They're entitled to their beliefs, that shouldn't give them a free pass though. They should just keep that stuff to themselves.
Is GAF too strict?
- Thread starter Kraftwerk
- Start date
- Status
They're entitled to their beliefs, that shouldn't give them a free pass though. They should just keep that stuff to themselves.
N
NinjaFridge
Unconfirmed Member
But then it runs the risk of becoming a forum where people just agree with each other with no real discussion. As long as those people can put forward their views in a manner which doesn't break the rules then they should be allowed to contribute.
flippymittens
Banned
Most Christians... do not believe those things and just go to church. Most Christians do not read the entire Bible.
Heck when I was a Christian I did not think those things... I think you are thinking of fundamentalist Christians.
Sounds an awful lot like people that wish gays would just "keep it to themselves" and not demand equal rights.
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
i was thinking about this and you're right, there's definitely a ton of devout religious people that need to disapprove of gay people to abide by their religion as they perceive it.
yes they're wrong for doing so and they do have a choice in the matter but they shouldn't be banned for merely stating that being homosexual is sinful based on their interpretation of religion. i dont think i can see them moving any further than that without being deliberately hateful though.
then again, maybe through discussion they'll want to change their minds.
Well on the topic of homosexuality yeah, I mean surely you would agree it's not fine for people to be racist because it's against what they believe in? (Not saying any religion is racist, but limiting it to give religion a free pass is silly) anyone can have any beleifs but if they're hurtful and damaging they shoud keep them to themselves.
Not the same and you know it, spouting hatred is harmful.
i think gaf is too strict and fake 'PC'. so much that it affects responses.
many are not 100% real opinions, which is unfortunate.
therefore alot of threads are just for posters to agree with each other and confirm how right of a thinking it is.
you just don't go 'liberal' in one night.
banning words such as 'dick' is overkill too.
there should be only one rule; don't be offensive..
many are not 100% real opinions, which is unfortunate.
therefore alot of threads are just for posters to agree with each other and confirm how right of a thinking it is.
you just don't go 'liberal' in one night.
banning words such as 'dick' is overkill too.
there should be only one rule; don't be offensive..
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
not at all, having equal rights will make your life better. gay people have no affect on your rights.
But since that means different things to different people, it's too ambiguous.
-COOLIO-
The Everyman
to put it another way. if christianity declared being black a sin i still wouldn't want to hear about anyones disapproval of black people simply because it was backed by religion. if you would want to say being black is a sin, then fine, that would be a fact, and utterly meaningless and non-hurtful to black non-christians, but anything beyond that threshold could be deeply offensive
i hope this better illustrates my problem with taking any kind of stance against gay people beyond merely labeling it as a sin.
i hope this better illustrates my problem with taking any kind of stance against gay people beyond merely labeling it as a sin.
N
NinjaFridge
Unconfirmed Member
PM a mod or admin, yes. Just see who with a red name is on I guess, though I should note that gromph and maharg are pure system administrators, they don't mod.
Don't mess with gromph; he banned someone once.
Blackace
if you see me in a fight with a bear, don't help me fool, help the bear!
Sarcastic meter needs a little a tuning...
At EviLore's direct request, who wasn't able to because he was on his iPhone.
You are ruining gromph's mystique with the truth.
It seemed a bit unclear, and given that no one knows your background on the internet its easy for them to misunderstand.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
outright/obviously offensive. does that say more?
i think most know what is considered 'too much'.
and if they don't, well, they deserve to get banned [by having brought it upon themselves] sooner or later anyway.
N
NinjaFridge
Unconfirmed Member
More like your reality meter needs tuning.
Your move.
Damnit i had an image of White Goodman that would have (hopefully) made this post funny but it wont upload. Goddamn min.us.
I just made a post specifically addressing this...
Blackace
if you see me in a fight with a bear, don't help me fool, help the bear!
Nothing would have made this post funny...
Please don't ban me for asking, but do you end all of your posts with ellipses? Just curious...
Angry Grimace
Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
At EviLore's direct request, who wasn't able to because he was on his iPhone
You need to get ckohler on adding the banhammer to iPhone right away. It sounds very important to be able to stop in the middle of a date to ban some fool.
Where did everyone get the idea that the moderators are machines designed to maintain balance (i.e. not have opinions) or that GAF is some kind of news outlet with a duty to cater to every possible viewpoint? It's maddeningly random.
Steve Youngblood
Member
I feel the same way. However, I'm not sure if the cause is necessarily something to hang my hat on, as in my case it's rooted in a very dry, unemotional, and forgettable posting style most of the time. But hey, I've never been banned from NeoGAF, a fact displayed prominently on my resume.
N
NinjaFridge
Unconfirmed Member
It would have been glorious. Now we'll never know.
And why doesn't Tekno use quotes?
:lol Blackace is the new Bish?
edit: Quick! Someone get the shops going of Bish and Blackace doing the DBZ fusion thing and combine them...
BishAce
Need to find when the quote system was implemented (or rather it's thread) I believe. He made a post vowing never to use anything other than "".
Hivemind.
I can't fucking believe you said "hivemind" in this context.
I'd've let this pass if you hadn't said "hivemind".
Point the first: Misgendering is offensive to trans people.
For example: You're making or receiving a phone call in a professional context. You call the person on the other end "Mz." or "Ma'am", and they correct your use of the honorific.
What do you do? -- Most likely, you apologize immediately and instinctively; You certainly don't entertain the idea of having an argument on the point. I've been on both sides of this interaction quite a few times, and in every single case there was an apology. Everyone seems to consider misgendering an offense worthy of an apology when it's not happening to trans people. Arguing that it's a non-offensive opinion when applied and expressed to trans people is in itself insulting, because that position incorporates the assumption that trans people have less right to their gender than everyone else.
Point the second: Opinions about what is not "natural" constitute a philisophical position known as "gender essentialism".
This is essentialism as applied to the characteristic of gender. It is an idea that is poison, death to the minds of many trans people. Convince a trans person of this concept, by rhetoric or repetition, and you'll have succeeded in damaging their mental health and quality of life at the very least. You may even succeed in making a significant contribution to their suicide. This is not a theoretical discussion; it has a cost measured in human lives.
Asking a trans person to defeat this position with logical argument is a little like asking Tinkerbell to prove that she'll die if you don't clap your hands.
Point the third: I challenge you to find a single post in that thread that threatens or requests a ban. I think the closest you'll get is #82, which is really more of a warning than a threat.
You'll find a posts agreeing with certain bans, and you'll find quite a few posts disagreeing with certain bans or the overall moderation policy on this topic.
Your characterization of that thread is grossly contradicted by the facts of what was posted in it. Almost the entirety of the back-seat modding came from the camp opposing the bans.
There was nothing respectful about how people were voicing their "differing opinions".
Point the fourth: Your accusations of hiveminding and hypocrisy are beyond the pale.
Objecting that a "hivemind" is suppressing certain opinions is just fucking hilarious when the opinions in question are consistently assumed by an overwhelming majority. They're an ingrained and largely unquestioned element of society and culture, pervasively expressed by almost every portrayal in media and entertainment. It's made quite clear that trans people and their desires for acceptance are ridiculous at best. Most portrayals are worse, ranging from mild disgust to outright horror, suggesting sexual perversion and moral depravity. Even the most empathetic portrayals take care to point out that social acceptance and affection are conditioned on perception and perception alone. The message is crystal; transgender is just about the last thing that you possibly want to be.
If the opinions you've been discouraged from voicing resemble the above, I'm happy to hear that you've been discouraged from voicing them here. Anyone who wants to slag on trans people, or debate the validity of their experience, can do it almost anywhere they want to, online or off. Here, by contrast, is one of the few venues that provides sanctuary from a nigh-omnipresent "hivemind" that screams "Don't transgress gender!" in every breath. It's only fairly recently that these relatively safe spaces have been widely accessible, and GAF is one of the only ones that's integrated into a large, diverse discussion community.
If you find the restrictions on discussion here too limiting, go somewhere else.
T.M. MacReady
NO ONE DENIES MEMBER
Missing the point and overreacting to one word? Fits in the theme with this thread.
I understand the rest of your points, and the opinions of those who voiced them respectfully were still spoken down to and in a manner that would befit a banning were it a different issue. The double standard was what I was addressing. I have no stake in any of the debate that happened in that thread, nor do I feel the need to comment on it now.
Free (respectful) speech gets oppressed on this forum sometimes because an overwhelming amount of people will overreact to an opinion that someone shouldn't have to be afraid to voice because its different or unpopular. This particular issue is obviously hot button and evokes massive overreactions on both sides of the debate (thats why I mentioned that thread). I used that as an example of my point rather than the conservative or political threads that came up earlier in this thread.
So relax, nobody's trying to oppress or belittle anyone here, nor is anyone trying to "slag on" a group of people.
not just the thread, the whole forum unfortunately.. such behaviour.. it's getting very formulaic..
Blackace
if you see me in a fight with a bear, don't help me fool, help the bear!
I like to...
Blackace, why do so many people think your name is Blacklace?
What! You are totally a fun and exciting poster.
Well, I like you.
What! You are totally a fun and exciting poster.
Well, I like you.
Always interesting to hear the mods chime in and explain why they do the things they do.
At least, until the inevitable devolvement to whining about past bans.
Also:
At least, until the inevitable devolvement to whining about past bans.
Yeah, it's usually pretty obvious where the line is. Obvious enough to make it relatively easy stand a little ways back from it, anyway. There are times when it isn't so obvious (Chick-fil-a and sister's friend threads), but I guess that's inevitable.
Also:
Now I know why my applications keep getting rejected.
Steve Youngblood
Member
I don't think missed the point at all, and I don't consider my reaction an over-reaction.
Show me where this double standard happened. I've reviewed the thread carefully and do not see any examples that I believe to be as you are characterizing them here.
Perhaps you should not have commented on it, then.
No-one's really afraid to voice this particular opinion, and it is neither uncommon nor unpopular. It's just not allowed here, and that's the way I prefer things.
The fact that you think that both "sides" of the "debate" are massively overreacting indicates that you aren't sufficiently informed on the topic well enough to be using it as an example.
You are possibly not the best judge of that.
There would be no one left.
T.M. MacReady
NO ONE DENIES MEMBER
And you are? Don't talk down to me. The whole point of this thread, and my argument, are some people's "unpopular" opinions are not treated fairly. I said nothing to "slag on" anyone, as you're implying, and since you're overreactions are growing into text walls of nitpicking, I'll excuse myself from this.
Blackace
if you see me in a fight with a bear, don't help me fool, help the bear!
made the years of AOL messaging interesting...
Also Blackface gets throw out there as well.. That was how Trax got his name..
David Incorporated Esq.
Member
I am surprised and pleased to discover that there is an admin named gromph.
Why don't you post in racial threads?
Devolution
Member
If you can't treat homosexuals and transgender people with respect, then don't post. Take your unpopular opinions to the rest of the internet since it will have them.
John Dunbar
correct about everything
since we're on the topic, is the word "tranny" banned now?
Unless you're talking about the transmission of the vehicle.
I don't know 100% but I'm pretty sure it's happened.
You know what? Some people just don't know about the expectations of the use of he or she that have been set. There are people from all walks of life and parts of the world who post on here. Some are very young, some are very old. A lot of them may not be especially worldly or urbane. Not everyone does it as a slight or an insult. And whenever it does happen there is almost always a reaction from a certain few individuals who fly off the handle about it, stomp their feet, and cry for bans. And then comes the inevitable dogpiling. It's tiresome and old.
You can't browbeat people into sharing your point of view.
Then they should be grateful for the furtherance of their education, no? Rather than defensive.
Steve Youngblood
Member
The problem with this stuff is that it's hard to ascertain intent. My personal feeling is that whether or not a viewpoint merits condemnation depends heavily on whether or not they are posting in good faith or not. Meaning, is the offense intended, or was it incidental as a result of genuine ignorance of the topic's nuance or people involved.
And I think different people operate with different presumptions. Some assume the worst, often because their experience leads them to believe that people are often posting in bad faith. Meanwhile, some assume the best and like to think that the person meant no offense. Sometimes, this pays off. Other times, it becomes clear after a long back-and-forth that this diplomacy was a waste of time.
Probably for the best. You've failed to address any of my substantive points and failed to provide support for any of your own allegations. The fact that you explicitly raised not one but two of the "hot-buttons" and yet remain un-banned eliminates any shred of substance that your argument of a "double standard" may have had.
It's also laughably hypocritical of you to accuse me talking down to you when you are the one who has twice dismissed my feelings as "overreaction". This is a classic form of condescension, and I find it exactly as offensive as is appropriate--no more, no less.
Calls for fairness in the debate you used as an example demonstrate either ignorance or callous disregard for the fact that in the wild, this conversation is inherently unfair to trans people. In order to (possibly) attain a mostly level playing field, to earn the normal and expected social courtesies that underpin reasonable communication, a trans person first needs to win one of these arguments.
Please continue to excuse yourself until you're willing to engage constructively.
I see very little of this, and very much of people complaining that they can't say certain things without being banned. No-one seems to be able to substantiate these allegations of numerous people requesting others be banned, either.
Except instead of a furtherance of education I've seen a trend of responses jumping from zero to indignation and hostility. Nobody is going to respond well to that, instead they're going to get defensive. Especially if LGBT issues are not something they have any real experience with in real life.
Devolution
Member
And the mods get to decide if they're coming from a place of genuine ignorance, willful ignorance or if they're just plain tired of dealing with ignorance that can easily be read up on that won't incite other posters to go on the defensive.
- Status