contradiction, part of me sees this as the forum deciding what's true vs. what's a low-value post, e.g., "bitcoin has great future and is increasing day by day, I love bitcoin, blah blah blah".

I'd love to hear what others have to say about that.

[philipma1957]

I also think this type of posting could cause bitcointalk grief since it is a blatant falsehood present as truth.
It is inflammatory and justifies killing since vaxxed people are no longer human.

I don't think the forum has anything to worry about, and hopefully if any government agency started giving Theymos any grief about it, he'd tell them to fuck off.  We do still live in a country that allows free speech, you know.  Youtube might have caved in and started banning accounts that take an anti-vaccine stance, but they're in bed with everyone from their advertisers to the government.  Bitcointalk is not.

You might not like what BADecker posted, but that's the whole point of free speech (which Theymos believes in, if I'm not mistaken).  The only speech that needs to be protected from censorship is the type that people don't like.

I'd hope people analyse the P&S board as essentially a meme/parody by this point

I don't know why people even post there.  This is a bitcoin forum first and foremost, and there are other sites where discussion about politics is better by orders of magnitude than the P&S section.

You do not have the right to yell fire in a crowded movie theater.  as decided by the supreme court that is a crime not free speech.  If you think I am wrong go ahead and yell gun or fire in a crowd when there is no gun or fire and see if you can defend your choice of words as free speech.

 

I never said I was pro vaccine and or anti vaccine in the thread starter. BTW I have made prefectly provable statements showing the current cdc chief did something that shows political manipulation in favor of the booster shots.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5362774.msg58051802#msg58051802

that is true I can say it basically I am shouting fire in a crowded movie theater because there is a fire.

a legal example of free speech.

bad decker is shouting fire in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire. = Not protected by free speech.


How often do you see me complain about free speech violations? Not very many times maybe 1 or 2 other times. Or maybe  no other times in over 30000 posts

[The Sceptical Chymist]

You do not have the right to yell fire in a crowded movie theater.  as decided by the supreme court that is a crime not free speech.  If you think I am wrong go ahead and yell gun or fire in a crowd when there is no gun or fire and see if you can defend your choice of words as free speech.

I'm aware of that, and I'm also aware that free speech in the US isn't without restrictions, but lying isn't one of them unless it's to obstruct justice.  Lying on an internet forum or spreading false information on one is not the same thing as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater; that's a false equivalence.  Can you imagine if the government decided to ban statements that they deemed to be false?  They'd essentially be deciding what's true and what isn't, and that sounds a lot like an Orwellian nightmare.

How often do you see me complain about free speech violations? Not very many times maybe 1 or 2 other times. Or maybe  no other times in over 30000 posts

I don't see you complaining about it often, but what does that have to do with anything?  Obviously you feel strongly about either this issue or the member who made the statement.  Either way, I don't think a post should be deleted because it's misinformation.

[philipma1957]

You do not have the right to yell fire in a crowded movie theater.  as decided by the supreme court that is a crime not free speech.  If you think I am wrong go ahead and yell gun or fire in a crowd when there is no gun or fire and see if you can defend your choice of words as free speech.

I'm aware of that, and I'm also aware that free speech in the US isn't without restrictions, but lying isn't one of them unless it's to obstruct justice.  Lying on an internet forum or spreading false information on one is not the same thing as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater; that's a false equivalence.  Can you imagine if the government decided to ban statements that they deemed to be false?  They'd essentially be deciding what's true and what isn't, and that sounds a lot like an Orwellian nightmare.

How often do you see me complain about free speech violations? Not very many times maybe 1 or 2 other times. Or maybe  no other times in over 30000 posts

I don't see you complaining about it often, but what does that have to do with anything?  Obviously you feel strongly about either this issue or the member who made the statement.  Either way, I don't think a post should be deleted because it's misinformation.

Well the problem is you are stating humans are not human.  Last I heard that is just about as close to the Hitler prequel to killing off

Gays Gypsies and Jews claiming they were subhuman allow for the killing of them without it being a murder.

If you do not see that creating an obvious falsehood the allows for  the murder  of 3 billion people as a threat to public safety as the same as falsely shouting fire in a crowded movie theater it is sad.

As I said I do not attack free speech but blatant falsehoods that endanger public safety I attack. Your reply to me assumes it is not easily proven to be a blatant falsehood  that endangers public safety.

Okay 3 billion people world wide are no longer people .

damn if they are not human so if I kill them I don't commit murder is the next logical step.  So you are saying you are in favor of our forum fostering this under the umbrella of free speech.

I live in Howell NJ right next to Lakewood NJ there are 120,000 people in that town 100,000 are Ultra Orthodox Jews I have quite a few friends from there.  One of them told me he would allow Hitler to speak about killing all the Jews because it is free speech and that if Hilter was running for office here in America he should be able to say that as a campaign theme due to free speech.

Straight up truth he told me that.   I think when people go to those extremes to defend 'free' speech it is pretty much straight a scene from a bizzaro world.   I know it is talk and if someone ran as Hitler he would be against it.

I am pretty sure if every thread had a post that said  "the Pharmacist  and philipma1957  are dangerous aliens they must be found and dealt with"

You and I would not like it. As it would be a threat to the two of us and actually harder to prove it is a blatant lie then it is to prove bad decker's is a lie.

So I actually like a few of bad decker's older posts but as he has aged or as the world has gotten  bigly weird his posts are really out there.

[suchmoon]

do you mean this guy B1tUnl0ck3r? I was gonna reply on one of his thread regarding killing a leader and its family if the people of a democratic country finds the leader incompetent of his position. but I realize that it was gonna be a waste of time. the dude is a lunatic and probably a danger to society.

Yes, that one. He often suggests killing some random politicians/celebrities and their families, which seems like an immensely idiotic thing to tolerate and a misguided application of "free speech". Even if no one cares about the actual fact of promoting violence, you'd think there would be at least some concern that if something happens to one of those people it might land this forum (and perhaps individuals like mods or admins) in hot water.

