California mass Shooting

[DarthR0xas]

 

2 hours ago, Integrity said:

correct, and he's banned now, cheers reporters

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

I see they've been banned. Probably the only reasonable course of action at this stage. Still, I'm quite sure they're a troll who feel proud of the ban for sticking it to "the radical leftist site" (which we are absolutely not). Oh well, on with the civil discussion.

On one hand, I feel he wasn't really doing much harm. I am a believer in Freedom of Speech, and he was, to some extent, just following that. On the other hand, a lot of the things he said were absolutely infuriating because they were so clearly wrong. I kinda agreed with him on some points, but then he started speaking in absurd absolutes, and spouting generic far-right propaganda. And his wording was done in such a way that I never knew quite where to start my deconstructions without absolutely losing my mind. 

[Jotari]

28 minutes ago, DarthR0xas said:

 

On one hand, I feel he wasn't really doing much harm. I am a believer in Freedom of Speech, and he was, to some extent, just following that. On the other hand, a lot of the things he said were absolutely infuriating because they were so clearly wrong. I kinda agreed with him on some points, but then he started speaking in absurd absolutes, and spouting generic far-right propaganda. And his wording was done in such a way that I never knew quite where to start my deconstructions without absolutely losing my mind. 

Freedom of speech is great, but the problem was they weren't speaking about the actual topic on hand. If they wanted to make a topic "America is the best country in the world" then what they were saying would be fine (well, probably not fine as the inflammatory manner would probably get the thread shut down, but not the user banned). People can say whatever they want, but in the interest of actually debating, it needs to be done in a respectful and relevant manner. It's right there in the rules of this subforum that everyone who posts here has presumably read.

1 hour ago, Tryhard said:

fair, though guns in some of those countries require such good reasoning that they are prohibited to most people. and in the UK for example, self-defense is usually not accepted as a reason.

As far as I can recall, self-defence can be accepted as a reason, you just need to prove why you think you need a gun to defend yourself when there is already a law system in place protecting people. Which is why you can get a gun in Northern Ireland easier where personal defense is an issue due to the (relative) political instability (and yet there's still far less guns in Northern Ireland compared to the USA even though they had literal terrorists killing people en mass. Which was also a problem that was solved with talking and legal agreements instead of adding more violence to the equation).

 

Edited November 18, 2018 by Jotari

[ChefGuevara]

Meh, even putting the really crazy shit aside, as far as I'm concerned, you throw out any notion of intellectual debate or whatever once you get that insufferably high and mighty

It's always...interesting to witness guys like that in action though, I suppose, it's certainly not something you get to see everyday

[Integrity]

2 hours ago, Jotari said:

EDIT: I see they've been banned. Probably the only reasonable course of action at this stage. Still, I'm quite sure they're a troll who feel proud of the ban for sticking it to "the radical leftist site" (which we are absolutely not). Oh well, on with the civil discussion.

it's a proven thing that taking places away from these shitbags actually takes gas from their organizations. the martyr effect is, in effect, false. if you take someone's avenue for speech away, and they cannot speak - i know this is far-fetched but - it turns out they don't have an effect there anymore.

 

they can feel proud of it all they want, the fact of it is we've emasculated them and shown strength, and there's absolutely nothing they can do about it, which will destroy their credibility and message with regards to the site. i am fully vindicated.

[Jotari]

5 minutes ago, Integrity said:

it's a proven thing that taking places away from these shitbags actually takes gas from their organizations. the martyr effect is, in effect, false. if you take someone's avenue for speech away, and they cannot speak - i know this is far-fetched but - it turns out they don't have an effect there anymore.

 

they can feel proud of it all they want, the fact of it is we've emasculated them and shown strength, and there's absolutely nothing they can do about it, which will destroy their credibility and message with regards to the site. i am fully vindicated.

Oh I'm not disagreeing with your decision (like I said in a later post, multiple rules of the Serious Discussion. Forum were broken). Just lamenting that such steps are needed in the first place.

