Damn, I rememberThey are batshit insane over there, in more ways that one, clearly.
I mean, check this out... you get banned for bullshit, because you do not want to engage in the bait, but yet they make up a reason to ban you anyhow. PoorCaayn , all he wanted to do is not discuss it, his right, yet, they make up a reason in their schizophrenic echo chamber.
Caayn
, he's a good guy.
lmao of course this is ban worthy:
"No, I won't date trans, fats, ugly people. What's the peoblem?" --> User Banned (2 Weeks): Transphobia. https://www.resetera.com/threads/ne...t-date-trans-people.50541/page-6#post-9519601
A ton of nonsense assertions in this post that I don't have time to unpack. But this in particular... if you actually believe this... -_-
So saying you wouldn't date trans people, fat people or ugly people is inflammatory? Basically saying you wouldn't date someone you don't find sexually attractive is inflammatory?
Ok, but he was banned for transphobia. You agree that wasn't transphobia then?
Go out sometimes. People in the real world don't sugarcoat everything and live in bubbles. Nothing offensive.
You need to do some sort of mental gimnastics to see how that post could have been transphobic.
This is a good post. It inspired some new ideas for me that I'd like to expand on.
I am interested in the juxtaposition between simple acts like grinding in a game and more complex and engaging acts like furthering a narrative. How being fully invested in the former while not caring much for the latter can put you on the "wrong side" of some people.
Using Super Mario Bros as my first example I think it is often assumed that the player is playing the game because they actually want to rescue the princess and that's what keeps them coming back. If you asked "what is Super Mario Bros about" then the answer could be "it's about rescuing a princess". The player may say "well I want to rescue the princess so lets-a go" (and that's why you're the hero we need right now).
However the player may not consider the princess at all. Maybe the reason for playing Mario is not to rescue the princess but to kill time on a Saturday afternoon or to relax after a hard day at work. It could be both too but whatever it is the player will know what they want from the game.
You CAN get what you get from the game and being happy with that BUT expressing that sentiment? Tut tut tut. There are many people who want to tell you what you should be getting from the game (and why that's a good thing).
In a game like Breath of the Wild there can be stretches of several hours where I am not engaging with the story of the game or even the themes presented. I'm just messing around. Achieving nothing more than relaxing myself. The game may be political but I am playing it in an apolitical fashion.
None of this means that the games are not "political". Sure there are narratives and hidden layers and if one was asked to write and essay on Mario or Zelda for high school homework then I'm sure they'd be able to do that. However, the relationship between the game and the player can be more complex than that.
Does a player who ignores the political context of a game automatically get less out of the game? I would argue no. Speedrunners get something out of Breath of the Wild just the same as someone writing a lengthy political analysis of the game gets something too (maybe it's the game we need in Trump's America).
Now, a person might read lengthy articles breaking down the politics of a certain game and may also think "jeez these articles are trash". I frequently do. You might even think "actually I just play that game for fun" and would prefer to read articles without the shoehorning of political commentary.
Here is the "gotcha" though. Being "apolitical" is in and of itself a political stance. I'm sure everyone has heard the old argument that "Atheism is a religion"?
So if you are "apolitical" then guess what? THAT'S POLITICAL.
I bet you're still thinking "but dude when I play Elder Scrolls Online I just like to roam the world and level up and see what's going on" but you're just putting your head in the sand to ignore the realities of the modern world (and that's a problem).
You see in the real world, just like in an MMO, other people are trying to prove that they have more knowledge of the game than you. They are out to prove that they are better than you. Better than anyone.
What's the best way to show that? Well, we could shame you for not thinking deeply enough about the game. You're just playing Mario at the surface level. You jump and run and enjoy the music. Oh, how droll.
>> I << on the other hand understand the toxic message that Mario sends to society at large. The Damsel in Distress. The gender stereotyping. The overt display of toxic masculinity. Please listen to my lecture about how tropes in video games harm women in the real world. Actually forget the "please". If you don't want to listen, or you don't want to agree, then you are just burying your head in the sand. Maybe you are one of those gamers?
After all, if you're just playing Mario for the fun of it and nothing more then isn't that just tacit approval of the real evils in society?
We play games for fun or to relax. These people though? These people are better than us.
These people are combing through the historical records to prove that if you thought there were only white people in Bohemia in 1403 then you are wrong! That medieval RPG you are playing? It's, like, sooooo problematic!
You want to read articles that are all about the games and don't come across like they were written by a passive aggressive Social Studies major? If the answer is yes then maybe you're secretly one of those Gamergate supporters, huh?
I know, I know. You never harassed anyone. I get it. Still, doesn't doing nothing mean you are complicit?
So they sneer at your desire to just play FarCry 5 and have a fun time after work. They deride your desire to read articles about FarCry 5 that aren't utter tripe from so-called "journalists" whining about the games politics.
The Division isn't FUN, my friend, it's PROBLEMATIC! (and here are 10 reasons why, number 8 will SHOCK you)
Like you, I thought "well I'm not interested in politics". WRONG ANSWER!
