Religion & Politics Forum Closed as of 27 March 2019

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Smithnikov:

Batou667:
The undesirable half of the political spectrum is having the door slammed on it.

Yea, what with having a president, supreme court, the most watched network in the mainstream news media, the entirety of talk radio, a massive internet presence online....

Sorry, but no, you can't play the poor oppressed rebel victim.

I was somewhat limiting the scope of my statements to this forum, being as that's what's being being discussed, not the entirety of creation. If I wanted to find a nice right-wing echo chamber where my every opinion was applauded, I could easily do so. But that's not what I want. I really hope the liberal forumites on the Escapist aspire to having more than a safe space, too.

Smithnikov:

Such as?

Ain't saying it hasn't happened, but want to know if you have a specific incident.

Sadly the R&P forum got nuked, so I can't pull up any examples. But I do recall that certain LGBT topics were set up in such a way that you were either part of the "community", an ally, or a horrible bigot who should expect mod wrath. As I wrote in a much longer post at the time, that's not conducive to a civil but forthright exchange of ideas, which is surely what a discussion forum should aspire to be.

Saelune:
Opinions on both sides ARE enabled to be expressed in a civil way on this site. But according to the TOS, that stops short of bigotry. Maybe the problem is too many right-wing opinions are at their core based on bigotry?

If you feel you cannot fairly express your opinions here anymore because bigotry is against the rules, maybe that's not the site's problem?

See my previous comment. If you define "bigotry" so loosely that any sentiment that goes against the grain qualifies, you're going to perceive a lot of bigotry.

Batou667:

Smithnikov:

Batou667:
The undesirable half of the political spectrum is having the door slammed on it.

Yea, what with having a president, supreme court, the most watched network in the mainstream news media, the entirety of talk radio, a massive internet presence online....

Sorry, but no, you can't play the poor oppressed rebel victim.

I was somewhat limiting the scope of my statements to this forum, being as that's what's being being discussed, not the entirety of creation. If I wanted to find a nice right-wing echo chamber where my every opinion was applauded, I could easily do so. But that's not what I want. I really hope the liberal forumites on the Escapist aspire to having more than a safe space, too.

Smithnikov:

Such as?

Ain't saying it hasn't happened, but want to know if you have a specific incident.

Sadly the R&P forum got nuked, so I can't pull up any examples. But I do recall that certain LGBT topics were set up in such a way that you were either part of the "community", an ally, or a horrible bigot who should expect mod wrath. As I wrote in a much longer post at the time, that's not conducive to a civil but forthright exchange of ideas, which is surely what a discussion forum should aspire to be.

Saelune:
Opinions on both sides ARE enabled to be expressed in a civil way on this site. But according to the TOS, that stops short of bigotry. Maybe the problem is too many right-wing opinions are at their core based on bigotry?

If you feel you cannot fairly express your opinions here anymore because bigotry is against the rules, maybe that's not the site's problem?

See my previous comment. If you define "bigotry" so loosely that any sentiment that goes against the grain qualifies, you're going to perceive a lot of bigotry.

I mean, either you care about LGBT people, and are an ally, or you don't care about LGBT people which means you don't care when LGBT are oppressed and you're not an ally.

For someone who claims to dislike the vagueness, you sure do like being vague. What is this 'grain' you speak of?

Making bigoted people feel unwelcome is a good thing.

Batou667:
But I do recall that certain LGBT topics were set up in such a way that you were either part of the "community", an ally, or a horrible bigot who should expect mod wrath. As I wrote in a much longer post at the time, that's not conducive to a civil but forthright exchange of ideas, which is surely what a discussion forum should aspire to be.

This is because us LGBT+ folks are tired of having our existence discussed and debated. When intellectual chuds insist on "discussing" or "debating" our very lives and the "merits" of letting us live as we want to as if we were some "other" non-human thing while many of us are still being beaten and killed, we're fed up with discussion. There's nothing left to discuss, either you support us or you don't, there is no in between, there are no more "ideas" to exchange on this topic. Imagine if the energy put towards "discussing" LGBT+ peoples' lives went towards greater topics like the flaws inherent in our governments, or the attitudes we have towards each other for these differences that have zero impact on other peoples' lives. We might actually have a chance at making the world a better place, but instead we're far more content to pick apart other people just so that way people have someone to ostracize.