[ChefGuevara]

Uhh...dude had it coming and all, but "emasculated" and "shown strength"? I think he just got banned from an Internet forum, man

[Johann]

26 minutes ago, Integrity said:

it's a proven thing that taking places away from these shitbags actually takes gas from their organizations. the martyr effect is, in effect, false. if you take someone's avenue for speech away, and they cannot speak - i know this is far-fetched but - it turns out they don't have an effect there anymore.

This is 100% true. Thanks for getting rid of him, I was worried he was going to be ignored.

1 hour ago, DarthR0xas said:

On one hand, I feel he wasn't really doing much harm. I am a believer in Freedom of Speech, and he was, to some extent, just following that. On the other hand, a lot of the things he said were absolutely infuriating because they were so clearly wrong. I kinda agreed with him on some points, but then he started speaking in absurd absolutes, and spouting generic far-right propaganda. And his wording was done in such a way that I never knew quite where to start my deconstructions without absolutely losing my mind. 

Thing is, banned dude here didn't come to have a discussion, he came to spew bullshit. If someone like him can hook you a little with a few things you agree with, they have a chance at getting you to edge closer to mistrusting sources and facts. Good on ya for not falling for his shit, though keep in mind there are other readers who might not be aware that it's far-right propaganda, and may have been inclined to hear him out further, even if they haven't said so (remembering that there are plenty of lurkers here).

Keep in mind that video game communities in particular are regularly used as a space for luring people with that kind of ideology. The things he was arguing for are based in anti-tolerance; you have to (paradoxical as it may seem) have no tolerance for anti-tolerance.

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

Getting back on topic, I'm pretty fucking sick of guns and the false sense of power they give people.

[Jotari]

8 hours ago, Johann said:

This is 100% true. Thanks for getting rid of him, I was worried he was going to be ignored.

Thing is, banned dude here didn't come to have a discussion, he came to spew bullshit. If someone like him can hook you a little with a few things you agree with, they have a chance at getting you to edge closer to mistrusting sources and facts. Good on ya for not falling for his shit, though keep in mind there are other readers who might not be aware that it's far-right propaganda, and may have been inclined to hear him out further, even if they haven't said so (remembering that there are plenty of lurkers here).

Keep in mind that video game communities in particular are regularly used as a space for luring people with that kind of ideology. The things he was arguing for are based in anti-tolerance; you have to (paradoxical as it may seem) have no tolerance for anti-tolerance.

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

Getting back on topic, I'm pretty fucking sick of guns and the false sense of power they give people.

No, you have to have some tolerance. Everyone deserves a moment to say their peace. Zero tolerance would have been banning him on his first post without giving him the chance to make his own noose so to speak.

[Tetragrammaton]

I think he should not be banned, he just speaks things out from his mind, to prove one thing, guns are not the problem, the people are.

The kind of people like him is exactly the problem of USA, who make the situation worse for them and everyone else.

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, hanhnn said:

I think he should not be banned, he just speaks things out from his mind, to prove one thing, guns are not the problem, the people are.

The kind of people like him is exactly the problem of USA, who make the situation worse for them and everyone else.

He broke almost every rule in the serious discussion forum. I'm not sure if bans can be specified to subforums but that's more then enough reason to say he can't post in here any more. This isn't a shoutbox where everyone screams their opinions. There are a set of rules stickies on the front page that everyone has to read and follow if they want to post.

[Moblin Major General]

1 hour ago, hanhnn said:

I think he should not be banned, he just speaks things out from his mind, to prove one thing, guns are not the problem, the people are.

The kind of people like him is exactly the problem of USA, who make the situation worse for them and everyone else.

How very astute, hanhnn. I see you still hate America as much as ever. 

[Johann]

10 hours ago, Jotari said:

No, you have to have some tolerance. Everyone deserves a moment to say their peace. Zero tolerance would have been banning him on his first post without giving him the chance to make his own noose so to speak.

Dude had plenty of chances to reiterate himself or listen to what others were saying and instead doubled down on his bullshit. This isn't the death penalty here, it's telling a troll to get the fuck out

[Tetragrammaton]

26 minutes ago, Hylian Air Force said:

How very astute, hanhnn. I see you still hate America as much as ever. 

I think you get the wrong idea.

Guns are problem, as many of us can all agree.

