Support NeoGAF

[Mohonky]

An empathetic wall of text to say “give them a chance”, nope I am sorry they know what they are getting into spewing hate speech, and deserve to be chased back into their shit dens.

Well.....they did get kicked back to their dens. Where they bred and their base grew larger.

Then while everyone was patting themselves on the back at how great and morally superior they were as they sat back and waited for another great victory to show those assholes who was boss, they came back in force because while everyone was so enthralled congratulating themselves on having the moral 'high ground' all those assholes people forgot about went out and voted Trump.

Because you know, all the polls said Hillary had it in the bag, all those people who screamed down all those racists and bigots and 'deplorables' weren't seen or heard in the echo chambers of people with their heads up their ass thinking they were so damn pious.

You can silence or attack them all you want, but Trumps win, and the fact no one on here or any number of other echo chambers saw it, was the writing on the wall.

 

[Budi]

I wonder what you mean by intersectionalism? When I learned about it in an academic setting over a decade ago, primarily through this article, it largely meant that members of different groups that are discriminated against will experience discrimination in different ways. E.g. a straight black woman will be affected by racism differently than a gay black man might be. Is that something you disagree with?

Yeaah, I've been really confused about this too. I'll admit my ignorance, wasn't familiar with the term so tried to look it up. I couldn't connect it to this discussion though, hence the confusion. Was thinking if something was just lost in translation. (Not a native english speaker)

 

[kliklik]

I wonder what you mean by intersectionalism? When I learned about it in an academic setting over a decade ago, primarily through this article, it largely meant that members of different groups that are discriminated against will experience discrimination in different ways. E.g. a straight black woman will be affected by racism differently than a gay black man might be. Is that something you disagree with?

A lot of things are very useful for theoretical analysis. When they're put into practice though, I've noticed that Intersectionality tends to lead to issue/protest-hijacking and internal quarrels that can tear apart a community united around a cause, which can be pretty frustrating. I'm also pretty wary of "intersectional activists", though I think Intersectional theory is useful.

 

[Kurdel]

You can silence or attack them all you want, but Trumps win, and the fact no one on here or any number of other echo chambers saw it, was the writing on the wall.

Drudge report, infowars, stormfront, 4 chan ALL predate the latest rise in ultra right wing politics. To claim their ostracisation was the leading cause of that rise is true, but they did it to themselves by rejecting progressive values and resenting the mainstream acceptance of homosexuals and ethnic representation in media, as a few examples.

Here we are, again, saying black people amd gay people were wrong in not allowing hate speech, and if only they let the racists and bigots airtime, they might be able to convince them that they are human and worth living as equals.

 

[Mohonky]

I assume people are more prone to changing their views if it is a family member confronting them. So to answer your question of who should educate people on their bigoted views, family and close ones seems like a good answer. I dont see why that burden should be on GAF.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwyQ1OReAJM

Drudge report, infowars, stormfront, 4 chan ALL predate the latest rise in ultra right wing politics. To claim their ostracisation was the leading cause of that rise is true, but they did it to themselves by rejecting progressive values and resenting the mainstream acceptance of homosexuals and ethnic representation in media, as a few examples.

Here we are, again, saying black people amd gay people were wrong in not allowing hate speech, and if only they let the racists and bigots airtime, they might be able to convince them that they are human and worth living as equals.

Maybe watch the video above to see what I am getting at. I am not asking anyone to accept aggressive hate speech, I am not saying it is everyones duty to face a tirade of abuse and calmly take it. I'm saying those sites you mentioned are the sort of places people end up when they get banned from places like this when they make faux passes put forward their view (even if they try their damnedest to not offend) and some people may be receptive to change if challenged. And guess what happens there? Their beliefs don't just get reinforced, they get even more extreme.

Everything is so black and white with some of you and that's what makes these discussions so infuriating, because you literally cannot rationally discuss anything without flying off the handle with these bullshit statements.

 

[boiled goose]

Yes.

Lol. Poor white and Christian people. So oppressed.

"When you're used to privilege, equality feels like oppression."

 

[RedRedSuit]

Personally I feel that, as long as the goal is to keep a tolerant/progressive community while ALSO reducing trigger-happy no-dissent-allowed insanity (which NeoGAF is rightly being criticized for), this goal can be accomplished. But it cannot be accomplished by going back to the old ways with different mods.

It can only be accomplished by complete transparency in moderating. That means:

1. Extremely explicit rules about what is allowed and what is not. This can be established by committee of intelligent people, in the open. This can change over time to include new rules, as petitioned transparently by the community.

Extremely explicit rules means list what's allowed and what isn't, with representative examples. Even a thread like this provides plenty of examples. You can say, for example, that using the term SJW non-ironically is grounds for a minor ban, and explain why. You can say that using a studies-show-blacks-have-lower-IQ argument -- no matter how apparently civil or meek -- means permanan. AND you can say that disagreeing with gay marriage on religious grounds is NOT in ITSELF a bannable offense. And so on and so forth.

Same with console war type posts. What's allowed or not could be explicitly written down. That way people don't get banned for criticizing Switch in a Switch thread. Unless that's an actual rule.

2. Extremely transparent moderation. If someone is banned, it should be possible to know exactly what rule they broke. That way unfair moderation cannot be protected by secrecy (except where there's some privacy matter which is rare). But this also means no one can ever complain about unspecified unfair moderation -- as they do today -- as almost every ban would be clearly justified in a consistent way.

I'm not saying it's not challenging. It's basically a simple system of laws and a very simple court system. But it would work.

(And no, you can't say this is a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. Yes, 9/10 tweets from people with Scorpio icons claiming GAF banned them for nothing are bullshit. I bet it wasn't for nothing. BUT, absolutely it's clear there are many examples of hair-trigger bans for almost nothing as well.

The whole POINT of the above suggestion is that by bringing it all into he light will remove all the mystery from it and clearly show whose whining is justified and whose isn't.)

3. That, and IMO EviLore cannot continue to represent the place day-to-day due to the inadequate and unilateral and IMHO arrogant response to this and a couple of other crises. And that's assuming he isn't guilty of harassment. That's the other problem, the way EviLore apparently operates.

But those three problems solved, this place could thrive.

Or it could continue in its current zombie form and probably be all right if one stays away from fanboy wars and politics. But presumably people want a higher standard reached....

 

[Noboru Wataya]

Lol. Poor white and Christian people. So oppressed.

"When you're used to privilege, equality feels like oppression."

 

[boiled goose]

Personally I feel that, as long as the goal is to keep a tolerant/progressive community while ALSO reducing trigger-happy no-dissent-allowed insanity (which NeoGAF is rightly being criticized for), this goal can be accomplished. But it cannot be accomplished by going back to the old ways with different mods.

It can only be accomplished by complete transparency in moderating. That means:

1. Extremely explicit rules about what is allowed and what is not. This can be established by committee of intelligent people, in the open. This can change over time to include new rules, as petitioned transparently by the community.

Extremely explicit rules means list what's allowed and what isn't, with representative examples. Even a thread like this provides plenty of examples. You can say, for example, that using the term SJW non-ironically is grounds for a minor ban, and explain why. You can say that using a studies-show-blacks-have-lower-IQ argument -- no matter how apparently civil or meek -- means permanan. AND you can say that disagreeing with gay marriage on religious grounds is NOT in ITSELF a bannable offense. And so on and so forth.

Same with console war type posts. What's allowed or not could be explicitly written down. That way people don't get banned for criticizing Switch in a Switch thread. Unless that's an actual rule.

2. Extremely transparent moderation. If someone is banned, it should be possible to know exactly what rule they broke. That way unfair moderation cannot be protected by secrecy (except where there's some privacy matter which is rare). But this also means no one can ever complain about unspecified unfair moderation -- as they do today -- as almost every ban would be clearly justified in a consistent way.

I'm not saying it's not challenging. It's basically a simple system of laws and a very simple court system. But it would work.

3. That, and IMO EviLore cannot continue to represent the place day-to-day due to the inadequate and unilateral and IMHO arrogant response to this and a couple of other crises. And that's assuming he isn't guilty of harassment. That's the other problem, the way EviLore apparently operates.

But those three problems solved, this place could thrive.

Or it could continue in its current zombie form and probably be all right if one stays away from fanboy wars and politics. But presumably people want a higher standard reached....

Even without 1. 2 would help a lot. It would help enforce standards even if not explicitly stated. This would go not only for bans but also closing threads and changing titles.

3. Well yeah..

 

[Astral Dog]

just want to say that despite everything, as this thread shows clearly there are amazing people still here on GAF willing to stand up for themselves and others, it doesn,t look so grim now and tomorrow may be bright for this community

 

[prag16]

Even without 1. 2 would help a lot. It would help enforce standards even if not explicitly stated. This would go not only for bans but also closing threads and changing titles.

3. Well yeah..

For #2 I'd also be in favor of some kind of appeal system. Hell even on GAMEFAQS of all places I successfully had a bullshit ban overturned via the appeal process once years ago.

I've stated since Monday night that making moderation even MORE opaque is a step in the wrong direction. As a temporary step until some of this blows over? Okay... but as a permanent move that's definitely a bad thing.

 

[Shaka]

Ain't this grand. Minorities are now terrible for not spending time and sanity on people who would rather they not exist. Like we don't deal with this shit everyday. If only we did more, bigotry would have ended decades ago right?
Thanks 'Allies', how could we have not known. It's not like we live this shit, right!?
Who the fuck wants to argue their humanity?
I don't think Neogaf is for me anymore. 'Twas fun

 

[Kurdel]

Everything is so black and white with some of you and that's what makes these discussions so infuriating, because you literally cannot rationally discuss anything without flying off the handle with these bullshit statements.

Because in decent society, you don’t give equal time or space to people who want to see the world burn, or support harassment campagins against women in tech.

It isn’t rocket science.

Look at fucking Twitter, are you envious of that shit hole? That is what lazy “all opinions are worth hearing somwe can try to change them” shit has gotten us?

 

[potatohead]

Personally I feel that, as long as the goal is to keep a tolerant/progressive community while ALSO reducing trigger-happy no-dissent-allowed insanity (which NeoGAF is rightly being criticized for), this goal can be accomplished. But it cannot be accomplished by going back to the old ways with different mods.

It can only be accomplished by complete transparency in moderating. That means:

1. Extremely explicit rules about what is allowed and what is not. This can be established by committee of intelligent people, in the open. This can change over time to include new rules, as petitioned transparently by the community.

Extremely explicit rules means list what's allowed and what isn't, with representative examples. Even a thread like this provides plenty of examples. You can say, for example, that using the term SJW non-ironically is grounds for a minor ban, and explain why. You can say that using a studies-show-blacks-have-lower-IQ argument -- no matter how apparently civil or meek -- means permanan. AND you can say that disagreeing with gay marriage on religious grounds is NOT in ITSELF a bannable offense. And so on and so forth.

Same with console war type posts. What's allowed or not could be explicitly written down. That way people don't get banned for criticizing Switch in a Switch thread. Unless that's an actual rule.

2. Extremely transparent moderation. If someone is banned, it should be possible to know exactly what rule they broke. That way unfair moderation cannot be protected by secrecy (except where there's some privacy matter which is rare). But this also means no one can ever complain about unspecified unfair moderation -- as they do today -- as almost every ban would be clearly justified in a consistent way.

I'm not saying it's not challenging. It's basically a simple system of laws and a very simple court system. But it would work.

(And no, you can't say this is a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. Yes, 9/10 tweets from people with Scorpio icons claiming GAF banned them for nothing are bullshit. I bet it wasn't for nothing. BUT, absolutely it's clear there are many examples of hair-trigger bans for almost nothing as well.

The whole POINT of the above suggestion is that by bringing it all into he light will remove all the mystery from it and clearly show whose whining is justified and whose isn't.)

3. That, and IMO EviLore cannot continue to represent the place day-to-day due to the inadequate and unilateral and IMHO arrogant response to this and a couple of other crises. And that's assuming he isn't guilty of harassment. That's the other problem, the way EviLore apparently operates.

But those three problems solved, this place could thrive.

Or it could continue in its current zombie form and probably be all right if one stays away from fanboy wars and politics. But presumably people want a higher standard reached....

Reasonable post and should be considered

Particularly the transparency part

I've been on other forums and responses which are not drive by and not condescending are far easier to obtain elsewhere when pming or communicating with mods

 

[Croatoan]

I wonder what you mean by intersectionalism? When I learned about it in an academic setting over a decade ago, primarily through this article, it largely meant that members of different groups that are discriminated against will experience discrimination in different ways. E.g. a straight black woman will be affected by racism differently than a gay black man might be. Is that something you disagree with?

No, actually, I disagree with the part that calls for a hierarchy of privileged that ends up having LGBT people standing next, or below, people that want them dead because that group is more oppressed. The entire idea is a way of further splitting people up by basically assigning them privilege and oppression points.

I believe in a future where race, sexuality, and religion doesn't matter. Not where those things are used to define everything about you, including your place in social hierarchy.

 

[Kurdel]

I believe in a future where race, sexuality, and religion doesn't matter. Not where those things are used to define everything about you.

I live in the present, where moderate centrists like you have helped keep the boot on oppressed minorities necks for decades by pretending their struggles aren’t worth paying extra attention to.

 

[KojiKnight]

No, actually, I disagree with the part that calls for a hierarchy of privileged that ends up having LGBT people standing next, or below, people that want them dead because that group is more oppressed. The entire idea is a way of further splitting people up by basically assigning them privilege and oppression points.

I believe in a future where race, sexuality, and religion doesn't matter. Not where those things are used to define everything about you, including your place in social hierarchy.

An admiral goal, but you're forgetting the steps to get to that point. You don't get to that point by pressing the ignore button now and hoping it all gets that way on it's own. There are still fights that have to be fought to get there.

I live in the present, where moderate centrists like you have helped keep the boot on oppressed minorities necks for decades by pretending their struggles aren't worth paying extra attention to.

Also this.

 

[Mohonky]

Drudge report, infowars, stormfront, 4 chan ALL predate the latest rise in ultra right wing politics. To claim their ostracisation was the leading cause of that rise is true, but they did it to themselves by rejecting progressive values and resenting the mainstream acceptance of homosexuals and ethnic representation in media, as a few examples.

Here we are, again, saying black people amd gay people were wrong in not allowing hate speech, and if only they let the racists and bigots airtime, they might be able to convince them that they are human and worth living as equals.

Because in decent society, you don’t give equal time or space to people who want to see the world burn, or support harassment campagins against women in tech.

It isn’t rocket science.

Look at fucking Twitter, are you envious of that shit hole? That is what lazy “all opinions are worth hearing somwe can try to change them” shit has gotten us?

I don't use twitter (because I already know it's a cesspool).

For the record, I find Modelling / Fashion / Film industries largely abhorrent because they are pretty much a haven for sexual predators. Also what I have seen of twitter (particularly gaming / tech industry in general) leads me to believe that there is an issue whereby it seems many lack the maturity to conduct themselves in a professional manner.

Just watch the video I linked, it's about a guy that comes from country America, didn't believe in gay rights, didn't believe in gay marriage, believes being gay is a 'choice' people make and being around homosexuals made him uncomfortable.

Being exposed to homosexuals, being around them, learning to understand their point of view and having his views challenged....just see what his views were at the end. That is what I am talking about.

 

[molotrok]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwyQ1OReAJM



Maybe watch the video above to see what I am getting at. I am not asking anyone to accept aggressive hate speech, I am not saying it is everyones duty to face a tirade of abuse and calmly take it. I'm saying those sites you mentioned are the sort of places people end up when they get banned from places like this when they make faux passes put forward their view (even if they try their damnedest to not offend) and some people may be receptive to change if challenged. And guess what happens there? Their beliefs don't just get reinforced, they get even more extreme.

Everything is so black and white with some of you and that's what makes these discussions so infuriating, because you literally cannot rationally discuss anything without flying off the handle with these bullshit statements.

I dont think a level headed sensible person would go from the type of discourse that you see on GAF to the extremist right wing sites that were posted. I might be wrong.

And of course spending 30 days in someone else's shoes is good way to change someone's views. Unfortunately an online forum doesnt simulate those circumstances.

 

[Kurdel]

Being exposed to homosexuals, being around them, learning to understand their point of view and having his views challenged....just see what his views were at the end. That is what I am talking about.

It’s an incredibly naive position, to think someone hasn’t been exposed to people sympathetic to gay rights before going online.

His views could have been challenged watching Will and Grace 20 years ago.

This image of the noble bigot, who accidentally has a shit world view and comes to neogaf with an open mind, is laughable.

 

[Croatoan]

I live in the present, where moderate centrists like you have helped keep the boot on oppressed minorities necks for decades by pretending their struggles aren't worth paying extra attention to.

Uhh, what? How does not being sold on part of an idealogy that isn't even universally accepted keep minorities from having rights? There are so many ways we can expand rights that don't require splitting people up more.

Also, why stamp out any discussion about it? Discussion is how we make things better.

This is what I have been talking about, discussion isn't allowed. The second I make a comment you claim I am trying to oppress you and attempt to assassinate my character. You didn't even respond to the discussion!

An admiral goal, but you're forgetting the steps to get to that point. You don't get to that point by pressing the ignore button now and hoping it all gets that way on it's own. There are still fights that have to be fought to get there.

I completely understand this, but why is there only one way and any discussion about it is taboo? I simply don't like further splitting people, that doesn't mean I want to ignore the actual problems.

 

[RedRedSuit]

Even without 1. 2 would help a lot. It would help enforce standards even if not explicitly stated. This would go not only for bans but also closing threads and changing titles.

3. Well yeah..

That's true. And of course nothing should be deleted, unless there's some privacy issue, which is rare. Back in the day, deletion was very rare here. You could see what happened, when something happened. Not exactly, but more or less -- at least the post history was there. Many other forums love to delete offending content which is awful.

For #2 I'd also be in favor of some kind of appeal system. Hell even on GAMEFAQS of all places I successfully had a bullshit ban overturned via the appeal process once years ago.

I've stated since Monday night that making moderation even MORE opaque is a step in the wrong direction. As a temporary step until some of this blows over? Okay... but as a permanent move that's definitely a bad thing.

I don't know how practical that would be. But as for this opaque moderation thing, it's just silly. The entire comeback post is silly and not thought through. And unilateral too, which goes back to #3....

Reasonable post and should be considered

Particularly the transparency part

I've been on other forums and responses which are not drive by and not condescending are far easier to obtain elsewhere when pming or communicating with mods

Thanks.

 

[Kurdel]

This is what I have been talking about, discussion isn't allowed. The second I make a comment you claim I am trying to oppress you and attempt to assassinate my character. You didn't even respond to the discussion!

I made my point and it seems that it went way over your head, take a few days to think it over.

 

[RedRedSuit]

As for intersectionality, I've somehow avoided finding out what that is despite being a leftie. But if the idea is that what you can say to a white male isn't the same as what you can say to a gay person or black person or black woman -- well, that's just common sense. Only a 10-year-old can still be so naive as to think cracker is the same as n*****, or that white power is no more racist than black power, or that Spanish people in RE4 is same as black people in RE5.

If someone genuinely doesn't understand that, the rules (#1 idea above) could helpfully explain it -- and attach a minor ban to still acting dumb about it with it in the rules.

 

[Croatoan]

I made my point and it seems that it went way over your head, take a few days to think it over.

So your point is that I am a moderate centrist that wants to ignore your issues? All because I am not sold on intersectionality as a whole?

Do you understand how crazy that sounds?

It would be like someone claiming that, "If you don't believe in all aspects of string theory as absolute fact you are a horrible scientist that need to be silenced."

 

[Croatoan]

edit: sorry double post.

As for intersectionality, I've somehow avoided finding out what that is despite being a leftie. But if the idea is that what you can say to a white male isn't the same as what you can say to a gay person or black person or black woman -- well, that's just common sense. Only a 10-year-old can still be so naive as to think cracker is the same as n*****, or that white power is no more racist than black power, or that Spanish people in RE4 is same as black people in RE5.

If someone genuinely doesn't understand that, the rules (#1 idea above) could helpfully explain it -- and attach a minor ban to still acting dumb about it with it in the rules.

Look more into it, that is just the top level of the theory, and I believe what you said is correct and just. Specifically look into criticisms of other accomplished academics.

 

[Kurdel]

So your point is that I am a moderate centrist that wants to ignore your issues? All because I am not sold on intersectionality as a whole?

Do you understand how crazy that sounds?

It would be like someone claiming that, "If you don't believe in all aspects of string theory as absolute fact you are a horrible scientist that need to be silenced."

I am saying that your “Everyone should be considered and treated equally” has been spouted by white moderates for a very very very long time now, and has done jack shit minority rights.

It’s an intellectually lazy position, and necessitates complete ignorance about the civil rights movements of the 20th century.

 

[Dude Abides]

No, actually, I disagree with the part that calls for a hierarchy of privileged that ends up having LGBT people standing next, or below, people that want them dead because that group is more oppressed. The entire idea is a way of further splitting people up by basically assigning them privilege and oppression points.

Ok, but I don't think that's really what intersectionalism/ality means, although perhaps people abuse the term. The closest you'll really get is people dismissing the views of white men simply because they are white men, which is a dumb and vulgar distortion of the valid point that we should be receptive and open to people talking about their experiences of discrimination.

Also, are you talking about Muslims as the group that wants LGBT people dead? That is kind of an odd complaint in this context because the general atheist bent of the userbase meant you could go hard at Islam on here for the most part. Evilore himself took shots at that clock kid in Texas and KingGondo caught a ban challenging him on it.

 

[Astral Dog]

This is my personal view. Sorry if it offends anyone:

All my friends knew I claimed to be gay and no one cared at church. I went to church, but I wasn't ”in" church. They never had sermon focused on the immoral lives of gay people at any church I went to. I was only terrified because of what I thought my Pastor would think of me when I told him I was having issues with homosexuality and didn't want to do it anymore. You know what he did? He hugged me, said he loved me, and told me about other people that have dealt with it and are fine now. He didn't judge me or anything. He just showed me why it was wrong and talked me through how to find where the root of the problem was. For me, It was those incidents when I was younger that I repressed and never faced. After actually letting go, forgiving those people, and turning to God to help me overcome my problems, I no longer dealt with thinking I was gay.



Sure, I can acknowledge that possibility. Not sure what would happen to those people that would be far on whatever side of the spectrum.

reading this im sorry what happened to you, what i believe is that you are confunded about sexuality because of the ugly experiences you had when you were young, im glad to see your Pastor helped you out and that worked for you. there is a high chance you never were Gay and you were confused

but think the possibility that you still have a negative feeling towards homosexuality based on religious ideas, and a experience that is unfortunately not quite normal.

im sorry that happened to you, i can only advice that dont stay only with what your priest tells you, keep learning from others (in this thread and from outside), never stop listening and growing ,always remember to take the positive and not the negative .


Edit: aww poor Kurdel :,(

 

[Noboru Wataya]

I am saying that your “Everyone should be considered and treated equally” has been spouted by white moderates for a very very very long time now, and has done jack shit minority rights.

It’s an intellectually lazy position, and necessitates complete ignorance about the civil rights movements of the 20th century.

I must be too much of a bigot to understand where they were going with this post /s

 

[Ri'Orius]

No, actually, I disagree with the part that calls for a hierarchy of privileged that ends up having LGBT people standing next, or below, people that want them dead because that group is more oppressed. The entire idea is a way of further splitting people up by basically assigning them privilege and oppression points.

To be clear: you think that generalizing internet "moderates" as diet racists and bigots is bad, but generalizing Muslims as murderous homophobes is good?

I mean, I assume that's who you're talking about here. You do realize that the Muslims in America who face prejudice every day (such as protests against their attempts to build places of worship under the assumption that they're secret terrorist organizations) aren't the same people throwing gays off of buildings, right?

 

[Stoop Man]

I am saying that your “Everyone should be considered and treated equally” has been spouted by white moderates for a very very very long time now, and has done jack shit minority rights.

It’s an intellectually lazy position, and necessitates complete ignorance about the civil rights movements of the 20th century.

I'm just afraid this idea is getting confused with "treating everyone with civility." I agree totally with what you said, but I think there are some people on this board that don't understand you can wholeheartedly reject and discourage bigotry and still be polite about it. They're so caught up in their passion they don't their enemies deserve anything less than insults. Deserve has nothing to do with it. You don't need to respect the person or his opinions to have a respectful and civil tone.

 

[Kusagari]

I'm just afraid this idea is getting confused with "treating everyone with civility." I agree totally with what you said, but I think there are some people on this board that don't understand you can wholeheartedly reject and discourage bigotry and still be polite about it. They're so caught up in their passion they don't their enemies deserve anything less than insults. Deserve has nothing to do with it. You don't need to respect the person or his opinions to have a respectful and civil tone.

Obama tried that for eight years and it gave rise to Nazis marching in the streets and a president sympathetic to them.

People have realized by now that the nice and respectful option doesn't fucking work.

 

[kevm3]

I'd rather not interact with people who think marriage is only between a man and a woman, or think that trans woman are still men or people who make jokes about people's preferred pronouns.

In other words you only want to interact with people who share your viewpoints aka echo chamber

 

[TumblingHippo]

In other words you only want to interact with people who share your viewpoints aka echo chamber

Bigots don't deserve an ear, they deserve to get kicked out.

 

[zumphry]

In other words you only want to interact with people who share your viewpoints aka echo chamber

Oh no, what a horrible thing

 

[gcncontroller]

In other words you only want to interact with people who share your viewpoints aka echo chamber

are you for real lmao

 

[geomon]

Obama tried that for eight years and it gave rise to Nazis marching in the streets and a president sympathetic to them.

People have realized by now that the nice and respectful option doesn't fucking work.

It has never worked, ever. If sitting down and listening to the other side worked, we wouldn't have wars and conflicts.

 

[Goodlife]

In other words you only want to interact with people who share your viewpoints aka echo chamber

Sometimes it's pretty nice, I must be honest.

In my "normal" life I have to deal with people with really shit views and opinions all the time.

Sometimes you just want somewhere, even if it's a bit of an escape, where you don't have to deal with that shit

 

[Temeculan3000]

Obama tried that for eight years and it gave rise to Nazis marching in the streets and a president sympathetic to them.

People have realized by now that the nice and respectful option doesn't fucking work.

If Obama was more extreme, it would have just lead to more extremism on the other side. As hard as that is to believe with Trump in office.

It has never worked, ever. If sitting down and listening to the other side worked, we wouldn't have wars and conflicts.

Using reason and not assuming the worst is how we have narrowly avoided nuclear war multiple times. Otherwise the worst fears of the Cold War would have been realized and we would all be RPing Fallout in RL right now.

 

[Stoop Man]

Obama tried that for eight years and it gave rise to Nazis marching in the streets and a president sympathetic to them.

People have realized by now that the nice and respectful option doesn't fucking work.

Neither does aggressive and disrespectful. It just makes one feel better about him/herself.

 

[Sinfamy]

It has never worked, ever. If sitting down and listening to the other side worked, we wouldn't have wars and conflicts.

Implying most wars and conflicts aren't financially driven.
Words against dollars have a low exchange rate.

Neither does aggressive and disrespectful. It just makes one feel better about him/herself.

It's Neoliberal pro corporate politicians that keep fucking over the poor and middle class and dividing us by race, and other characteristics, so we fight among ourselves, diverting the attention away from the only real divide, which is a the economic class divide. Occasionally throwing us a bone and having us fight over scraps, making each other hostile to people not like us due to evolutionary herd pack mentality that's the problem.
Austerity and populism NEVER go well together. You need to counteract the populist anger with a populist renewal and economic uplifting programs, otherwise those with no money and no power will keep receiving the full grunt of blame because the sheer amount of ignorance is unparalleled.

 

[Stoop Man]

Implying most wars and conflicts aren't financially driven.
Words against dollars have a low exchange rate.

Yeah but I can talk a lot.

 

[DerpHause]

Obama tried that for eight years and it gave rise to Nazis marching in the streets and a president sympathetic to them.

People have realized by now that the nice and respectful option doesn't fucking work.

What is the alternative? What actual effective measure is being tried? Is the progress that has been made only a result of direct and hostile confrontation? Or do you believe there has been no progress on the issues of race, gender and/or sexuality?

 

[GobFather]

Lol. Poor white and Christian people. So oppressed.

"When you're used to privilege, equality feels like oppression."

Equality doesn’t mean attacking white and religious people either.... That’s still inequality.... as a minority, I feel people are attacking people based on race while saying it’s in the name of equality for all race. You don’t get to pick and choosen which race you want to protect and which one to attack. It’s getting ridiculous....

 

[MUnited83]

Neither does aggressive and disrespectful. It just makes one feel better about him/herself.

Actually being agressive and disrespectful grants you the highest order of power in the United States.

 

[Kusagari]

What is the alternative? What actual effective measure is being tried? Is the progress that has been made only a result of direct and hostile confrontation? Or do you believe there has been no progress on the issues of race, gender and/or sexuality?

On sexuality? Yes.

On race? No, not really.

The only thing that has really changed since the 60's is America getting browner and racists being more covert. America was and still is racist to the core.

 

[tkscz]

It has never worked, ever. If sitting down and listening to the other side worked, we wouldn't have wars and conflicts.

You might want to look in your history book for how many wars were avoided using diplomacy. Hell, WWI was nearly avoided that way, until someone used violence to instigate it further.

Using words won't work against those who are extremist. They believe what they believe and REFUSE to believe in anything else, however, there are those who aren't extremist who can be convinced to change. Changing someone's world views can be a powerful thing. I never understood this "TALKING NEVER WORKS EVER!" mentality.

 

[Stoop Man]

Actually being agressive and disrespectful grants you the highest order of power in the United States.

Obama got two terms.

You might want to look in your history book for how many wars were avoided using diplomacy. Hell, WWI was nearly avoided that way, until someone used violence to instigate it further.

Using words won't work against those who are extremist. They believe what they believe and REFUSE to believe in anything else, however, there are those who aren't extremist who can be convinced to change. Changing someone's world views can be a powerful thing. I never understood this "TALKING NEVER WORKS EVER!" mentality.

And you don't even have to change their opinions. If you can convince a bigot just to stop saying bigoted shit, that's a positive change for a community.

 

[Temeculan3000]

On sexuality? Yes.

On race? No, not really.

The only thing that has really changed since the 60's is America getting browner and racists being more covert. America was and still is racist to the core.

I think young people as a whole are much less racist than they used to be 20, 30, 40 years ago.

This isn't to say that racism is "over" or "fixed" by any means. Do you think a Black president could have been elected in the 60s or 70s?

Obama inspired young people to go out and vote. Trump inspired old people to go out and vote. Things are getting better, but we still have plenty of old/closeted racists. I think it is unfair to so many young people to suggest that America is just as racist as the 60s. it's more a matter of who is in power.