Saelune:
I mean, either you care about LGBT people, and are an ally, or you don't care about LGBT people which means you don't care when LGBT are oppressed and you're not an ally.

I'm not a vegan. I'm not a vegan ally. But I don't hate vegans, or think they should be considered subhuman.

I'm not religious. I'm not a religious ally. But I don't hate the religious, or think they should be considered subhuman.

I'm not a socialist...

See where I'm going with this?

For somebody who apparently is against bigotry, you sure do view the world through a polarised "us and them" mindset.

Agema:

EvilRoy:

Yes and my point is that reasoning applies to anything from a game, to an opera, to a Mars Bar, to a Honda Accord, to a lamp from Ikea. On that basis its inadequate justification to insist political discussion must be part of a games forum, because applying the logic consistently means that an ikea discussion forum must allow political discussion because it is inextricably linked to ikea lamp production.

The argument, surely, is that politics - in some form - is inevitable on any of these forums. What someone running a forum can do, however, is limit it to politics directly relevant to their main subject, be that games or Ikea lamps.

That could be a compromise, but it doesn't speak in favour of how politics are handled on this forum. The issue I take with the argument that everything is inherently political, and therefore any area of discussion should necessarily allow politics is that the logic is then somehow stretched to the point where all the sudden we're talking about the latest thing Trump did. If people want to talk about the politics of a game they can, but nobody does on this website. Its US politics general with a smattering of EU/Eng politics. At best we get into a gender relations discussion relative to a game but in the case of those the game is tossed aside in page one so the same arguments can be rehashed for the next nine pages.

Batou667:
I'm not a vegan. I'm not a vegan ally. But I don't hate vegans, or think they should be considered subhuman.

I'm not religious. I'm not a religious ally. But I don't hate the religious, or think they should be considered subhuman.

I'm not a socialist...

See where I'm going with this?

For somebody who apparently is against bigotry, you sure do view the world through a polarised "us and them" mindset.

People choose to be vegan.
People choose to be religious.
People don't "choose" to be LGBT+, there's a stark difference between discrimination on the basis of choice and discrimination on the basis of a gender or sexual minority identity. Lukewarm centrism on the subject of LGBT+ discrimination is tacit endorsement of the already discriminatory and harmful - in some cases lethal - status quo.

Batou667:

Saelune:
I mean, either you care about LGBT people, and are an ally, or you don't care about LGBT people which means you don't care when LGBT are oppressed and you're not an ally.

I'm not a vegan. I'm not a vegan ally. But I don't hate vegans, or think they should be considered subhuman.

I'm not religious. I'm not a religious ally. But I don't hate the religious, or think they should be considered subhuman.

I'm not a socialist...

See where I'm going with this?

For somebody who apparently is against bigotry, you sure do view the world through a polarised "us and them" mindset.

You see someone being attacked. You don't go help save them, but you also don't join in the attack. You don't call the police or alert anyone else, cause 'you don't care and its none of your business'. You are not an ally of the person being attacked cause you could have helped but did nothing, cause you don't care.

That is what your views on LGBT people equates to. Thanks for nothing.

Its a long way to say 'Evil wins when good people do nothing'.

Dr. Thrax:

People choose to be vegan.
People choose to be religious.

People arrive at their identities through a variety of ways, whether that be as a result of culture, tradition, personal morality, whatever. To call them "choices" trivialises the importance and centrality they may have to the person's life, and if you conclude that only YOUR identity merits respect/protection, then that doesn't say much for your empathy.

Saelune:
You see someone being attacked. You don't go help save them, but you also don't join in the attack. You don't call the police or alert anyone else, cause 'you don't care and its none of your business'. You are not an ally of the person being attacked cause you could have helped but did nothing, cause you don't care.

That is what your views on LGBT people equates to. Thanks for nothing.

Its a long way to say 'Evil wins when good people do nothing'.

Put it this way. Are you, right now, fundraising, campaigning, authoring a petition, or raising awareness about Amazon deforestation? No? Then you must be some misanthrope who doesn't give a fig about the destruction of the rainforest.

-----------------

Anyway, I feel we're rather subverting the purpose of this Forum Closed post to carry on forum discussion, so how's about we either move this to Off Topic or call it quits? Y'know, before we all get mod-slapped.