But people with same kind of his thinking are also problem too, you can't say they are not, since it's already proven he's banned here.

You just cannot easily solve the gun problem if you haven't solve gun lovers problem first.

I don''t hate America if that's what you thinks.

[Jotari]

7 hours ago, Johann said:

Dude had plenty of chances to reiterate himself or listen to what others were saying and instead doubled down on his bullshit. This isn't the death penalty here, it's telling a troll to get the fuck out

I know...what do you think I said? Because that's pretty much exactly what I said. Was I unclear in some way?

Edited November 19, 2018 by Jotari

[Johann]

11 hours ago, Jotari said:

I know...what do you think I said? Because that's pretty much exactly what I said. Was I unclear in some way?

Ah, hmm it was unclear, or I misread. I figured you were disagreeing with the post you quoted, saying "No, we have to let everyone have a say, even if they have bad ideas". I've seen some people argue for that with the notion that "good ideas will beat out the bad", despite how regularly we see examples of the opposite.

[Jotari]

5 hours ago, Johann said:

Ah, hmm it was unclear, or I misread. I figured you were disagreeing with the post you quoted, saying "No, we have to let everyone have a say, even if they have bad ideas". I've seen some people argue for that with the notion that "good ideas will beat out the bad", despite how regularly we see examples of the opposite.

Fundamentally what I'm saying is that Zero tolerance, with stress on zero, is a bad idea. You have to allow at least one chance for them to say their piece before judging. Which is what happened here. This troll wasn't met with zero tolerance, he was given enough tolerance to prove he isn't worth listening to. If he was met with zero tolerance, he would have been banned on his first post. As you say, he was given enough time to ignore everyone and double down on his (frankly irrelevant) opinions, giving him that opportunity and banning him when he proved to be squandering it was the right course of action.

[Johann]

3 hours ago, Jotari said:

Fundamentally what I'm saying is that Zero tolerance, with stress on zero, is a bad idea. You have to allow at least one chance for them to say their piece before judging. Which is what happened here. This troll wasn't met with zero tolerance, he was given enough tolerance to prove he isn't worth listening to. If he was met with zero tolerance, he would have been banned on his first post. As you say, he was given enough time to ignore everyone and double down on his (frankly irrelevant) opinions, giving him that opportunity and banning him when he proved to be squandering it was the right course of action.

Generally I agree, in that his first post was tame compared to the rest. If it were just as bad as his later stuff (particularly where he brings out the hateful rhetoric), I would have banned him right there had I the power to do so (though I also don't know how this site's warning/ban system operates). To let him go on with stuff like that would be effectively saying the site condones it, and that it's not a safe space for any of those groups, which is something I wouldn't stand for.

[Jotari]

33 minutes ago, Johann said:

Generally I agree, in that his first post was tame compared to the rest. If it were just as bad as his later stuff (particularly where he brings out the hateful rhetoric), I would have banned him right there had I the power to do so (though I also don't know how this site's warning/ban system operates). To let him go on with stuff like that would be effectively saying the site condones it, and that it's not a safe space for any of those groups, which is something I wouldn't stand for.

I don't see how that would send a message that the site condones his rhetoric when there was half a dozen people arguing against it.

[Johann]

12 minutes ago, Jotari said:

I don't see how that would send a message that the site condones his rhetoric when there was half a dozen people arguing against it.

By the site, I specifically mean the people who operate it (including, and specifically in this case, moderators). For a troll, getting more responses sustains them, because they're getting more attention and impetus to keep posting. If moderators don't take action, they're allowing it to play out further, derailing the threads and showing that the troll's behavior and message are accepted on the forums.

If you or your people are the subject of a hateful message, and the mods don't have your back, you probably wouldn't feel inclined to participate in the discussion or maybe even stick around on the forums altogether. It's a little like how you might not feel safe living in a place where the government doesn't do shit when people are routinely shot up in public.

[Jotari]

18 minutes ago, Johann said:

By the site, I specifically mean the people who operate it (including, and specifically in this case, moderators). For a troll, getting more responses sustains them, because they're getting more attention and impetus to keep posting. If moderators don't take action, they're allowing it to play out further, derailing the threads and showing that the troll's behavior and message are accepted on the forums.

