Not sure I understand. It is hypothetical, but I think that is the way in which you get to a "fundamental truth". Just asking someone what their position is can get an auto-pilot answer. Asking them to put themselves under a specific scenario and apply what they think in that scenario, to me, forces them to think more deeply about the issue. Is it guaranteed that their hypothetical position would match their actual position should the situation come about? No , but that doesn't make the exercise useless. I think people do genuinely have different views on this issue, and making that apparent with the poll question would be the goal. Probably a better way to put it is just give a range of possible answers: What should the D&D policy be with regards to hate speech? * It should be clearly defined and prohibited. * It should be prohibited in extreme cases. Mods should use their own judgment. * Hate speech should be permitted as long as it is not illegal. * This issue doesn't affect me (don't care).
the bolded is not possible. Hate speech is what might be termed an open concept or a relational concept. It only makes sense to talk of "hate speech" in relation to specific recipients of that speech. One person's insult is another person's hate speech; one person's mere annoyance is another person's profound offense.
I think what you're saying is that it's not possible to define it in a way that everyone would agree captures exactly their conception of what hate speech entails and does not entail. I agree with that. But you can still define what is meant by "hate speech" on ClutchFans for the purposes of enforcement. Someone who selects that poll answer would expect the adopted definition to be close enough to their own view of how it should be defined, but shouldn't expect exact alignment.
yep, that's fine, in essence one can simply stipulate what is meant by a term like "hate speech" in any specific context. There may still be some fuzziness over particulars, but that's a practical and pragmatic way to address the issue
What I mean by hypothetical is that you are asking how someone would feel in a possible situation - which no human possibly can know. For example, if I asked someone how they would feel if I made a joke about their wife's shaved head they may answer they wouldn't care, but in reality, they may get angry and slap someone. This is well know to people who try to write useful polls, so they don't ask how someone would feel in a future or hypothetical experience. Instead you ask how someone felt in a past experience. If that's not possible, you ask for their opinion based on their values. This new question is more valid as you are asking people for their current opinion, however it is still not going to be accurate as it is leading. That is people will form their opinion based on the choices. There's a reason people get paid a lot of money to write research polls. Also you'd need to do this as a survey because you really need to understand how someone defines hate speech and what qualifies as it, before you can ask about a policy.
Wouldn't that be true for any poll question that offers answers to select from? What would be an example of a poll question that is not leading, per your definition of leading?
Hate speech isn't illegal in this country, but I wouldn't like a free for all in the forum. I wouldn't like seeing people be able to call anyone else a stupid ass n*gger, porch monkey, spi*, wetback, chink, gook, Fu*king f**got, any other nasty racist or derogatory terms. I wouldn't like seeing people say the stuff hate groups and racists say towards anyone based on their gender, race, religion, or culture just because it isn't illegal. That's just a toxic environment. Join a hate group forum if you enjoy that kind of thing and feel so superior in your race, gender, religion, or beliefs that you get off spurring hate towards anyone and everyone.
Where the choices are already well known. For example, which party do you most affiliate with? In that case multiple choice is fine as you are not providing information to the respondent that would bias them.
Hate speech is a very generic term, i don't know what it means, because people define it all differently, to the point that it better matches the concept of speech i hate. There are some things, that some people would consider hate speech that might be better not here (which creates an almost meaningless position), it'd be best on an actual behaviour by behaviour standard, ie is doing x ok, is doing y ok.