Batou667:

Dr. Thrax:

People choose to be vegan.
People choose to be religious.

People arrive at their identities through a variety of ways, whether that be as a result of culture, tradition, personal morality, whatever. To call them "choices" trivialises the importance and centrality they may have to the person's life, and if you conclude that only YOUR identity merits respect/protection, then that doesn't say much for your empathy.

Saelune:
You see someone being attacked. You don't go help save them, but you also don't join in the attack. You don't call the police or alert anyone else, cause 'you don't care and its none of your business'. You are not an ally of the person being attacked cause you could have helped but did nothing, cause you don't care.

That is what your views on LGBT people equates to. Thanks for nothing.

Its a long way to say 'Evil wins when good people do nothing'.

Put it this way. Are you, right now, fundraising, campaigning, authoring a petition, or raising awareness about Amazon deforestation? No? Then you must be some misanthrope who doesn't give a fig about the destruction of the rainforest.

-----------------

Anyway, I feel we're rather subverting the purpose of this Forum Closed post to carry on forum discussion, so how's about we either move this to Off Topic or call it quits? Y'know, before we all get mod-slapped.

I am not asking for people to tie themselves to trees. I am saying that what you vote for and support matters. Voting for Trump is voting against LGBT people. Voting for Trump is also not helping the rainforest, or any other part of nature as he pushes through damaging oil pipelines and mimics Don Quixote by thinking windmills cause cancer.

I could do more for lots of issues, but I could also do less. You advocate for doing less.

Kyle Gaddo:
Any defense of white supremacy will not be tolerated. It is not a "difference of opinion." It is at best dehumanization, which goes against our code of conduct.

https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.1056768-Captain-Marvel-or-How-Marvel-does-everything-better-than-everyone-else?page=8#24298496

Getting a warning for this is why I doubt this site actually cares about opposing bigotry. This site punishes calling out bigotry more than it does punish bigotry.

EvilRoy:

Yes and my point is that reasoning applies to anything from a game, to an opera, to a Mars Bar, to a Honda Accord, to a lamp from Ikea. On that basis its inadequate justification to insist political discussion must be part of a games forum, because applying the logic consistently means that an ikea discussion forum must allow political discussion because it is inextricably linked to ikea lamp production.

Uhrm, yes, it would be absurd for an "Ikea discussion forum"-- if such a thing exists-- to ban discussion of the industry, or regulations, or what-have-you.

The same reasoning does indeed apply. This is why nobody's arguing that politics should be banned from one and not the other.

Silvanus:

EvilRoy:

Yes and my point is that reasoning applies to anything from a game, to an opera, to a Mars Bar, to a Honda Accord, to a lamp from Ikea. On that basis its inadequate justification to insist political discussion must be part of a games forum, because applying the logic consistently means that an ikea discussion forum must allow political discussion because it is inextricably linked to ikea lamp production.

Uhrm, yes, it would be absurd for an "Ikea discussion forum"-- if such a thing exists-- to ban discussion of the industry, or regulations, or what-have-you.

The same reasoning does indeed apply. This is why nobody's arguing that politics should be banned from one and not the other.

Such things do exist, and they are free of politics, because politics related to the actual regulation of production are rarely discussed in favour of the standard country vs country fair. There we find the issue with allowing political discussion on a games forum - a cursory overview of the current threads tagged political in OT reveals that not a single one is related to video games. I was initially tempted to give this a pass because R&P was recently nuked, but then I realized that these political topics are the first and only that were ported over from R&P, and of those topics that were considered too important to leave behind not a single one is even tenuously related to the regulation or production of games. There is no need to allow the discussion of politics in a games forum, because nobody discusses game related politics in the forum. You have effectively argued that everything can be considered political, but not everything is political relative to the US presidency. If our choice is constant discussions on politics that do not relate to gaming plus a thread once every blue moon on game politics, and no politics at all, the answer is easy.

It's cool how a thread about closing R&P turned political.

Marik2:
It's cool how a thread about closing R&P turned political.

Yeah, it's like things were better when there was a place for it, maybe it should be moved there instead- oh wait

Agema:

That's basically not true.