If you or your people are the subject of a hateful message, and the mods don't have your back, you probably wouldn't feel inclined to participate in the discussion or maybe even stick around on the forums altogether. It's a little like how you might not feel safe living in a place where the government doesn't do shit when people are routinely shot up in public.

We're getting off topic here (not a bad topic, could work as a new thread), but I think there's a difference between talking and shooting people. Likewise there's a difference between a government and a public discussion forum. Although they are both similar in that they both have rules and you can only ban/arrest someone when they specifically break those agreed upon rules. Having an opinion, no matter how outlandish, objectionable or straight out evil, should never be against the rules. Not discussing opinions in a respectful and relevant manner should be however.

Edited November 20, 2018 by Jotari

[Johann]

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

We're getting off topic here (not a bad topic, could work as a new thread), but I think there's a difference between talking and shooting people. Likewise there's a difference between a government and a public discussion forum. Although they are both similar in that they both have rules and you can only ban/arrest someone when they specifically break those agreed upon rules. Having an opinion, no matter how outlandish, objectionable or straight out evil, should never be against the rules. Not discussing opinions in a respectful and relevant manner should be however.

I'd be glad to continue this in another thread, sure. The comparison to mass shootings was just a cheeky attempt to bring it back to the thread topic.

I'm not saying that having an opinion is against the rules, I'm saying that the rules and the space itself are jeopardized by allowing people to propagate a message that's rooted in intolerance. Not having and enforcing a rule against hateful rhetoric (ie: racist/misogynistic/homophic/etc ideas) and troll behavior (such as gish galloping and sea lioning) leaves the door open to the kind of behavior that shits up political discussions and pushes some people away.

[eclipse]

Welp.

I, for one, don't jump to trolling as the first assumption.  I assume the person actually believes what they're saying.  Which I think was the case here.  Too bad it turned into repeating talking points.  While I think it would be really cool if there was a good balance between the right and the left here (in terms of discussion), I'm not going to hold my breath.

What won't be tolerated is hate towards the (non-inclusive) groups noted in the Code of Conduct.

[Shoblongoo]

A cliche is a saying overused to the point of tautology. But cliches often contain overlooked and taken-for-granted pearls of wisdom. A particular cliche comes to mind that I think we should all be thoughtful of moving forward, in discussions like this:

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They are not entitled to their own set of facts."

Its a fine enough thing to have diversity of opinion and be respectful of the differing opinions of others. Its healthy for debate and conversation. But to have healthy debate on serious matters of law and public policy (and this applies to society at large; not just to this forum), you also have to keep the conversation honest.  

And there's an inherent tension there.

Conversation becomes toxic and unproductive when we don't don't accept differences of opinion as part of the conversation.

However, conversation also becomes toxic and unproductive when we do accept lies and falsehoods and blatant misstatements of fact as part of the conversation. And we equivocate between acceptance/nonacceptance of differing opinions and acceptance/nonacceptance of outright lies; positing that if we don't accept misstatements of fact and positions derived therefrom as coequal additions to a fact-based debate, we are being disrespectful of differing "opinions."

We should be mindful always of the difference between a fact and an opinion. And be able to dismissively regard frivolous positions as frivolous, when the positions rest upon fundamental dishonesties and misstatements of material fact.  (not regard this dismissiveness as being disrespectful of differing opinions)

If someone says I don't think there should be a national gun registry because that's something that could be too easily abused and puts us on the slippery-slope to full confiscation, we have a difference of opinion. I disagree with you, but I respect you. Your opinion is your opinion. I welcome the chance to engage someone who thinks differently then me and is bringing a different perspective to the table.

If someone says:

On 11/17/2018 at 2:01 PM, CapnStix said:

America IS superior to every country. No holds barred. Not even close. America is miles ahead in everything but "gender laws" and education.

Thats not an "opinion." Thats a falsehood... 



...And it is not disrespectful of difference-of-opinion to identify the falsehood as such + regard the person so saying as having nothing of value to contribute to a serious discussion, insofar as the positions said person is advancing rely upon the premise that the asserted falsehood is true.