[philipma1957]

do you mean this guy B1tUnl0ck3r? I was gonna reply on one of his thread regarding killing a leader and its family if the people of a democratic country finds the leader incompetent of his position. but I realize that it was gonna be a waste of time. the dude is a lunatic and probably a danger to society.

Yes, that one. He often suggests killing some random politicians/celebrities and their families, which seems like an immensely idiotic thing to tolerate and a misguided application of "free speech". Even if no one cares about the actual fact of promoting violence, you'd think there would be at least some concern that if something happens to one of those people it might land this forum (and perhaps individuals like mods or admins) in hot water.

Yeah well what do I know I guess we are run by the FBI or CIA and they use 'free speech' honey pot to track the crazies.

Makes as much sense as anything else.

[PrimeNumber7]

>90% of the P&S board is obviously and provably false information at this point. Most threads are a circle jerk of ignorance.

I have argued before there should limits as to the number of threads that receive no replies people can make in P&S.

The above would not apply to the thread referenced in the OP because it was sufficiently outrageous that multiple people responded.

I think there might also be an argument to have a more narrow definition as to what is "politics & society" that would be allowed in the "main" P&S sub, and maybe there could be another sub within P&S in which people can start threads about more outrageous topics. I think some of the more crazy topics in P&S are discouraging people from posting in not-crazy topics, and this is a similar problem we had when there was a lot of spam in P&S, before FH became moderator.

I can not find the ruling on SCOTUS website.

The OP of that thread linked to a website that linked to a video. The video in question referenced the below SCOTUS ruling that was made in 2013: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-398_1b7d.pdf

The video in question made similarly outrageous claims as the thread title. The ruling in question was for a patient dispute, and I don't think any reasonable person would conclude that the SC ruled that "vaccinated subjects are not classified as humans".

[o_e_l_e_o]

I think some of the more crazy topics in P&S are discouraging people from posting in not-crazy topics

100% this. The majority of rational and sensible people don't bother posting in or even visiting P&S because any semi-intelligent post is drowned out by insane opinions. It's not entirely dissimilar to the situation with Bitcoin Discussion, with many good posters avoiding the board entirely because any semi-decent post is drowned out by spam.

It is impossible to have a fact driven discussion regarding, for example, the best way of easing lockdown restrictions, without being flooded with nonsense about how COVID isn't real but it also is real but it's just a flu but actually it's all a psy-op and the vaccine doesn't work but also it's a nanochip but also it's gene therapy but also it's a lethal injection but also it's mind control etc. etc.

I still don't think we should delete those insane opinions, but I would be all for moving them all to Off Topic or something similar. Or I guess we just treat P&S as Off Topic 2 and any reasonable discussion move to Serious Discussion.

As I said I do not attack free speech but blatant falsehoods that endanger public safety I attack.

Here's the issue what that though: In my opinion, stating that vaccines aren't life saving/cause autism/are microchips in disguide/any of the other bullshit is a blatant falsehood which endangers public safety, so therefore, we should delete every anti-vax post. I'm fairly certain there would be a significant amount of fall out if we did that.

[Poker Player]

I'll have to give that some thought.  Part of me sees the contradiction, part of me sees this as the forum deciding what's true vs. what's a low-value post, e.g., "bitcoin has great future and is increasing day by day, I love bitcoin, blah blah blah".

I'd love to hear what others have to say about that.

I am finding the debate interesting because I think we are moving from judging this particular case to talking in general about what the limits to freedom of expression should be. I don't have an explicit idea, but it is clear to me that there have to be some limits, for example, I agree with the unofficial rule 8: "No threats to inflict bodily harm, death threats." I think it is clear that this should be a limit to freedom of speech, but it seems to refer only between forumers and not when a forumer talks about external people, as suchmoon says:

do you mean this guy B1tUnl0ck3r? I was gonna reply on one of his thread regarding killing a leader and its family if the people of a democratic country finds the leader incompetent of his position. but I realize that it was gonna be a waste of time. the dude is a lunatic and probably a danger to society.

Yes, that one. He often suggests killing some random politicians/celebrities and their families...

On the other hand, I think philipma1957 is right in this particular case when he says:

Well the problem is you are stating humans are not human.  Last I heard that is just about as close to the Hitler prequel to killing off

This is not nonsense, the great genocides of humanity have been committed because the other was dehumanized. Hitler dehumanized the Jews, the Hutu dehumanized the Tutsi etc. and when you do not consider the person in front of you as human, but as a cockroach, what you do is to kill him and when you finish, not only do you not feel pity but disgust.

Let us know how that goes. I've reported some of BADecker's far more shitty posts without success so I'm not wasting my time on this. He seems to have solid immunity (no pun intended) here.

I still have the report in unhandled, it seems to me that it will stay that way. I suppose that at the slightest doubt on that board no action is taken because of respect for freedom of expression, and if in this same thread we do not agree, it is normal that the moderators have doubts.

[stompix]

You might not like what BADecker posted, but that's the whole point of free speech (which Theymos believes in, if I'm not mistaken).  The only speech that needs to be protected from censorship is the type that people don't like.

I would really like to hear his opinion on this.
From my point of view, I would have of course banned anyone that uses this forum the way he and others do, it's clear that he is not that interested in bitcoin as much as using this forum to distribute his political "views" and nothing else, I guess that website he linking that much in his posts is his own, right?

But I think that the decision on banning somebody for fake news should be based on the content of those fake news, not just because something is fake or misleading.Of course, in this case, is fairly obvious what's real and what's not real but there are hundreds of others topics where things are not that clear, enforcing such a rule on the entire forum won't work.

[LoyceV]

You might not like what BADecker posted, but that's the whole point of free speech (which Theymos believes in, if I'm not mistaken).  The only speech that needs to be protected from censorship is the type that people don't like.

The problem I have with BADecker's post is the lack of proper references. If you claim the Supreme Court ruled something, at least add a link to the official ruling. A proper title would have been:

Code:

Freedomsphoenix.com: "Supreme Court ruling vaccinated subjects not classified as human"

Now he's using the Supreme Court's name to add credibility to a claim made by someone else. Isn't that slander?

Say someone posts a topic: "LoyceV is Satoshi", and uses randomshitcoin.com^* as a source. It's obvious it's not true, and it's obvious the source isn't credible. On the other hand, if someone posts: "I believe LoyceV is Satoshi", I have no problem with that.
I always assumed freedom of speech was for opinions, not for stating facts. Maybe I'm expecting too much.

Does not being human mean I can stop paying taxes?
^*My apologies to randomshitcoin.com, which apparently exists already.

[hilariousandco]

I'm not a fan of getting involved in this sort of stuff and 'fact-checking' things because it's a slippery slope. Should something that is false be reported and mods then have to investigate and do some research to determine whether something is factually correct or not? We don't moderate scams and this shouldn't be much different. I think it's going way too far when social networks started stepping in and putting warnings on things like covid misinformation, especially when it can be used to censor concerns, worries or just alternative viewpoints. I don't need a warning on a post by a flat-earther saying that the scientific consensus is that the earth is round. I can make my own mind up on whether something is true or not. I think it's best to just either ignore it or make a cause for why you think they're wrong.

[bittraffic]

Well it certainly is untrue since there is no documents from the SC about this ruling.
Even if we believe that you are not going to be human anymore after receiving vaccine, its thd document that this thread is up to. The document linking that the statement is from SC.

Sometimes conspiracy theories are just way too much to believe.

[NotFuzzyWarm]

I'm going to report the post and see.

Let us know how that goes. I've reported some of BADecker's far more shitty posts without success so I'm not wasting my time on this. He seems to have solid immunity (no pun intended) here.

Don't you know that he (and B1tUnl0ck3r) are immune because they are one of the Inbred Reptilian Overlords that secretly rule over Humanity?  
Neither of them are about to allow Truth or Facts get in the way of a good lie...

[philipma1957]

I'm going to report the post and see.

Let us know how that goes. I've reported some of BADecker's far more shitty posts without success so I'm not wasting my time on this. He seems to have solid immunity (no pun intended) here.

Don't you know that he (and B1tUnl0ck3r) are immune because they are one of the Inbred Reptilian Overlords that secretly rule over Humanity?  

You got me to smile a bit thanks.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

Well the problem is you are stating humans are not human.  Last I heard that is just about as close to the Hitler prequel to killing off

When you say "you", are you talking about me or BADecker?  I never said humans aren't humans, so I'm confused by that statement.

If you do not see that creating an obvious falsehood the allows for  the murder  of 3 billion people as a threat to public safety as the same as falsely shouting fire in a crowded movie theater it is sad.

I think you're making an enormous mountain out of a molehill.  I looked through that thread and nowhere does BADecker call for the killing of anyone.  What is this murder of 3 billion people you're talking about?

And to everyone else: I don't claim there shouldn't be limits on free speech, but the government controlling the dissemination of information based on whether they believe it's true or false is a very bad thing.  Science has made mistakes many, many times in the past, you know.  Science is changing all the time as new information is discovered, and people should be able to have all arguments laid out on the table in order to judge for themselves instead of having everything filtered through a governmental censor.

As to what bitcointalk does, that's less of a concern to me.

[philipma1957]

Well the problem is you are stating humans are not human.  Last I heard that is just about as close to the Hitler prequel to killing off

When you say "you", are you talking about me or BADecker?  I never said humans aren't humans, so I'm confused by that statement.

If you do not see that creating an obvious falsehood the allows for  the murder  of 3 billion people as a threat to public safety as the same as falsely shouting fire in a crowded movie theater it is sad.

I think you're making an enormous mountain out of a molehill.  I looked through that thread and nowhere does BADecker call for the killing of anyone.  What is this murder of 3 billion people you're talking about?

And to everyone else: I don't claim there shouldn't be limits on free speech, but the government controlling the dissemination of information based on whether they believe it's true or false is a very bad thing.  Science has made mistakes many, many times in the past, you know.  Science is changing all the time as new information is discovered, and people should be able to have all arguments laid out on the table in order to judge for themselves instead of having everything filtered through a governmental censor.

As to what bitcointalk does, that's less of a concern to me.

note the bold type question 'you' is being used to describe any and all humans that are dehumanizing other humans.

I have not seen you do that.

 So if I was using  'you'  (humans that dehumanize other humans) in a way that confused you (the pharmacist) my apologies as that was not direct at you  

This is why the internet can be a bitch as in no way do I say you did that or believe you do that. But when you look at type it could be confusing.

[NotFuzzyWarm]

This is why the internet can be a bitch as in no way do I say you did that or believe you do that. But when you look at type it could be confusing

Ja. That's why when dealing with general statements I've learned to use the words 'folks', 'people, 'a person' or even 'one' etc instead of 'you' as it hopefully takes possible reference to a specific individual out of the picture.

[suzanne5223]

It's good that someone brought up this issue because a lot of blatantly false statements and threads that could impact people understanding negatively were created in the Politics and Society section, this is not something new to the members of this forum that usually visit this section but I later concluded that something that has to do with politics is always a mind game.

[DooMAD]

This thread is more a testament to BADecker's masterful trolling skills that he could evoke this kind of response from a post.

I still can't tell if they're a troll or a zealot.  Maybe they really do fervently believe the drivel they post.  The strange thing about the internet is that it has enabled confirmation bias to an extent never seen before.  It seems to have a particularly strong effect on narcissists and anyone else who already has a disposition towards narrow-mindedness.  And if all someone does is constantly reinforce their preconceived notions, it probably will start to inhibit their ability to reason.  I think people can only do so much of that before their brains turn to mush and they go full-crackpot.

If, as a result of this, someone is completely misinformed to the point where they can no longer distinguish between reality and fantasy, is it still an act of malice?  Or should we feel sorry for these fractured minds?

[suchmoon]

If, as a result of this, someone is completely misinformed to the point where they can no longer distinguish between reality and fantasy, is it still an act of malice?  Or should we feel sorry for these fractured minds?

This forum is certainly not good place for people with mental health issues and it is quite possible that by giving a platform to delusional individuals we're making the problem worse. I can't really see any upside to this for anyone, but if it's necessary for some unknown-to-me reason to allow this nonsense to continue, maybe those threads should be locked after a few responses. That way the troubled person still has an outlet, but there is less collateral garbage. It should be quite clear by now which topics will never result in any kind of intelligent discussion.

[rugrats]

We have to remove us to prevent scams on this forum, it is possible to report to moderators on this topic which is not true. I have seen a lot of topics reported like this and it is something we need to take immediate action against those who are acting suspiciously. damn if I killed people without committing a crime, I would have killed those bad guys. that's why we should all be on the lookout for sophisticated scams on our forums.

[philipma1957]

If, as a result of this, someone is completely misinformed to the point where they can no longer distinguish between reality and fantasy, is it still an act of malice?  Or should we feel sorry for these fractured minds?

This forum is certainly not good place for people with mental health issues and it is quite possible that by giving a platform to delusional individuals we're making the problem worse. I can't really see any upside to this for anyone, but if it's necessary for some unknown-to-me reason to allow this nonsense to continue, maybe those threads should be locked after a few responses. That way the troubled person still has an outlet, but there is less collateral garbage. It should be quite clear by now which topics will never result in any kind of intelligent discussion.

At the moment I am caring for a sick bro-in-law he has dementia .

He now has the memory span of 2-3 minutes for any new info.

He is basically fucked .  So the shotguns are not in his house he used to hunt a bit with his dad. He is 71 and has one thing wrong his brain.  At the moment there are about 11 million people with some dementia.

He can shoot accurately he can run and jump and do most anything except remember that he looked as his bank account 37 times today. He was not very violent but if he thought you were a lizard person or a hybrid trans due to a shot of rna he would likely shoot you with the 12 gauge in your left eye 👁 he like to shoot gsme in the left eye.

He is 71 and needs a lot of attention .  My point is there are a lot of bro-in-laws that will struggle with info presented as truth.

Most likely this is why the thread 🧵 got to me.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

He is 71 and needs a lot of attention .  My point is there are a lot of bro-in-laws that will struggle with info presented as truth.

Most likely this is why the thread 🧵 got to me.

I kind of figured there was a personal reason why you reacted as strongly to BADecker's post as you did.  I'm sorry for your brother-in-law, and I know caring for someone with dementia is very hard.  I'll just leave it at that.

[nutildah]

The strange thing about the internet is that it has enabled confirmation bias to an extent never seen before.  It seems to have a particularly strong effect on narcissists and anyone else who already has a disposition towards narrow-mindedness.  And if all someone does is constantly reinforce their preconceived notions, it probably will start to inhibit their ability to reason.  I think people can only do so much of that before their brains turn to mush and they go full-crackpot.

You just described a good number of full-time P&S residents here. I agree it is odd and counter-intuitive that when presented access to unlimited information, people generally ignore it to hone in on finding evidence that supports their pre-existing beliefs, so they don't actually have to learn anything.

If, as a result of this, someone is completely misinformed to the point where they can no longer distinguish between reality and fantasy, is it still an act of malice?  Or should we feel sorry for these fractured minds?

No, he clearly gets joy out of being an annoying maniac. So I have no sympathy for him beyond that of any normal person.

 

I can't really see any upside to this for anyone, but if it's necessary for some unknown-to-me reason to allow this nonsense to continue, maybe those threads should be locked after a few responses. That way the troubled person still has an outlet, but there is less collateral garbage. It should be quite clear by now which topics will never result in any kind of intelligent discussion.

This sounds great. It's not like mental illness-driven posts just don't have to do with Bitcoin, the blockchain or crypto -- they don't have to do with anything. Maybe they can be moved to Off-Topic and we can further designate that as the trash board.

The upside to tolerating manic nutcases like Bitunlocker is eventually they crash hard, disappear and have to recoup for a while. As one of the forum's most prolific posters, BADecker is truly touched, however.

[OgNasty]

You just now realizing this? There are people in paid positions on this forum and in DT who have been spreading lies about me and my activity for years. They group up with other trolls and base their personal feelings of worth on whether or not they can inject themselves into discussions and feel important. They don’t care if everything they say is nonsense. Shit, read the stuff Vod said about me over the years. The lack of following up on threats from the administration has turned this forum into a joke in my eyes. The untrustworthy behavior started at the top…

[PrimeNumber7]

It is impossible to have a fact driven discussion regarding, for example, the best way of easing lockdown restrictions, without being flooded with nonsense about how COVID isn't real but it also is real but it's just a flu but actually it's all a psy-op and the vaccine doesn't work but also it's a nanochip but also it's gene therapy but also it's a lethal injection but also it's mind control etc. etc.

If we could get the extreme P&S opinions to be that covid isn't real, that would be a huge step in the right direction compared to what is said in P&S today. At least with the claim that covid isn't real, normal people can talk about their own experiences, and refute this argument.

This is compared to the suggestion that Mike Pompeo's children should be murdered, and force-fed to Pompeo. No sane person thinks that is a good idea, regardless of his alleged crimes. I also don't think that many sane people would be interested in even discussing such an idea. I might compare someone making this suggestion to someone with a mental illness screaming on the streets of San Francisco. People not only don't want to engage with him, but also don't want to be in that same area.

I still don't think we should delete those insane opinions, but I would be all for moving them all to Off Topic or something similar. Or I guess we just treat P&S as Off Topic 2 and any reasonable discussion move to Serious Discussion.

I think a lot of the extreme threads in P&S are not related to "Politics" or a "recent event in society" even if they mention a political figure.