People like Tstorm, CM156, Gorfias are significantly right-leaning, but discussions where they are involved tend to be civil and constructive - in many respects a credit to them as I sympathise that they are heavily outnumbered, which potentially makes them feel isolated or embattled and constantly having to fight an uphill battle.

Personally, I'm grateful to have the opportunity to be outnumbered. When I get 6 responses to my opinion, one of them is usually the fire that strengthens the steel of my arguments. And while pushing back on a dogpile can be a burden, it's gotta be more exciting than being in the majority opinion and getting 1/6th of an argument back. There are definitely places on the internet full of conservative people, and I'm really not interested in those.

EvilRoy:

Such things do exist, and they are free of politics, because politics related to the actual regulation of production are rarely discussed in favour of the standard country vs country fair.

I'll have to take your word for that, because an Ikea discussion forum sounds like the dullest place on earth.

But on every forum on which I've been a member-- several around webcomics, several around games, one or two others-- politics has not been banned, because it naturally crops up in some manner in most any topic. The topic veers into industry standards? Bam, politics.

There we find the issue with allowing political discussion on a games forum - a cursory overview of the current threads tagged political in OT reveals that not a single one is related to video games. I was initially tempted to give this a pass because R&P was recently nuked, but then I realized that these political topics are the first and only that were ported over from R&P, and of those topics that were considered too important to leave behind not a single one is even tenuously related to the regulation or production of games.

Uhrm, that's because politics comes up in the game-specific threads all the damn time.

Loot-boxes and how they're impacted by gambling regulation? Politics. 'Crunch' culture at dev studios like Bioware? Politics. Any discussion of the story of Bioshock? Politics.

If anyone is arguing for a forum free of politics, they're arguing for a forum in which we cannot discuss any of the above topics, all of which are extremely relevant and worthy of discussion.

You have effectively argued that everything can be considered political, but not everything is political relative to the US presidency.

Uhrm, so what? Who said it was?

D'you want to start deciding on specific political topics which are banned? And if so, how on earth would that be justified?

I'm on the disapointed side of things as well. Haven't been here in weeks, and come back to see this, makes me wonder I want to come back.

Yes there were arguments, and people looking for fights but generaly we knew who they were and could get around them by talking about something else on the topic or dare I say it, ignore them. Hopefully this will be a temporary thing, as there needs to be a section on serious topics.

Agema:
People like Tstorm, CM156, Gorfias are significantly right-leaning, but discussions where they are involved tend to be civil and constructive - in many respects a credit to them as I sympathise that they are heavily outnumbered, which potentially makes them feel isolated or embattled and constantly having to fight an uphill battle.

I can only speak for myself, but I've always enjoyed debate and what better place to find it than among people who disagree with you?

Saelune:

Getting a warning for this is why I doubt this site actually cares about opposing bigotry. This site punishes calling out bigotry more than it does punish bigotry.

So... you don't at all see how what you said may have fallen under the definition of bigotry?

Saelune:

crimson5pheonix:
And nothing of value was lost.

I know this will surprise you, but I liked arguing politics on here cause it wasn't an echo chamber. Yeah, I got into heated arguments with people, but believe it or not, as much as what people said might piss me off, I valued that there was actual argument and debate and not just an echo chamber that silences and downvotes any opposing view.

Reddit sucks for arguing politics.

Reddit is an echo chamber, and full of PRC communist trolls.

Gergar12:

Saelune:

crimson5pheonix:
And nothing of value was lost.

I know this will surprise you, but I liked arguing politics on here cause it wasn't an echo chamber. Yeah, I got into heated arguments with people, but believe it or not, as much as what people said might piss me off, I valued that there was actual argument and debate and not just an echo chamber that silences and downvotes any opposing view.

Reddit sucks for arguing politics.

Reddit is an echo chamber, and full of PRC communist trolls.

I've heard Reddit described a lot of ways. That has never been one of them until now. I'm not saying you're wrong, cos I don't go there. Just, not what I expected :P

Leg End:

Saelune:

Getting a warning for this is why I doubt this site actually cares about opposing bigotry. This site punishes calling out bigotry more than it does punish bigotry.

So... you don't at all see how what you said may have fallen under the definition of bigotry?

Making observations about a political party is not bigotry.

And you support taking people away but claim taking guns away is wrong of the government. So don't talk to me about stuff like this.