You see everything is political and if you aren't interested in politics then that's just tacit approval of all the bad things in this world.
"No seriously, I'm just not into politics". GOTCHA! That's an alt-right... um... what's that term we would started using about a month ago... insta... intro.. incel! Incel. That's an alt-right, incel, dog-whistle buddy. Go straight to jail!
You're just passing the time with your electronic toys while the world burns. You're part of the problem.
OR maybe reaching the next level really is apolitical. Maybe looking at the sights and listening to the sounds is apolitical too.
Sometimes a jump is just a jump. A record time is just a record time. Beating the next boss is just your plan for a Friday evening and nothing more.
Or maybe you just support Gamergate.
Yoshi
please tell me whats so moderate about this shit?
It's a small sample size for me, but people I HAVE shown various shit on there think exactly that.
This. I said above that here was too much bullshit to unpack. He unpacked it.
I wouldn't ban for this and deciding to ban for this is pretty strict. I did not say Resetera moderation is infallible (hey, they permabanned me, I wouldn't even have warned me, though admittedly that's biased, it should make clear that I do not agree with all they say). Their stance on ciritcising games journalism is pretty strange. On the other hand, I thinl the poster does homself a bit of a disservice by getting all snarky after starting off pretty analytical. Either way, even considering the snark, this is probably one of the weaker moderation decisions of Resetera. However, if you have a team of 20 or so moderators with varying views and sensibilities, you cannot expect a perfect moderation result, especially not when you want a strict moderation and have the stance "better one ban more than one uncaught instance of toxicity". Finding instances of overmoderation does nothing to disprove my claim that there are quite a few reasonable / moderate moderators who reason their dicision well.This is a very long and post and this guy got banned for ok 1 day for :Vilifying Journalism. HOW is this even in the slightes acceptable and
This kind of post gets you banned there.
Why are you still carrying their water, man. That resetbanbot pretty much proves you wrong just by browsing through quickly any given day. Some kind of stockholm syndrome going on here (apt because this latest topic of discussion involves Sweden rofl).
Thank you.
From my perspective, you are over interpreting the term "they are not worth it". There are two ways of reading this: The effort spent to convince them is coming with such a high opportunity cost that it might not be be worth the effort and thus not a good strategy. Which I think is a valid validation and probably the correct interpretation. The other is they are not worth the effort as persons; calling them as humans worthless, rather than the effort spent to sway them strategically worthless. If I were to agree with your interpretation of Brazil's posting, I would be appaled by the postings as well, but I do not think this is likely. If you have contact to Brazil, you could ask him, which interpretation is correct. I'd be absolutely willing to admit my mistake and reverse my judgment in case he says it is the second.
It is pretty much impossible to say what is endgame. If you asked people of the "auth left" (I put it in exclamation mark because I have only ever heard the term from you and I do not want to unwittingly use a hateful term in case it has such history) what the end game is, they would say it is a world in which no one is discriminated according to race (though I'd prefer they use ethnicity), gender, sex, age, disabilities. A goal I think is very commendable by the way, the only think we would be in disagreement on here is the methods. The idea is to use affirmative action and linguistic limitations to counterbalance existing inequalities until such measures are not needed anymore. I would prefer a change by education, free access to higher education, actions towards desegregation, much, much highere taxation of inheritance, laws to counteract structures that are indirectly sexist (e.g. the pathway to professorship in Germany effectively forces women to decide between family and career; such a system cannot be upheld) while maintaining the highest possible degree of personal freedom.
I do not think I do but I am of course not the best person to validate my own actions, due to an inherent bias.
Sorry, I cannot say anything about the banbot. I am very much against modern internet bullying tactics and from the outside look this banbot appears to be the same thing as people hunting through old twitter postings to find mud on people. From the limited amount of stuff I have seen from Kiwifarm, they are hardly an unbiased source of information. That being said, in cases like yours they sould have just have ignored your reports, notlike you hurt anyone with this, even if they felt they were unjustified reports. In principle, it could be a much better policy to ban people from topics than outright banning from the bord for very specific areas of deviation.
Let me answer this for you: jokes about women, blacks and jews typically employ hateful stereotyping, which is precisely what sexism, racism, antisemitism is. Making jokes about children does not employ the defining characteristics of pedophilia. As you might know, I still do not think said jokes necessarily are acts of racism / sexism / antisemitism, but there definitely is at least one more layer separating jokes about children from pedophilia than jokes about women / blacks / jews from sexism / racism / antisemitism.
No, absolutely not what I said, in fact, I love dark humour, and have no issues with offensive content in humour, as long as it is actually used for humour instad of being the humour. I just said that the two things you compared are not similar to each other, because there is a much larger conceptual distance between pedophilia and jokees about children when compared to sexism and jokes about women.
The extra layer is that you take away the humourous intent and context, and a joke about women becomes sexism. If you take away the humourous intent and context from jokes about children, it may become hateful to children, but (in almost all cases) not pedophile.
Voat, Kiwifarms, and this thread all do a fantastic job exposing Reeeesetera.
