Support NeoGAF

[Pop]

Ironically you're probably going to get banned (i.e. suppressed) for expressing that opinion, thus proving your point. I disagree with your opinion on this issue, but I agree that you should have the right to express it and engage in respectful discussion.

Neogaf is an interesting place - when discussion on the matter comes up many people on one side (and only one side) of the debate are banned thus creating a self selected population of people and group think that is heavily (and arguably non-representatively) skewed to the progressive side. Anyone who does have a dissenting opinion is either banned, or is so afraid of being banned/dogpiled on that they do not express it. In contrast those on the other side of the issue are allowed to act with impunity, slinging unfounded accusations at the other side, calling people "sexist shit heads" etc - arguably behaviour that should result in a ban.

I think there can be an argument made that there is an issue in the tact that some in the progressive movement have chosen to take in what is an admirable goal. Equality is certainly where the world should be IMO, and something we all aspire towards. That doesn't mean that any and all tactics towards that goal are positive and helpful though - hence the term "SJW".

For example, often instead of trying to change hearts and minds of those we disagree with some of us progressives simply attack them, and demonise them. Arguably this does more to hurt our cause, and society as a whole, as it results in an "us against them" mentality from both sides, galvanising both sides and ultimately resulting in narrow mindedness from both sides.

In many ways, it could be argued that those kind of tactics helped give the presidency to trump as he united those who have felt (sometimes correctly) to be under attack over the past 4-8 years by the left. He successfully unified the right mostly because of the tactics used by some within the left.

The problem is that on this issue it seems that battle lines have been drawn by both sides, when really those of us seeking to change the world should be reaching out to those we want to change. Alienating and attacking people people we want to change isn't going to change them. If one were to be cynical about it one would suspect that is because many within our movement enjoy the feeling of righteous superiority rather than wanting to change others. As a progressive very much in favour of a more inclusive and diverse society, I equally very much dislike that little voice within me that says "you're better you're not sexist/racist/etc" - that voice is hubris, it is pride, it is self-righteousness. And it is not helpful in making the world a more inclusive place. It also makes my actions and opinions on the matter all the less altruistic and noble.

Personally I very much side with the progressive movement on this issue. However I am not so blinded by my own bias as to excuse the intolerable and unhelpful behaviour of many on my side, nor turn a blind eye to the "self selection" and bias within the Neogaf groupthink. Anyone who debates that "SJWs" exist, or believes that everything done to support their agenda is positive, is blinded by their own bias.

TLR You catch more bees with honey than with vinegar. If we really want to make the world a better and more inclusive place we should be using honey, not vinegar. Fewer ban hammers and less name calling, more engagement and hope.

Great post.

 

[Prithee Be Careful]

A lot of it had to do with political unsatisfaction with how things were and Trump exploited that and then used his own brand of racism to inject that into the conversation in a way that a lot of the GOP had only used in 'coded language' before that. The majority in this country are clearly progressive left leaning. Even Hillary could win and did win the popular vote. It was only due to a technicality that she lost.

There was a notable reaction against the left since 2008 in regards to right wing sentiment, but it was nothing that gained Trump the presidency in of itself. He won due to a combination of factors.

Without any doubt, it still doesn't appear to me that calling people 'sexist shitheads' is doing much to win them around and while sexist shitheads still have a vote, that's kind of a problem...

 

[A Link to the Past]

Nowhere did I state that the HRC camp were not progressive.

Misunderstood, sorry.

 

[Inuhanyou]

Oh come now, Hillary fans are not outside of "the progressive side," arguably being less progressive in certain areas does not at all constitute being outside of that bubble.

I literally had legions of Hillary fans call me a horrible person and dogpile on me for questioning the democratic establishment's various conflicts of interest that went against progressive policy.

That's pretty hypocritical now that Trump is in power and we can all rally against him like a team and nothing is wrong.

The fact of the matter is, we all need principles, and not sticking to them is what gets us in trouble. Its not about purity but standing for something important.