Gordon_4:

Gergar12:

Saelune:
I know this will surprise you, but I liked arguing politics on here cause it wasn't an echo chamber. Yeah, I got into heated arguments with people, but believe it or not, as much as what people said might piss me off, I valued that there was actual argument and debate and not just an echo chamber that silences and downvotes any opposing view.

Reddit sucks for arguing politics.

Reddit is an echo chamber, and full of PRC communist trolls.

I've heard Reddit described a lot of ways. That has never been one of them until now. I'm not saying you're wrong, cos I don't go there. Just, not what I expected :P

Reddit is not a single echo chamber, but a collection of hundreds if not thousands of them. It is fine for small fandoms, but for political discussions it is terrible. And it has tons of echo chambers of all sides. Trump's main support reddit is a glowing example of how racist his supporter base is.

Silvanus:

I'll have to take your word for that, because an Ikea discussion forum sounds like the dullest place on earth.

But on every forum on which I've been a member-- several around webcomics, several around games, one or two others-- politics has not been banned, because it naturally crops up in some manner in most any topic. The topic veers into industry standards? Bam, politics.

Uhrm, that's because politics comes up in the game-specific threads all the damn time.

Loot-boxes and how they're impacted by gambling regulation? Politics. 'Crunch' culture at dev studios like Bioware? Politics. Any discussion of the story of Bioshock? Politics.

If anyone is arguing for a forum free of politics, they're arguing for a forum in which we cannot discuss any of the above topics, all of which are extremely relevant and worthy of discussion.

Sure, but when someone says "we should ban politics" they're almost never talking about that, as evidenced by the fact that we can have discussions of that type in the gaming forum without tags, but we used to have an isolated separate forum for other types.

Uhrm, so what? Who said it was?

D'you want to start deciding on specific political topics which are banned? And if so, how on earth would that be justified?

I honestly assumed you were, because you were arguing against banning politics when the only politics that are specifically defined and consolidated as being political on this site are those relating to US/EU governmental politics.

As to banning specific political topics - they already have been. A bunch of ones falling under a specific label, that meets your definition of everything is politics but not my definition of political things historically delineated as such, has been 100% banned. It is entirely doable, and requires no justification.

EvilRoy:

Sure, but when someone says "we should ban politics" they're almost never talking about that, as evidenced by the fact that we can have discussions of that type in the gaming forum without tags, but we used to have an isolated separate forum for other types.

If they're only talking about banning certain political topics, then they're being arbitrary, inconsistent and selective. That's not how respectable or rational rulebooks are written.

As to banning specific political topics - they already have been. A bunch of ones falling under a specific label, that meets your definition of everything is politics but not my definition of political things historically delineated as such, has been 100% banned. It is entirely doable, and requires no justification.

Are we talking about 'the event'? Because if so, we both know there were other reasons for that decision.

I'm not arguing that we must allow absolutely everything to be discussed. Only that a blanket ban on political topics is unenforceable and arbitrary.

Silvanus:

EvilRoy:

Sure, but when someone says "we should ban politics" they're almost never talking about that, as evidenced by the fact that we can have discussions of that type in the gaming forum without tags, but we used to have an isolated separate forum for other types.

If they're only talking about banning certain political topics, then they're being arbitrary, inconsistent and selective. That's not how respectable or rational rulebooks are written.

That is how all rulebooks are written. Rulebooks are written for utility, not respectability or rationality. Pure self consistency of ideals is borderline impossible to achieve, and typically unnecessary expenditure of energy when it is. You like politics, take a dig for self consistency in any aspect of politics that people are involved with. Take a look at how the capital L Law is written in any country.

As to banning specific political topics - they already have been. A bunch of ones falling under a specific label, that meets your definition of everything is politics but not my definition of political things historically delineated as such, has been 100% banned. It is entirely doable, and requires no justification.

Are we talking about 'the event'? Because if so, we both know there were other reasons for that decision.

I'm not arguing that we must allow absolutely everything to be discussed. Only that a blanket ban on political topics is unenforceable and arbitrary.

The event was banned for a whole bunch of reasons, some arbitrary, some not, but it was banned and it is gone. Because of that it stands as an excellent example that the action of banning a wide swath of discussion is completely achievable. It also puts a black mark on compatibility with your ideal rulebook - it already cannot be achieved on this site, so why worry.