I don't think these threads should be moved to Off Topic, as this sub is reserved for "other threads that might be of interest to bitcoiners" and the response some of these threads are getting (or more specifically, the lack thereof), shows that many of these threads are not of interest to bitcoiners.

The problem I have with BADecker's post is the lack of proper references. If you claim the Supreme Court ruled something, at least add a link to the official ruling.

If you watched the video, you would see the video did reference a specific ruling, although I don't think any reasonable person would make the same conclusion that the person in the video made.

I don't have a problem with people posting what I believe to be "false information", as it is entirely possible what they write may turn out to be true, or if not, as you mentioned, people can post rebuttals to said false information. I am more concerned about people posting extremists views. It is not only that the views are extreme, it is that a lot of threads are suggesting things that are near-universally seen as unacceptable by society, such as harming people known to be innocent. As I have mentioned previously, another issue is that some people are posting things that are simply not interesting to ~all other forum members based on the number of responses they are getting, however, these people are creating many threads and these threads are often clogging up the first page of P&S.

If you do not see that creating an obvious falsehood the allows for  the murder  of 3 billion people as a threat to public safety as the same as falsely shouting fire in a crowded movie theater it is sad.

I think you're making an enormous mountain out of a molehill.  I looked through that thread and nowhere does BADecker call for the killing of anyone.  What is this murder of 3 billion people you're talking about?

I think his argument is that BADecker is making the argument against taking the covid vaccine and that fewer vaccinations will result in more covid deaths.

I think people should be able to make the choice as to if they want to take the vaccine or not. As is said in the OP, the thread in question is clearly false, and I seriously doubt that anyone is going to have their mind changed on the vaccine based on that thread. Further, the best way to fight "bad" speech is with more speech.

[JayDDee]

When will people realize the US constitution and all it contradictory amendments means nothing
to most of the world.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

When will people realize the US constitution and all it contradictory amendments means nothing
to most of the world.

But freedom of speech should mean something to everyone if they believe it to be a human right, regardless of governmental guarantees.  No? 

In this case, we're talking about whether an internet forum should filter information based on whether or not it's true.  The discussion is also extending to governments and corporations, too, though that's kind of off-topic in this thread.  It ultimately boils down to whether a post that says "2+2=5" should be allowed, and I think that it should be.  I think that kind of statement should always be allowed, whether you extend it to flat-earthers, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, or anti-vaxxers.  The minute you have someone filtering speech based on what that someone believes is the truth, we're in 1984.

There are people in paid positions on this forum and in DT who have been spreading lies about me and my activity for years.

Yep, it's all about you.

[o_e_l_e_o]

I don't think these threads should be moved to Off Topic, as this sub is reserved for "other threads that might be of interest to bitcoiners" and the response some of these threads are getting (or more specifically, the lack thereof), shows that many of these threads are not of interest to bitcoiners.

Off Topic is absolutely not "other threads that might be of interest to bitcoiners" though, as the board description suggests it should be, but rather a dumping ground for anything and everything. The most popular threads in there at the moment include "Do you wear underwear?" and "How to get girls when you're not handsome?"

But sure, if you want to argue for those threads to be deleted because they are low value or uninteresting, then I'm not going to argue against that. I just don't think we should be deleting threads - any threads - because we don't like the content. Free speech doesn't just mean protecting speech that you or I or any sane person would consider acceptable, which does not need protection in the first place; rather, speech which you or I or any sane person would consider unacceptable or even vile and disgusting is exactly the type of speech which needs protection.

As soon as you make a person, a mod, theymos, whomever, the sole arbiter of what constitutes acceptable speech, then you start down the road of censorship, and you end up in the same situation as almost every other forum, social media platform, etc., which exists.

It ultimately boils down to whether a post that says "2+2=5" should be allowed

This is true, for large values of 2.

[LoyceV]

The problem I have with BADecker's post is the lack of proper references. If you claim the Supreme Court ruled something, at least add a link to the official ruling.

If you watched the video, you would see the video did reference a specific ruling, although I don't think any reasonable person would make the same conclusion that the person in the video made.

That's exactly why I have a problem with the referencing: I'm not going to watch a video to find a PDF. It looks like the purpose of the post is to make people watch the video instead of read the actual ruling. That means he's trying to trick me, while he could have just made a topic about that video if that was the real purpose of the post.

[PrimeNumber7]

The problem I have with BADecker's post is the lack of proper references. If you claim the Supreme Court ruled something, at least add a link to the official ruling.

If you watched the video, you would see the video did reference a specific ruling, although I don't think any reasonable person would make the same conclusion that the person in the video made.

That's exactly why I have a problem with the referencing: I'm not going to watch a video to find a PDF. It looks like the purpose of the post is to make people watch the video instead of read the actual ruling. That means he's trying to trick me, while he could have just made a topic about that video if that was the real purpose of the post.

The reference was at the beginning of the video. As is the case with most threads that are discussing a specific video or article, it is best to view the article and/or video prior to commenting on the thread, this is regardless of if any references are in the text of the thread.

I don't think these threads should be moved to Off Topic, as this sub is reserved for "other threads that might be of interest to bitcoiners" and the response some of these threads are getting (or more specifically, the lack thereof), shows that many of these threads are not of interest to bitcoiners.

Off Topic is absolutely not "other threads that might be of interest to bitcoiners" though, as the board description suggests it should be, but rather a dumping ground for anything and everything. The most popular threads in there at the moment include "Do you wear underwear?" and "How to get girls when you're not handsome?"

There is a lot of junk in Off Topic. If that sub was even moderately moderated requiring threads with actual discussion, it would probably cut down on a lot of spam forum-wide, as people have used that sub to rank up extensively (although I am not sure they do this anymore with the advent of the merit system).

I think the Off Topic section might be why many old-time forum users leave the forum, even if they had rarely posted in Off Topic during their tenure. For example, someone may have come to the forum because of their business, but no longer conduct business, or they came to the forum to discuss their mining equipment, but have no intention to mine anymore, they might stay to discuss interesting topics in Off Topic that are not necessarily directly related to bitcoin, but are interesting to many people who were at one point involved in bitcoin in some way.