In fact, its damaging to the integrity of the debate to equalize the falsehood to truthful opinions being discussed on a theory that we can't have a respectful debate unless all positions are accepted and welcome. 

Because at that point what you're doing is saying that the difference between truth and falsehood doesn't matter.

...that's the Trump ethos...



Thats what's gotten us to this point of dysfunction and inability to solve problems in this country: the idea that facts don't matter and the truth is whatever you want to believe it is and that anything you don't want to believe is "fake."

We should always strive to be better than that, and to direct our conversations accordingly. Whether out in the real world or on a internet chat board--make a good habit out of honest inquiry and distinguishing truth from falsehood, and drawing the line at tolerance for difference-of-opinion where an "opinion" becomes a flat-out lie.

Because thats the only way we dig ourselves out of the hole we're in right now. 

Edited November 21, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Jotari]

9 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

A cliche is a saying overused to the point of tautology. But cliches often contain overlooked and taken-for-granted pearls of wisdom. A particular cliche comes to mind that I think we should all be thoughtful of moving forward, in discussions like this:

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They are not entitled to their own set of facts."

Its a fine enough thing to have diversity of opinion and be respectful of the differing opinions of others. Its healthy for debate and conversation. But to have healthy debate on serious matters of law and public policy (and this applies to society at large; not just to this forum), you also have to keep the conversation honest.  

And there's an inherent tension there.

Conversation becomes toxic and unproductive when we don't don't accept differences of opinion as part of the conversation.

However, conversation also becomes toxic and unproductive when we do accept lies and falsehoods and blatant misstatements of fact as part of the conversation. And we equivocate between acceptance/nonacceptance of differing opinions and acceptance/nonacceptance of outright lies; positing that if we don't accept misstatements of fact and positions derived therefrom as coequal additions to a fact-based debate, we are being disrespectful of differing "opinions."

We should be mindful always of the difference between a fact and an opinion. And be able to dismissively regard frivolous positions as frivolous, when the positions rest upon fundamental dishonesties and misstatements of material fact.  (not regard this dismissiveness as being disrespectful for difference of opinion)

If someone says I don't think there should be a national gun registry because that's something that could be too easily abused and puts us on the slippery-slope to full confiscation, we have a difference of opinion. I disagree with you, but I respect you. Your opinion is your opinion. Fine. I welcome the chance to engage someone who thinks differently then me and is bringing a different perspective to the table.

If someone says:

Thats not an "opinion." Thats a falsehood... 



...And it is not disrespectful of difference-of-opinion to identify the falsehood as such + regard the person so saying as having nothing of value to contribute to a serious discussion, insofar as the positions said person is advancing rely upon the premise that the asserted falsehood is true.

In fact, its damaging to the integrity of the debate to equalize the falsehood to truthful opinions being discussed on a theory that we can't have a respectful debate unless all positions are accepted and welcome. 

Because at that point what you're doing is saying that the difference between truth and falsehood doesn't matter.

...that's the Trump ethos...



Thats what's gotten us to this point of dysfunction and inability to solve problems in this country: the idea that facts don't matter and the truth is whatever you want to believe it is and that anything you don't want to believe is "fake."

We should always strive to be better than that, and to direct our conversations accordingly. Whether out in the real world or on a internet chat board--make a good habit out of honest inquiry and distinguishing truth from falsehood, and drawing the line at tolerance for difference-of-opinion where an opinion becomes a flat-out lie.

Because thats the only way we dig ourselves out of the hole where in right now. 

This post deserves to go viral.

[eclipse]

The thing about intellectual dishonesty is that eventually the dishonest party will break down, and go into emotional/hate speech/talking point territory (because at this point, said person is either unable to understand facts, unable to accept that they need to revise their opinion based on the available facts, or lying, all three of which are not normal mental states. . .and that strain will show).  I have no issue with people respectfully pointing out factual inaccuracies.  I do have an issue when the debate leaves the "we have the same facts and came to a different conclusion" territory and enters "my opinion is based on erroneous facts and STFU about me being wrong about my facts."  One shows a willingness to listen, while the other doesn't.

In other words, eventually those that can't accept truth for what it is will eventually get thrown out.  The question is how much collateral they'll cause before then.