Such a ban is only unenforceable if we accept your definition that everything is politics - if we don't its easily done. People on the site have been self selecting for compliance with the arbitrary line for ages. Just say everything over the line is banned now.

EvilRoy:

That is how all rulebooks are written. Rulebooks are written for utility, not respectability or rationality. Pure self consistency of ideals is borderline impossible to achieve, and typically unnecessary expenditure of energy when it is. You like politics, take a dig for self consistency in any aspect of politics that people are involved with. Take a look at how the capital L Law is written in any country.

There is an emphasis on fairness and consistency in most modern legal systems; this is precisely why precedence is of such importance, and often a deciding factor in sentencing.

But this is getting off topic. In website userbase management, a set of rules without consistency or some degree of respect from the userbase tends to alienate people. There is so much frustration with this move precisely because a lot of users believe it hurts the experience.

The event was banned for a whole bunch of reasons, some arbitrary, some not, but it was banned and it is gone. Because of that it stands as an excellent example that the action of banning a wide swath of discussion is completely achievable. It also puts a black mark on compatibility with your ideal rulebook - it already cannot be achieved on this site, so why worry.

A "wide swath" of discussion? Not in comparison with politics. It's incomparable. "The event" relates to a specific set of events within video gaming circles over a few years, involving a small number of specific cultural figures. Politics as a whole relates to... anything concerning government, or policy, or industry, or regulation, as they interact with any other subject, including video games. There's a small difference in scale.

Such a ban is only unenforceable if we accept your definition that everything is politics - if we don't its easily done. People on the site have been self selecting for compliance with the arbitrary line for ages. Just say everything over the line is banned now.

Obviously, they've been able to do so because political discussion was allowed anywhere. If it's banned, you have to define that line.

I am still waiting for a response, or should I take the lack of one as my response? For a site that claims to not tolerate White Supremacy, it sure does tolerate a lot of it.

4/16/19: Still waiting.

4/30/19: Still waiting.

Saelune:
I am still waiting for a response, or should I take the lack of one as my response? For a site that claims to not tolerate White Supremacy, it sure does tolerate a lot of it.

4/16/19: Still waiting.

Where is it that you are seeing white supremacy?

CM156:

Saelune:
I am still waiting for a response, or should I take the lack of one as my response? For a site that claims to not tolerate White Supremacy, it sure does tolerate a lot of it.

4/16/19: Still waiting.

Where is it that you are seeing white supremacy?

your avatar is proof of that!

Marik2:

CM156:

Saelune:
I am still waiting for a response, or should I take the lack of one as my response? For a site that claims to not tolerate White Supremacy, it sure does tolerate a lot of it.

4/16/19: Still waiting.

Where is it that you are seeing white supremacy?

your avatar is proof of that!

A smiling picture of Donald Trump is not white supremacy.

CM156:

Saelune:
I am still waiting for a response, or should I take the lack of one as my response? For a site that claims to not tolerate White Supremacy, it sure does tolerate a lot of it.

4/16/19: Still waiting.

Where is it that you are seeing white supremacy?

Donald Trump is a White Supremacist. Neo-Nazis and the KKK are White Supremacists and they vehemently support Trump.

Saelune:
Neo-Nazis and the KKK are White Supremacists and they vehemently support Trump.

Just because a group supports an individual does not mean the individual has the characteristics of that group. That's a complete fallacy.

Would you like me to give examples of this?

CM156:

Saelune:
Neo-Nazis and the KKK are White Supremacists and they vehemently support Trump.

Just because a group supports an individual does not mean the individual has the characteristics of that group.

That's true, but Donald likes to give fuel to white supremacists.

Marik2:

CM156:

Saelune:
Neo-Nazis and the KKK are White Supremacists and they vehemently support Trump.

Just because a group supports an individual does not mean the individual has the characteristics of that group.

That's true, but Donald likes to give fuel to white supremacists.

Yeah but to be as fair as I'm willing to be to President Trump (which isn't much), those fuckin' dropkicks can fashion their fuel out of almost thin air. He could make a tweet about liking powdered sugar on his krispy kremes and they'd hail that doughnut as the confection of choice for the glorious white race.

They're total plonkers and oxygen thieves.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked