Support NeoGAF

[Zelmardonpoktendo]

195,00 members

gaf will be fine!!! its only going to get better from here on.

 

[Skullface]

So is thread basically the interim OT?

 

[HStallion]

The strength of Anita's arguments do absolutely nothing to justify your assumption that someone who wants to see her debate has nefarious motivations. You continue to deflect.

Honestly I think those against Anita at this point have to do a whole lot more to show their intentions are pure and to be straight, most people fall flat on their face coming anywhere close to that. Do they deserve a ban? Maybe not but they should probably giving themselves a long look in the mirror about why they often fall into pushing the same ugly bigoted points as people they claim to have nothing in common with or support. As I said earlier any thread about Anita was basically a wood chipper for this very reason.

 

[ExVicis]

So what were all of you talking about since apparently you could never just talk about games?

In Off-Topic? Probably movies or something. I posted in some Political threads too.

So is thread basically the interim OT?

Not really. I would love to discuss Happy Death Day though if I had somewhere to do it.

 

[JordanN]

Then you should be ashamed that many of these alleged miscreants produced a greater quality and quantity of posts than you.

I judge individual character.

Back on Saturday, I had expectations that people could still behave themselves even after the mod team left. Instead, I just saw people jump straight to anarchy anyway, without even waiting for more clarification on the situation.

It only makes this healing process only more painful.

I wish I knew which definite side I could take on this issue but without 100% evidence that indicts either party, I don't see the point in trying to tear NeoGaf down. That's been the goal of the haters for years and the users I described sullying themselves are helping to feed that narrative.

 

[Doukou]

You don't get it, do you? See, even here, you subtly accuse me of being some closet Nazi.

Let's see. I've been promoting generally anarchist, anti-capitalistic ideals for decades. That said, I do understand some of the benefits of both hierarchy and capitalism... it's not a cut and dried issue, especially when you take the present state of humanity into consideration. I'm pro love, and support you loving whoever the hell you want to love. I support legalization, even though I don't do drugs. I support privacy. I think our criminal system is antiquated and broken, with a fair amount of racism baked in [coke vs crack, etc]. I think prisons themselves create more problems than they solve and that we need to find a better solution than breaking up families. I've supported some sort of universal basic income solution for decades before it became hip, though I recognize there are significant economic issues that would need to be resolved and it's not a simple solution. I think both major parties in the US are anti-people and pro-big business. I think my taxes support murder overseas, and it pains me to pay them. I don't care what your religion is [or anything else], I only care about our interactions. I believe in being kind. I believe in personal responsibility, though that doesn't mean I believe people shouldn't work together to help everyone. I believe in open borders [heck, I don't even like the concept of borders]. I don't care where you were born, or what language you speak. If I see someone in trouble, I will try to help them. I've been part of cooperatives, I try to shop local [except gaming], I am anti-violence and anti-war. I love cats.

How long of an essay do I need to write before I'm 'okay'. Did I pass your purity test yet?

Oh, by the way, remember when you already implied I was some sort of Nazi because I feel like I can't express my opinions? Have you noticed you embody exactly what I say the problem was? I spoke up... so I must be the enemy, right?

But let's see -- you asked to "hear some of these opinions" that people are afraid to discuss. Okay, that's easy. Mention free speech, get treated like a Nazi [in fact, that's what got me involved in this conversation thread]. Talk about presumption of innocence, and you're propagating rape culture. Ask a question, and you'll get a response like "Oh, just questions. Riiiight. I see through you." Criticize Clinton and you'll be called a white supremacist Trump supporter. Man, I've hated Trump and everything he stood for from before he was a celebrity. I despise Clinton, too, though.

No. I've been fighting the fight for decades. Longer than people in their twenties have been alive. But that doesn't mean I support the culture of accusation you clearly participate in.

You assume the worst. Oh, he's defending free speech? What awful things do you want to say? The only awful thing I want to say is that your style of attack is gross.

Discussion is important. Discussion allows me to talk about things important to me, like the problem with our prison systems. But what people do here is try to shut others down with accusations, subtle and not-so-subtle, just like you did. That's ugly. That doesn't encourage growth and debate, it shuts it down.

The reason you get shut down a lot of because you don’t understand what free speech is.
Free speech has never referred to non-government bodies.

 

[remist]

Honestly I think those against Anita at this point have to do a whole lot more to show their intentions are pure and to be straight, most people fall flat on their face coming anywhere close to that. Do they deserve a ban? Maybe not but they should probably giving themselves a long look in the mirror about why they often fall into pushing the same ugly bigoted points as people they claim to have nothing in common with or support. As I said earlier any thread about Anita was basically a wood chipper for this very reason.

The post we are discussing says nothing about being against Anita. This is all spatula and apparently the mod that banned him making assumptions.

 

[Acerac]

Funny how it works. Shitposting then running off, acting like a victim. The same stuff people are accusing everyone else of doing.

I don't mind shitposters if they'll debate their points; devil's advocates can be great for thought experiments. That said, if people post nonsense repeatedly without answering those who call them out then what's the point?

 

[Skullface]

The reason you get shut down a lot of because you don’t understand what free speech is.
Free speech has never referred to non-government bodies.

This piqued my interest. Care to define free speech so I can follow where this is going?

 

[TedNindo]

You don't get it, do you? See, even here, you subtly accuse me of being some closet Nazi.

Let's see. I've been promoting generally anarchist, anti-capitalistic ideals for decades. That said, I do understand some of the benefits of both hierarchy and capitalism... it's not a cut and dried issue, especially when you take the present state of humanity into consideration. I'm pro love, and support you loving whoever the hell you want to love. I support legalization, even though I don't do drugs. I support privacy. I think our criminal system is antiquated and broken, with a fair amount of racism baked in [coke vs crack, etc]. I think prisons themselves create more problems than they solve and that we need to find a better solution than breaking up families. I've supported some sort of universal basic income solution for decades before it became hip, though I recognize there are significant economic issues that would need to be resolved and it's not a simple solution. I think both major parties in the US are anti-people and pro-big business. I think my taxes support murder overseas, and it pains me to pay them. I don't care what your religion is [or anything else], I only care about our interactions. I believe in being kind. I believe in personal responsibility, though that doesn't mean I believe people shouldn't work together to help everyone. I believe in open borders [heck, I don't even like the concept of borders]. I don't care where you were born, or what language you speak. If I see someone in trouble, I will try to help them. I've been part of cooperatives, I try to shop local [except gaming], I am anti-violence and anti-war. I love cats.

How long of an essay do I need to write before I'm 'okay'. Did I pass your purity test yet?

Oh, by the way, remember when you already implied I was some sort of Nazi because I feel like I can't express my opinions? Have you noticed you embody exactly what I say the problem was? I spoke up... so I must be the enemy, right?

But let's see -- you asked to "hear some of these opinions" that people are afraid to discuss. Okay, that's easy. Mention free speech, get treated like a Nazi [in fact, that's what got me involved in this conversation thread]. Talk about presumption of innocence, and you're propagating rape culture. Ask a question, and you'll get a response like "Oh, just questions. Riiiight. I see through you." Criticize Clinton and you'll be called a white supremacist Trump supporter. Man, I've hated Trump and everything he stood for from before he was a celebrity. I despise Clinton, too, though.

No. I've been fighting the fight for decades. Longer than people in their twenties have been alive. But that doesn't mean I support the culture of accusation you clearly participate in.

You assume the worst. Oh, he's defending free speech? What awful things do you want to say? The only awful thing I want to say is that your style of attack is gross.

Discussion is important. Discussion allows me to talk about things important to me, like the problem with our prison systems. But what people do here is try to shut others down with accusations, subtle and not-so-subtle, just like you did. That's ugly. That doesn't encourage growth and debate, it shuts it down.

I'm quoting this because people need to read this. As a nonauthoritarian this is very recognizable. This is great.

 

[valkyre]

The reason you get shut down a lot of because you don’t understand what free speech is.
Free speech has never referred to non-government bodies.

Educate us.

 

[negitoro7]

I loved this place, it was the only forum that I visited every single day without fail, through my good and bad years of my life thus far.

It's really sad seeing all those threads and communities gone, but I'll stick around for now.

 

[Subpar Spatula]

The strength of Anita's arguments do absolutely nothing to justify your assumption that someone who wants to see her debate has nefarious motivations. You continue to deflect.

See you say I'm deflecting but you can't even admit the arguments against are almost all bullshit. You say "strength of Anita's arguments" meaning you know full well she has some pretty well articulated and strong points. It's pretty obvious at this point you just can't admit you are wrong and want to defend him out of spite for me. You can cleave to this "he has no nefarious motive" angle all you want but you're only convincing those who drank the kool-aid. You don't ask people to publicly defend their points if you didn't even engage their points in the beginning because you wanted to see a healthy debate.

 

[Theodoricos]

Not really. I would love to discuss Happy Death Day though if I had somewhere to do it.

We have a new makeshift movie thread up until the OT section is restored.

 

[Afro]

Well, yeah. This forum was protected by a shield of people like you that shouted down any opposing viewpoint with harsh slurs. Who wants to be accused of being something they're not? So most people stayed quiet. They weren't alt-rights hiding, waiting for something [I'm sure a couple were]... but in general, people just did not feel safe speaking their mind.

You are part of a culture of fear. Fear of speaking. Fear of putting forth one's own opinion because they might get piled on as being a [whatever]. People can't even use common phrases, for fear they're taboo... 'free speech', in this case. Use the wrong phrase, get lumped in with Nazis. So people stay silent.

...

Don't get me wrong - I believe in many of the same things as you. I believe we always need to work towards a better world. I think many people are ignorant, and a surprising number of people entertain quite vile ideas. But where we differ is I don't assume anyone that disagrees with me must be one of those people, and I certainly don't accuse people of it on the drop of a dime. If someone asks me a question, I answer and try to educate [even if it's the tenth time I'm asked] instead of shaming them.

I know this won't stick, today. But maybe, someday... something in here will make it past your ideological shield and you'll realize I'm on your side. I'm trying to help you understand that we grow through discussion, not silence. I'm not saying we should have the scum of the earth here - we agree on that. But the issue is your brush is far too broad. Vile people exist. And they should certainly be dealt with - I'm perfectly fine with giving no quarter for abusive behavior. But that's not what was happening here [and your 'stop fitting the bill' comment is a perfect example of that].

You assume the worst. Oh, he's defending free speech? What awful things do you want to say? The only awful thing I want to say is that your style of attack is gross.

Discussion is important. Discussion allows me to talk about things important to me, like the problem with our prison systems. But what people do here is try to shut others down with accusations, subtle and not-so-subtle, just like you did. That's ugly. That doesn't encourage growth and debate, it shuts it down.

this guy is the fucking truth.

 

[BuddyTheBestPuppy]

Scary to browse this forum ATM. Especially at work,some idiot might post porn or worse with a misleading headline

 

[The Kree]

195,00 members

gaf will be fine!!! its only going to get better from here on.

I didn't intend any insult toward your country. I really love it here, actually, and I really don't want to leave. The weather's nice, the food is amazing, everything's cheap, the women are on average more beautiful than anywhere else I've been, and everyone is pleasant and positive and lies to have a good time.

What I meant by the comment:

- People party really hard in Spain, and this was the biggest party there is.

- People get pretty aggressively physically really fast in Spain (which that girl was with me, getting all up in me hard out of nowhere with ulterior motives just for the stupid 2 euro drink).

Not "LOL DUMB SPANISH BARBARIANS HAHA I AMERICAN" or "LOLOLOL STUPID WOMEN NEED ASS GRABBING." I hope everyone here knows me better than that by now by the policies I set on my website and how I convey myself, but more like, " understand the context of what went down; I wasn't being an asshole, I was just playing fair by the rules she established in that moment. It's Spain; it's ridiculously enormous party where everyone is smashed and going for broke in the midst of people getting gored and ricking death."

 

[HStallion]

The post we are discussing says nothing about being against Anita. This is all spatula and apparently the mod that banned him making assumptions.

I don't really care for Spatula's arguments but he's been on the mark in this thread than I think I have ever seen.

 

[Skullface]

Fun fact: Banned users are not subtracted from the total number. It can only go up because of that.

Curious as to just how many members were banned since Gaf came back up

 

[ExVicis]

We have a new makeshift movie thread up until the OT section is restored.

Well this picked up my spirits!

 

[Wowfunhappy]

If someone posts an unpopular opinion, and many people respond with why they disagreement with said opinion, that's not a pile on—it's a discussion. It's now the job of the original poster to defend their argument. If they can't, then maybe they should reconsider their original opinion.

This is of course assuming that everyone is discussing ideas and not calling each other names—but I didn't see a lot of name calling on Gaf. Mostly just a lot of people—yes, most of them liberally minded—defending their beliefs. People who resorted to name calling got banned, of course.

I certainly don't have a record of every person who has ever been banned and why, but I never saw someone get banned for calmly voicing an unpopular opinion. What I did see was an absolute zero tolerance for toxicity, and that's exactly what made Neogaf so special to me.

 

[remist]

See you say I'm deflecting but you can't even admit the arguments against are almost all bullshit. You say "strength of Anita's arguments" meaning you know full well she has some pretty well articulated and strong points. It's pretty obvious at this point you just can't admit you are wrong and want to defend him out of spite for me. You can cleave to this "he has no nefarious motive" angle all you want but you're only convincing those who drank the kool-aid. You don't ask people to publicly defend their points if you didn't even engage their points in the beginning because you wanted to see a healthy debate.

Holy. I have only seen like one or two Anita videos and I generally agreed with the content. So yes I don't have any problem with Anita or her arguments. That still has nothing to do with your argument about the post in question.

 

[Late Flag]

Not only that but GAF was one of the few sites where put up or shut up was actually enforced.

This is simply false. "Put up or shut up" was actually enforced, but only for those who didn't adhere to the prevailing point of view. Folks who subscribed to the Neogaf orthodoxy (which is not even within view of mainstream political discourse in the US) could spout unsubstantiated claims all day long. If you take a look at my recent post history, you'll notice a few instances in which I asked people for evidence -- any evidence at all -- to back up some of the odd positions they were staking out, only to get radio silence in return.

The reason you get shut down a lot of because you don't understand what free speech is.
Free speech has never referred to non-government bodies.

For example, this was posted while I was typing my own post. The view expressed here is just empirically wrong, and there's no other way to put it. But let's see how "put up or shut up" plays out here.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

I judge individual character.

Back on Saturday, I had expectations that people could still behave themselves even after the mod team left. Instead, I just saw people jump straight to anarchy anyway, without even waiting for more clarification on the situation.

It only makes this healing process only more painful.

I wish I knew which definite side I could take on this issue but without 100% evidence that indicts either party, I don't see the point in trying to tear NeoGaf down. That's been the goal of the haters for years and the users I described sullying themselves are helping to feed that narrative.

Yeah it was fucked up. I was surprised. Not that there's a playbook for things like this, but I certainly would have expected a bit more care for the community that they invested themselves in and enjoyed participating in, some for a decade or more.

 

[Noboru Wataya]

Holy. I have only seen like one or two Anita videos and I generally agreed with the content. So yes I don't have any problem Anita or her arguments. That still has nothing to do with your argument about the post in question.

You are talking to someone with their fingers in their ears.

 

[HStallion]

This is simply false. "Put up or shut up" was actually enforced, but only for those who didn't adhere to the prevailing point of view. Folks who subscribed to the Neogaf orthodoxy (which is not even within view of mainstream political discourse in the US) could spout unsubstantiated claims all day long. If you take a look at my recent post history, you'll notice a few instances in which I asked people for evidence -- any evidence at all -- to back up some of the odd positions they were staking out, only to get radio silence in return.

So some people didn't respond to you? My god the horror. Those nazis! I was speaking about the more disgusting and extreme opinions on here not about Batman Vs Superman sucking.

 

[valkyre]

If someone posts an unpopular opinion, and many people respond with why they disagreement with said opinion, that's not a pile on—it's a discussion. It's now the job of the original poster to defend their argument. If they can't, then maybe they should reconsider their original opinion.

This is of course assuming that everyone is discussing ideas and not calling each other names—but I didn't see a lot of name calling on Gaf. Mostly just a lot of people—yes, most of them liberally minded—defending their beliefs. People who resorted to name calling got banned, of course.

I certainly don't have a record of every person who has ever been banned and why, but I never saw someone get banned for calmly voicing an unpopular opinion. What I did see was an absolute zero tolerance for toxicity, and that's exactly what made Neogaf so special to me.

You must have not been paying attention then.

Here is the rundown:

Post unpopular opinion, or voice concerns over popular opinion

Get gangbanged by 20 people pretty much bullying and harassing you, implying, even telling it in your face, that you are some sort of despicable alt right bigot racist human trash. The alt right bigot racist words were thrown in abundance.

Try to get yourself to have a chance to reply to like 20 people at the same time who are ready to feast on your corpse. It is disgusting. And hypocritical for all those people who are here to make this "a better world" by treating you like shit...

 

[Subpar Spatula]

Holy. I have only seen like one or two Anita videos and I generally agreed with the content. So yes I don't have any problem Anita or her arguments. That still has nothing to do with your argument about the post in question.

Why doesn't it? Anita posts a video and before he even counters her arguments he asks if she will debate them in public.

Just think for a moment and ask why someone asks that. Why does someone who didn't even participate in countering her arguments want her to publicly debate someone antithetical to her? This is a guy who seemingly doesn't care for her points. His post is a lot of "Bill Nye should debate creationists!" Why? Because they only want to see someone like Ken Hamm get pwwwwned. He's asking Anita to debate because he wants to see zingers thrown his way because he believes her arguments are bad.

I honestly don't get how you don't see this. It's pretty obvious. In fact, I guarantee you see this, you just don't care. You're more angry at me for calling him out on his shitposting than him throwing barbs at Anita.

You must have not been paying attention then.

Here is the rundown:

Post unpopular opinion, or voice concerns over popular opinion

Get gangbanged by 20 people pretty much bullying and harassing you, implying you are some sort of despicable alt right bigot racist human trash.

Try to get yourself to have a chance to reply to like 20 people at the same time who are ready to feast on your corpse. It is disgusting. And hypocritical for all those people who are here to make this "a better world" by treating you like shit...

For all the people that dislike me, that never happened to me. I've always wondered why I was never harassed, or "gang banged" by 20 people. It really makes you think as to what you posted that caused people to ask as fervent as you say they did.

 

[TrumanBurbank]

What happened to Scullibundo? Where is he going to talk about James Cameron now?

 

[Doukou]

This is simply false. "Put up or shut up" was actually enforced, but only for those who didn't adhere to the prevailing point of view. Folks who subscribed to the Neogaf orthodoxy (which is not even within view of mainstream political discourse in the US) could spout unsubstantiated claims all day long. If you take a look at my recent post history, you'll notice a few instances in which I asked people for evidence -- any evidence at all -- to back up some of the odd positions they were staking out, only to get radio silence in return.



For example, this was posted while I was typing my own post. The view expressed here is just empirically wrong, and there's no other way to put it. But let's see how "put up or shut up" plays out here.

Amendment 1 USA
This is what Freedom of Speech is based off in USA

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It was later amended to clarify state governments and local governments

 

[Cagey]

The reason you get shut down a lot of because you don't understand what free speech is.
Free speech has never referred to non-government bodies.

In the past few years, non-attorneys (and, well, attorneys in situations just like this) pretending to believe that the term "free speech" isn't also commonly understood as a principle in the United States about skewing towards freer expression rather than censorship, and instead narrowly focusing on the term as defined in America jurisprudence to chastise others for "not getting it!" as if they're uneducated fools, is so tiresome.

 

[ExVicis]

Scary to browse this forum ATM. Especially at work,some idiot might post porn or worse with a misleading headline

Someone did earlier actually. You might not be safe to browse this at work.

 

[RawkHawk2010]

The reason you get shut down a lot of because you don’t understand what free speech is.
Free speech has never referred to non-government bodies.

Newsflash, but people's bringing up of "free speech" isn't inherently a reference to the first amendment. For some it's an idea to strive for (within reason) and thus isn't dismissed by the oft-repeated "freedom from consequences" spiel that people feel the need to recycle every time they see the two words together.

 

[Doukou]

In the past few years, non-attorneys (and, well, attorneys in situations just like this) pretending to believe that the term "free speech" isn't also commonly understood as a principle in the United States about skewing towards freer expression rather than censorship, and instead narrowly focusing on the term as defined in America jurisprudence to chastise others for "not getting it!" as if they're uneducated fools, is so tiresome.

Then you can look at how the United Nations defines it too
"restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order (ordre public), public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant. "
Freedom of speech "carries with it special duties and responsibilities."

Weird how it doesn't give you a pass to say anything

 

[Mahadev]

The reason you get shut down a lot of because you don't understand what free speech is.
Free speech has never referred to non-government bodies.

Free speech isn't just a legal issue, it's a moral one too. Trying to make this just about legality is completely dishonest, he's not talking about suing neogaf ffs, he's talking about what's right,.

 

[Skullface]

Newsflash, but people's bringing up of "free speech" isn't inherently a reference to the first amendment. For some it's an idea to strive for (within reason) and thus isn't dismissed by the oft-repeated "freedom from consequences" spiel that people feel the need to recycle every time they see the two words together.

This guy gets it.

Edit:

Free speech isn't just a legal issue, it's a moral one too. Trying to makes this just about legality is completely dishonest, he's not talking about suing neogaf ffs, he's talking about what's right,.

This guy also gets it.

 

[Late Flag]

Amendment 1 USA
This is what Freedom of Speech is based off in USA

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It was later amended to clarify state governments and local governments

I know what the first amendment says.

People who talk about "free speech" are pretty much never talking about just the first amendment, except in very narrow legal contexts.

 

[fertygo]

Spatula might've has fight this entire forum for his controversial opinion, and yet he not banned or "shut down" like plenty of people here claimed

 

[HStallion]

I'm not even sure why some of you come to this site until now. Its apparently a free speech waste land run by dictator mods and filled with the walking dead feasting on your disdain and anger before you caught a ban from the great hand in the sky.

 

[Man with Knife]

___

 

[Skullface]

Jesus, this place is dead. Crazy how fast things can go downhill, I've seen it before, never thought it would happen to a forum this big though.

It's pretty boring without the OT forums, if someone knows where most of the members migrated to, shoot a PM.

Spoiler

/v/

 

[Subpar Spatula]

It's weird how freedom of speech is brought up. You can literally say whatever you want but that doesn't mean you're free from consequence. What aren't you allowed to say? I guarantee you it's some hateful stuff.

Oh well, but I assume it's more "you can't disagree with them!"

 

[remist]

Why doesn't it? Anita posts a video and before he even counters her arguments he asks if she will debate them in public.

Just think for a moment and ask why someone asks that. Why does someone who didn't even participate in countering her arguments want her to publicly debate someone antithetical to her? This is a guy who seemingly doesn't care for her points. His post is a lot of "Bill Nye should debate creationists!" Why? Because they only want to see someone like Ken Hamm get pwwwwned. He's asking Anita to debate because he wants to see zingers thrown his way because he believes her arguments are bad.

I honestly don't get how you don't see this. It's pretty obvious. In fact, I guarantee you see this, you just don't care. You're more angry at me for calling him out on his shitposting than him throwing barbs at Anita.

He can have any number of reasons to want to see a debate that don't have anything to do with what your imagination has cooked up. And I see with the bolded that you've now made up your own internal narrative up about my motivations. I think this is a sign that it's no longer worth engaging. I leave it up to others to judge whether you are posting in good faith or not.

 

[BFIB]

I decided I'm also leaving.

Evilore is my Malkshake Duck.

 

[valkyre]

For all the people that dislike me, that never happened to me. I've always wondered why I was never harassed, or "gang banged" by 20 people. It really makes you think as to what you posted that caused people to ask as fervent as you say they did.

Oh please... like come on now...

You were right up there with the pack that was doing this. Even a few pages back you did it again. Even here now you just have to imply that what I -or whoever- said back then must have been something attrocious, something that must make me an alt right or whatever.

You also had the moderating community to support and protect you.

You guys had the nerve of harassing everyone who voiced something different than you, and at the same time come out as some kind of self righteous holy being, here to save this planet from everyone that has even a slight disagreement with you.

You had the "official" GAF support to act like this. The fact that so many people are able to speak now is because of all this meltdown and that we dont get instantly banned for voicing that hypocrisy that surrounds this board.

 

[Doukou]

Free speech isn't just a legal issue, it's a moral one too. Trying to make this just about legality is completely dishonest, he's not talking about suing neogaf ffs, he's talking about what's right,.

How is it moral to allow people to say immoral things?
Should we take a general rule like freedom of speech to its extreme, or should we not because that would be stupid and allow me to make topics with lies or yell fire in a theater?

 

[adj_noun]

It's pretty boring without the OT forums

I've reflexively clicked for OT so many times it may as well be an idle clicker game.

 

[Subpar Spatula]

He can have any number of reasons to want to see a debate that don't have anything to do with what your imagination has cooked up. And I see with the bolded that you've now made up your own internal narrative up about my motivations. I think this is a sign that it's no longer worth engaging. I leave it up to others to judge whether you are posting in good faith or not.

What reasons do you believe he decided to make that comment? I guarantee you they all lead to the same place if you talk to him long enough about it.

But I doubt that matters. You seem to not care that he was shitposting in a thread that was clearly mod edited to say you shouldn't post things like that.

I guess that doesn't matter either.

Oh please... like come on now...

You were right up there with the pack that was doing this. Even a few pages back you did it again. Even here now you just have to imply that what I -or whoever- said back then must have been something attrocious, something that must make me an alt right or whatever.

You also had the moderating community to support and protect you.

You guys had the nerve of harassing everyone who voiced something different than you, and at the same time come out as some kind of self righteous holy being, here to save this planet from everyone that has even a slight disagreement with you.

You had the "official" GAF support to act like this.

I don't think the moderating community cared about me. I'm sure some would have banned me if they could just out of spite or something.

See. Y'all keep parroting that "voiced something different than you". You keep trying to normalize toxic rhetoric. Like, there are clear examples in Diablos and others who support Trump (OT is super against Trump) and he fared for a bit before slipping up. It turns out if you don't spew hateful stuff you won't catch a ban.

Like, y'all keep saying this difference of view shit but it never pans out when you bring the receipts. Y'all just bring shitposting or how you were defending people who like Zwarte Piet.

We get your game. Y'all can have it. You can normalize your behavior here if you want, the people that care aren't here anymore. They're off making their own place free of y'all. At best you'll maybe engage me but even then you don't like me so just ignore me.