But sure, if you want to argue for those threads to be deleted because they are low value or uninteresting, then I'm not going to argue against that. I just don't think we should be deleting threads - any threads - because we don't like the content. Free speech doesn't just mean protecting speech that you or I or any sane person would consider acceptable, which does not need protection in the first place; rather, speech which you or I or any sane person would consider unacceptable or even vile and disgusting is exactly the type of speech which needs protection.

There are multiple classifications of speech when deciding if it should be removed:

*Speech you disagree with: If this is your only issue with speech, it should absolutely not be removed. IMO, it is not even necessary to discuss potentially removing this type of speech, but this classification is needed to help establish a spectrum.

*Hate speech: Assuming said speech does not fit into any of the below categories (that involve speech that should be disallowed), it should be pretty clear cut that these types of threads/posts should not be removed. Again, it is needed to mention this classification to help establish a spectrum.

*The use of slurs or epithets: This is speech that should be protected, even though I do not like it when people engage in this type of speech. This is a very good example of when more speech is a good solution. Again, I need to mention this classification to help establish a spectrum.

*Dehumanizing speech: Depending on the circumstances, this is where I might consider advocating for removing a thread/post, depending on the circumstances. Examples of this would include describing a group of people, based on some characteristic they cannot change, (such as their gender, skin color, nationality, or disability), or things like religion, and sexual orientation to an animal in a negative way, or describing them as otherwise less than human. One reason why it should be considered to remove some of this type of speech is that this type of speech will often lead to violence. If someone is describing the viewpoint of a third party unrelated to yourself, I think said speech should remain, as long as someone is not using this as a "loophole" to dehumanize others. If dehumanizing speech is part of a larger speech that is otherwise allowed to remain, I might frown upon the thread, but the entire thread should be allowed to remain.

*Speech advocating for, or calling for violence against a person or group of people, who are not active in a country's military, when said violence does not involve a state/government: In most cases, I think this should not be allowed. This is specifically excluding cases in which someone is discussing an unrelated 3rd party's viewpoint so long as they are not using this exception as a loophole. Another exception to this might be innocent people who are being used as human shields (in these types of cases, it is really the group that is using the human shields who are advocating for the violence against the innocent civilians, even if the violence is done by their adversary). Another exception to this would be speech describing what can reasonably be described as self-defense, for example, violence against someone who is actively swinging a baseball bat at you. Calling for actual violence against innocent people is not protected speech (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942, and others). This is probably not something that can be defined in a one-line rule.


*Speech that is objectively uninteresting: It is difficult to establish a standard as to what is "objectively uninteresting", however threads that meet this (yet to be established) standard, should be removed limited (threads that are very uninteresting, or low value should be removed). I don't think it is appropriate for someone to be making dozens of threads in the span of a short period of time when the overwhelming majority of them receive no or very few replies. This is based on the principle that you should have the right to say things that I do not like, but at the same time, I do not have to listen to what you have to say. If you have a half-dozen threads on the first page with a total of zero replies, you are not only preventing other, more interesting threads from easily being viewed, but you are also giving the impression that a particular sub does not have many interesting threads, which may prevent someone from returning to that sub later.

*Threads that do not meet the description of the particular sub they are in: At a minimum, these threads should be moved out of their current sub. Depending on the moderation standards as to what is allowed to be in the Off Topic sub, these threads can be moved to either Off Topic or the trashcan. This is not a novel concept, and this is really just saying that existing forum rules should continue to be enforced. Earlier today, I reported a dozen or so  threads, mostly started by B1tUnl0ck3r, currently in P&S for not being related to "politics", nor "current events" as is required per the current forum rules. So far, one (not one of B1tUnl0ck3r's) has been marked "bad" and the rest are unhandled.

*Other speech: this can be discussed, and rules can be formulated accordingly. SCOTUS 1st amendment rulings can be used as guiding principles.

[JayDDee]

When will people realize the US constitution and all it contradictory amendments means nothing
to most of the world.

But freedom of speech should mean something to everyone if they believe it to be a human right, regardless of governmental guarantees.  No? 

In this case, we're talking about whether an internet forum should filter information based on whether or not it's true.  The discussion is also extending to governments and corporations, too, though that's kind of off-topic in this thread.  It ultimately boils down to whether a post that says "2+2=5" should be allowed, and I think that it should be.  I think that kind of statement should always be allowed, whether you extend it to flat-earthers, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, or anti-vaxxers.  The minute you have someone filtering speech based on what that someone believes is the truth, we're in 1984.

My point was the US constituion is not a good example of free speech protection due to it's limited application, less that 5% of the
world population, as well as the wording of the first amendment " Congress shall pass no law..." and the twisted broadening of the meaning
of "speech" to include all forms of expression and was infamously used to legalise porn in the US. All that because the framers just wanted
to guarantee the right of the people to criticize government without fear of retribution.

BTW I support filtering intentionaly misleading content, but it has to be well defined and with oversight. There's a lot of gray when it
comes to investing tips and other exagerated rhetoric.

[OgNasty]

There are people in paid positions on this forum and in DT who have been spreading lies about me and my activity for years.

Yep, it's all about you.

More likely it’s all about creating an atmosphere where scams aren’t moderated and can thrive in order to help operations like chipmixer that launder funds to be able to kick back funds to those who join the team and help eliminate competition (legitimate projects) so that their bread and butter (laundering scammed funds) can thrive and everyone can get paid.

Then again, I’d rather just speak on my own personal experience and not throw scam enablers and those promoting operations assisting with tax evasion for their own profit under the bus. I’ll stick to pointing out the very clear and obvious cases, such as the manipulation being done in DT to punish those who speak the actual truth.

[DooMAD]

There are people in paid positions on this forum and in DT who have been spreading lies about me and my activity for years.

Yep, it's all about you.

More likely it’s all about creating an atmosphere where scams aren’t moderated and can thrive in order to help operations like chipmixer that launder funds to be able to kick back funds to those who join the team and help eliminate competition (legitimate projects) so that their bread and butter (laundering scammed funds) can thrive and everyone can get paid.

So you think spreading misinformation in a topic about misinformation is going to help your cause?  If anything, you're only going to convince a larger number of people to think less of you.  I was somewhat indifferent to you before, but now you've managed to nudge me towards suspecting you might be scum.  Great job.

[Pmalek]

Those types of threads shouldn't even get that much attention on a Bitcoin forum. The best cure is ignoring them and let them die naturally. This only gives them and the OP the attention they were hoping for. I can't remember when I visited P&S the last time and I am not planning to do it anytime soon. Don't let someone's viewpoints in a P&S thread affect your stay on a Bitcoin forum.   

[OgNasty]

There are people in paid positions on this forum and in DT who have been spreading lies about me and my activity for years.

Yep, it's all about you.

More likely it’s all about creating an atmosphere where scams aren’t moderated and can thrive in order to help operations like chipmixer that launder funds to be able to kick back funds to those who join the team and help eliminate competition (legitimate projects) so that their bread and butter (laundering scammed funds) can thrive and everyone can get paid.

So you think spreading misinformation in a topic about misinformation is going to help your cause?  If anything, you're only going to convince a larger number of people to think less of you.  I was somewhat indifferent to you before, but now you've managed to nudge me towards suspecting you might be scum.  Great job.

Nice signature. I had no idea who you were before, but now you’ve nudged me into thinking you’re a perpetual tool used to help foster an environment where scammers can easily launder their stolen funds and you can get a nice payout for posting dumb takes like this one. Makes total sense the guy who wants to not advertise money laundering for scammers here is scum, while the folks who profit from it are considered the good guys… Nothing to see here folks. Just more shit behavior being incentivized under the guise of freedom of speech. Just don’t Google bitcointalk censorship and you can maintain your fantasy.

[_Miracle]

Here we are talking about patently false statements. If you don't deal with that for supposedly defending freedom of speech, you shouldn't delete low value shitposter posts because you also restrict their freedom of speech.

I've responded to another poster before with "okay" and it was deleted for low value, also responded "nope" to a thread asking something about being worried about (yet another) bitcoin price drop -- one word responses are frowned upon and can be deleted.

B1tUnl0ck3r and a few others are in my ignore list so while I don't report --would it be so awful if they weren't here? Some bitcointalk regulars have the capacity and ability to inject reason into some of those conversations but in other instances it's just a few toxic posters throwing off 8chan vibes and fueling each other.

Good point, I think.  I'll have to give that some thought.  Part of me sees the contradiction, part of me sees this as the forum deciding what's true vs. what's a low-value post, e.g., "bitcoin has great future and is increasing day by day, I love bitcoin, blah blah blah".

I'd love to hear what others have to say about that.

Maybe another feature the site can implement would be to allow Sr. members+ the option to mute newbies,
allowing the newbie time to "rank up" (mature in posting) or drop off.


Bitcoin isn't mainstream enough to be seriously discussed in other forums relating to economics or politics & society.
I think Bitcoin has the ability to facilitate positive changes in those areas.

More discussions like these would be nice to have in P&S
US Infrastructure Bill 2021 and Bitcoin      https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5362459.0

[The Sceptical Chymist]

More discussions like these would be nice to have in P&S
US Infrastructure Bill 2021 and Bitcoin      https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5362459.0

That topic should definitely be discussed, because it's of great importance to cryptocurrency, but I'm not sure it should be in P&S.  That thread is in Bitcoin Discussion, and I think it's appropriate there and is probably the best section for it, as more members will likely see it there.  I'm pretty sure more members visit Bitcoin Discussion than P&S (and man, I hope that's the case).

*Dehumanizing speech:
<snip>
One reason why it should be considered to remove some of this type of speech is that this type of speech will often lead to violence.

I disagree that dehumanizing speech is a call to violence or that it would necessarily lead to violence--at least not on an internet forum like this one.  If I said something like "You shitposters are just monkeys", that's dehumanizing, right?  But that isn't going to lead to violence.  How about "The white man is the devil"?  I've heard that so many times, I've lost track.

I do agree with you about actual calls for, or threats of, actual violence.  The law has a very definite opinion on that as well.

[DooMAD]

I had no idea who you were before

That's because I'm not infamous for all the wrong reasons.  Unlike you.

Makes total sense the guy who wants to not advertise money laundering for scammers here is scum, while the folks who profit from it are considered the good guys…

You keep acting like everyone's out to get you, yet you bring it all upon yourself.  If I had done a bunch of questionable things in the past and then decided to open fire, completely unprovoked, on a group of people who make this forum a joy to read, I wouldn't be surprised when one of those people called me out on it.  I mean, if you genuinely want people to see you as one of the good guys, do better.  And stop projecting your insecurities onto others.  You can contribute to conversations without making it a witch hunt.  It's really not that difficult.

But no, it must be a conspiracy. Dun Dun DUUUUUUUNNN   

Get over yourself.

[JayDDee]

I disagree that dehumanizing speech is a call to violence or that it would necessarily lead to violence--at least not on an internet forum like this one.  If I said something like "You shitposters are just monkeys", that's dehumanizing, right?  But that isn't going to lead to violence.  How about "The white man is the devil"?  I've heard that so many times, I've lost track.

I do agree with you about actual calls for, or threats of, actual violence.  The law has a very definite opinion on that as well.

I have to agree with you there. Your examples fall into the gray area of sarcasm. But there's also a very subjective angle
to it. The monkey reference has a very different meaning to a black person and usually provokes a forceful response.
Should sarcastically calling someone a monkey be banned because some people intentionally use it as a racist insult?
That might be going too far.

[LoyceV]

I've responded to another poster before with "okay" and it was deleted for low value, also responded "nope" to a thread asking something about being worried about (yet another) bitcoin price drop -- one word responses are frowned upon and can be deleted.

The "nope" post is insubstantial when it's your answer to yet another topic about price drops. If you'd post the same as an answer to a technical question, it could be substantial if you know what you're talking about.

The monkey reference has a very different meaning to a black person and usually provokes a forceful response.

There is no skin color on an internet forum with mostly anonymous users. I couldn't care less!

Should sarcastically calling someone a monkey be banned because some people intentionally use it as a racist insult?
That might be going too far.

You can be as racist as you want on Bitcointalk, that's allowed. Chances are you look dumb doing so, but don't let that stop you from expressing what's on your mind:

It's okay to offended people! Offensive jokes are often funny. Don't let SJW decide what you're allowed to say or even think!

Trying to be nice doesn't hurt you, but don't let someone's made up feelings stop you from speaking your mind.

I prefer to be Switzerland though

[_Miracle]

I've responded to another poster before with "okay" and it was deleted for low value, also responded "nope" to a thread asking something about being worried about (yet another) bitcoin price drop -- one word responses are frowned upon and can be deleted.

The "nope" post is insubstantial when it's your answer to yet another topic about price drops. If you'd post the same as an answer to a technical question, it could be substantial if you know what you're talking about.

Yes well, "technical" is not my lane :-) that's where I go to learn things. I probably should have linked them to Wall Observer (I watch there but don't post) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.0;topicseen

You know how it is, every time the price drops newbies post panic and "bitcoin's dying".

[JayDDee]

The monkey reference has a very different meaning to a black person and usually provokes a forceful response.

There is no skin color on an internet forum with mostly anonymous users. I couldn't care less!

I think it's overreacting too but my ancestors weren't considered sub-human, held as slaves, and sold as
property.

It's nice to see someone correctly use "couldn't care less"

[OgNasty]

I had no idea who you were before

That's because I'm not infamous for all the wrong reasons.  Unlike you.

Makes total sense the guy who wants to not advertise money laundering for scammers here is scum, while the folks who profit from it are considered the good guys…

You keep acting like everyone's out to get you, yet you bring it all upon yourself.  If I had done a bunch of questionable things in the past and then decided to open fire, completely unprovoked, on a group of people who make this forum a joy to read, I wouldn't be surprised when one of those people called me out on it.  I mean, if you genuinely want people to see you as one of the good guys, do better.  And stop projecting your insecurities onto others.  You can contribute to conversations without making it a witch hunt.  It's really not that difficult.

But no, it must be a conspiracy. Dun Dun DUUUUUUUNNN   

Get over yourself.

I haven’t done anything questionable although weak members of the community do try and use me as a scapegoat to cover their failures. I only want the truth to be recognized and for lies to stop being perpetuated on this forum. Your post is another such example. Why is it always the chipmixer guys? You say you want this forum to be fun to read… I want it to be accurate. That’s the difference. I’m not here to fill time in an otherwise boring life by seeking joyful posters who insult others with lies for a laugh. I’m here to help change the world. Sadly, the place I thought this was possible is now more likely to give you false information and tell you not to use crypto. I hate seeing this place slide further into irrelevance and if the reason is so people can read joyful posts from trolls instead of propagate facts, we as a community deserve it. No conspiracy. Just facts.

[PrimeNumber7]

*Dehumanizing speech:
<snip>
One reason why it should be considered to remove some of this type of speech is that this type of speech will often lead to violence.

I disagree that dehumanizing speech is a call to violence or that it would necessarily lead to violence--at least not on an internet forum like this one.  If I said something like "You shitposters are just monkeys", that's dehumanizing, right?  But that isn't going to lead to violence.  How about "The white man is the devil"?  I've heard that so many times, I've lost track.

I do agree with you about actual calls for, or threats of, actual violence.  The law has a very definite opinion on that as well.

Unless describing "shitposters" as being "all" of some group of people based on a trait they cannot change such as nationality, gender, or skin color, I don't think that statement would violate my proposed rule. If someone is a "shitposter" today, they can decide to put more effort into their posts tomorrow and no longer be a "shitposter".

As was pointed out above by JayDDee, calling a black person a "monkey" is probably going to elicit a negative response.

When you dehumanize a group of people, you are saying that group of people are so bad that they are less than human. This will typically involve there being a stereotype that this group of people is somehow dangerous to either everyone or another group of people, hence the potential for there to be violence. There might be an argument to say that "dehumanizing" speech needs to be particularly extreme in order to be removed.

Should sarcastically calling someone a monkey be banned because some people intentionally use it as a racist insult?
That might be going too far.

Except if someone is spreading malware, you are not going to be banned because you break a rule a single time. It is unlikely for an established forum member to be banned for breaking a rule a dozen times over a decent period of time.

Someone using sarcasm should be treated differently than someone expressing extremists views that may lead to actual violence. The former is generally harmless, while the latter can have serious negative consequences.

[ChipMixer]

in order to help operations like chipmixer that launder funds to be able to kick back funds to those who join the team and help eliminate competition (legitimate projects) so that their bread and butter (laundering scammed funds) can thrive and everyone can get paid.

We do not launder funds. We do not attack competition.
If you believe this is not true - prove it.

I only want the truth to be recognized and for lies to stop being perpetuated on this forum. ... I want it to be accurate. That’s the difference. I’m not here to fill time in an otherwise boring life by seeking joyful posters who insult others with lies for a laugh. I’m here to help change the world. Sadly, the place I thought this was possible is now more likely to give you false information and tell you not to use crypto.

We agree. Some people bet and gamble. Some use service at your signature. They may have problem because some other people believe it is immoral. They may use our service to avoid people like that. It is their right and we help them with it.

Did any bitcointalk scammer used ChipMixer to hide their scammed funds? Yes. Are we part of group that scamms people at bitcointalk? No. Do we profit from it? No unless scammers donate and I doubt they do. Can we stop scammer from using our service? I do not think we can.