I agree "kill all women" reads and is darker for a variety of reasons, but I don't think either statement should be acceptable. I think a high percentage of people who would say "kill all women" would also reply that they're being non-literal and sardonic, but I don't think that would make it acceptable. Both phrases should trigger human review and a ban, in my opinion.

Even without the literal meaning, vitriol towards gigantic groups of people based on at-birth traits isn't healthy or rational for anyone. (To make the comparison more palatable, imagine a complaint about an ex-romantic partner followed by a frustrated exclamation of "fuck men" or "fuck women", depending on the parties involved. I don't see why either of these statements should be privileged over the other.) I think double standards should be eliminated across the board, rather than tipping the scales so that a side that historically wielded them is now subjected to them.

Reddit admins have their own window of discourse and it's certainly colored by personal biases. But, it should say a lot that "Let's kill all the lawyers" would likely result in a ban.

Reddit risks closing the window of discourse so tightly that it becomes a Facebook, Instagram or Tik Tok. The problem for Reddit, of course, is that there is already a Facebook, Instagram and Tik Tok.

I've already left the platform.

Well said - while this point is somewhat subtle, I think the real reason most people "miss" it is because of a human tendency to overlook pragmatism in the context of language/communication while engaging in even non-heated ideological battles. I.e. they tend to turn a blind eye to colloquial meaning and real consequences in favor of a bias toward literalism as a bad rhetorical tactic.

> When a woman is recounting frustration at being talked over during a meeting and says "kill all men," there's a non-literal connotation based in a belief in patriarchal suppression. When a man says "kill all women" it reads darker, based on a belief that men subject women to violence specifically based on their gender/sexuality.

This might have been true once but the ascent of fourth-wave (misandrist) feminism has made short shrift with the assumption that women who say "kill all men" have a different intention than men who say "kill all women". In both cases it is most likely not to be taken literally, in both cases (humoristic intentions excepted) the message has a dark underpinning. Where in the "kill all women" case there might be a background of literal truth, in the "kill all men" case there is a background of wishful thinking, an idea that society is better off without men, that men are evil and unredeemable.

But everyone says "oh you're missing the context" when challenged on their hateful rhetoric, and no targeted group enjoys being told they ought to die. I don't really see why anyone should be allowed to spread hate speech, even if they don't mean it literally or it doesn't "read darker".

The problem is that a significant chunk of the community believes that it's not hate speech but simple hyperbole in response to uni-directional injustice.

It's easy to string match, bans/deletions can be instant and abrupt. They see the quick removal of their post and compare it to what they perceive as genuinely hateful posts that stay up because the post cleverly avoids violations that are easy to include in content policies.

Check out the "men are trash" question here https://www.theverge.com/interface/2019/10/3/20895119/facebo...

And I'm not saying you're wrong. Lots of people do think their hate speech is simple hyperbole, or that it's justified by misdeeds of the group they hate. But what's the point of a rule against hate speech if you're not willing to tell those people no?

I don't read the parent as advocating the opinion that the people subjected to the "less dark" form shouldn't consider it a kind of hate speech or shouldn't feel offended by it. The context is moderation, and why it makes sense to treat the cases differently - that doesn't mean simply always allowing one and always disallowing the other. The point is that prudent and pragmatic judgement is necessary.

That doesn't really change my perspective. I'd be very frustated if a moderator told me "well, we generally don't allow hate speech, but let's be prudent and allow it when it's targeted at you".

My point is more that prudent and pragmatic judgment is nearly impossible, if your goal is to be seen as a neutral platform for a large collection of communities.

For those of you who don't think in who/whom, note this comment well.

There are many, many people who think this way.

Just to clarify, I see this as a problem that may be impossible to solve.

For me personally, I think that "kill all men" or "all men are trash" can have a harmful impact (particularly on boys) even when stated as hyperbole in response to systemic misogyny.

>For those of you who don't think in who/whom

What do you mean by this?

It's a common meme in some circles, reflecting a claim that facially neutral rules against hate speech depend implicitly on who's speaking and to whom it's directed.

I think that meme/claim is indeed substantiated in many cases. It's a form of implicit bias. Implicit biases are very culturally-mediated and can exist from any individual or group towards any other individual or group. I don't know if reddit staff suffer from that bias, but it's evident some people in this thread do.

Or we can agree that both statements are wrong, and we should not wait and see the effects of allowing one over the other (we already are seeing dangerous effects however).

I really agree with this. An American Indian friend of mine once said, "It's not like we want another Trail of Tears." Folks who have been beat down know people don't deserve that just for being a certain way.

Now if you're advocating a worldview that carries implicit, targeted violence (looking at you, Neo-Nazis) I think it's a different story. At that point, it becomes a question of what is possible and practical to reduce the overall amount of violence.. even if it means punching someone who wants you dead or subjugated.