 

[NintendosBooger]

You don't get it, do you? See, even here, you subtly accuse me of being some closet Nazi.

Let's see. I've been promoting generally anarchist, anti-capitalistic ideals for decades. That said, I do understand some of the benefits of both hierarchy and capitalism... it's not a cut and dried issue, especially when you take the present state of humanity into consideration. I'm pro love, and support you loving whoever the hell you want to love. I support legalization, even though I don't do drugs. I support privacy. I think our criminal system is antiquated and broken, with a fair amount of racism baked in [coke vs crack, etc]. I think prisons themselves create more problems than they solve and that we need to find a better solution than breaking up families. I've supported some sort of universal basic income solution for decades before it became hip, though I recognize there are significant economic issues that would need to be resolved and it's not a simple solution. I think both major parties in the US are anti-people and pro-big business. I think my taxes support murder overseas, and it pains me to pay them. I don't care what your religion is [or anything else], I only care about our interactions. I believe in being kind. I believe in personal responsibility, though that doesn't mean I believe people shouldn't work together to help everyone. I believe in open borders [heck, I don't even like the concept of borders]. I don't care where you were born, or what language you speak. If I see someone in trouble, I will try to help them. I've been part of cooperatives, I try to shop local [except gaming], I am anti-violence and anti-war. I love cats.

How long of an essay do I need to write before I'm 'okay'. Did I pass your purity test yet?

Oh, by the way, remember when you already implied I was some sort of Nazi because I feel like I can't express my opinions? Have you noticed you embody exactly what I say the problem was? I spoke up... so I must be the enemy, right?

But let's see -- you asked to "hear some of these opinions" that people are afraid to discuss. Okay, that's easy. Mention free speech, get treated like a Nazi [in fact, that's what got me involved in this conversation thread]. Talk about presumption of innocence, and you're propagating rape culture. Ask a question, and you'll get a response like "Oh, just questions. Riiiight. I see through you." Criticize Clinton and you'll be called a white supremacist Trump supporter. Man, I've hated Trump and everything he stood for from before he was a celebrity. I despise Clinton, too, though.

No. I've been fighting the fight for decades. Longer than people in their twenties have been alive. But that doesn't mean I support the culture of accusation you clearly participate in.

You assume the worst. Oh, he's defending free speech? What awful things do you want to say? The only awful thing I want to say is that your style of attack is gross.

Discussion is important. Discussion allows me to talk about things important to me, like the problem with our prison systems. But what people do here is try to shut others down with accusations, subtle and not-so-subtle, just like you did. That's ugly. That doesn't encourage growth and debate, it shuts it down.

Okay.

It's apparent at least to me that you're a drama queen suffering from some persecution complex because I've never once seen a GAF mob condemn any of those positions and having been around this place since the tail end of the Clinton administration I can say with a good degree of certainty that this community - as it was - has predominately leaned to your perspective of things on virtually all those issues so I don't know what the fuck it is you're personally complaining about with your woe-is-me grandstanding.

 

[Wowfunhappy]

You must have not been paying attention then.

Here is the rundown:

Post unpopular opinion, or voice concerns over popular opinion

Get gangbanged by 20 people pretty much bullying and harassing you, implying, even telling it in your face, that you are some sort of despicable alt right bigot racist human trash. The alt right bigot racist words were thrown in abundance.

Try to get yourself to have a chance to reply to like 20 people at the same time who are ready to feast on your corpse. It is disgusting. And hypocritical for all those people who are here to make this "a better world" by treating you like shit...

I know its kind of hard with the off topic section gone and all, but if you can find an example of this in a google cache or something, I'd be interested to see it.

You don't have to reply to 20 people at the same time—you reply to one or two or three using the handy multi-quote feature, choosing the posts you think were best written and will let you construct the best counter argument.

P.S. If anyone from ResetEra is reading this, I'd love to be hooked up with an invite. Please quote this post for my email.