 

[Yokai]

Neogaf is an interesting place - when discussion on the matter comes up many people on one side (and only one side) of the debate are banned thus creating a self selected population of people and group think that is heavily (and arguably non-representatively) skewed to the progressive side. Anyone who does have a dissenting opinion is either banned, or is so afraid of being banned/dogpiled on that they do not express it. In contrast those on the other side of the issue are allowed to act with impunity, slinging unfounded accusations at the other side, calling people "sexist shit heads" etc - arguably behaviour that should result in a ban.

Sorry but this is only partially true. I had voiced concern over some gamergate issues on the side of moderate in the past, and I have never been banned from gaf. All it takes is not making no effort shit posts or at least making the argument in a way that doesn't make it clear that you're only here to post 'Dank Memes'.

 

[Aroll]

Donald Trump has signed an executive order to ban federal money going to international groups which perform or provide information on abortions.
The US president's order shows he "wants to stand up for all Americans, including the unborn," his press secretary Sean Spicer said.
The executive order - known as "the Mexico City Policy" - is likely to concern pro-choice groups, already wary of his anti-abortion stance.
Mr Trump supports a US abortion ban.

But even if that hadn't already occurred in terms of tangible policy that restricts a woman's right to choose, you seem to be saying that there's no point in doing anything because he "may" not..? He's made policy pledges. He's made numerous, numerous sexist comments without being accountable whatsoever. He trivialises sexual assault. There are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people, predominantly women, marching allover the world regarding this and many more fighting in countless other ways and you're basically saying that they're deluded.

When you're standing up against issues such as sexual assault and supporting reproductive rights, the chance that "may" not legislate is massively missing the point, because the risks are so huge. It feels like you're treating it like it's pointless me bringing a coat to work because they're dark clouds outside and it "may" not rain - it's so much more serious than that.

Didn't realize he already did something. I have interesting stances on abortion in general, but I'm a guy... so it probably doesn't matter.

Anyways, him being a sexist, racist, bigot/pig/idiot, and holding no accountability to the fact he has done/said those things, has almost nothing to do with his role as president. I say that as someone who didn't vote for him and thinks he is utterly disgusting in terms of his morality, but honestly, he's not going to be able to pass anything in regards to that stuff anyways.

What he is doing (or attempting to do), is make a stand for a long standing republican based stance that abortion is wrong. His order isn't a law, though it may pass overall as a law since republicans control everything right now. That being said, it's not banning abortion, but rather lessening the education about abortion as a right. That's obviously an issue so long as it is a right - and as such I don't know that this bill would ever get through given the fact it's try to impose restrictions on a current right without changing the right itself. I just doubt see even republicans pushing that through. Not without some real restrictions on the right to an abortion - though it's doubtful it would ever get outright banned.

It's a big political mess, tbh.

And yes, I do kind of treat the march as useless. Does anyone really think Trump is going to change his ways because of a march? No. He's going to probably criticize the march (if he hasn't already) and brush it aside and do what he wants to do anyways. I feel like a better way of handeling this is instead of making this big march, work on more public education on what abortion is, how it works, etc. Some religious types you will never convince, but often people are swayed by what they know. If they don't know about all the intricacies of abortion, they are more likely to be against it.

This march isn't educating people, if anything it makes those opposed to it view those that support it in a worse light. I just feel like there are better ways that actually deal with things, because deep down we all know this march won't change anything at Washington. But in order to change washington, we need to educate the people, who can than later vote in people with their new found knowledge.

I don't like comparing this to other countries, because typically in those other countries the people themselves don't really have a say over who and how they are governed (from what I have seen).

I'm not saying "because it won't change anything, accept it" - but rather, - try an approach that educates america, beyond simply coming off as a bunch of trump haters, which is how the movement is portrayed nationally.

 

[Diablohead]

I don't watch his stuff anyway but wow.

 

[cyborgnumberblue]

Lol, why did you include the word censor? You didn't even use it correctly. It's almost like you included it as a buzzword to validate your passive backseat modding post.

And there's nothing "childish" about examining the whole image an entertainer puts forth. It IS childish to stick your fingers in your ears, while being condescending to people who actual care about the topic

No, there is certainly not anything childish about examining anything, nor was I ever implying this. I specifically cite that the "Us vs Them" mentality is childish.

As for the use of the word censor, I meant to imply that if I were to only watch Jon's videos and unsubscribe from his Twitter, I would feel that I've deliberately chosen to view a side of him. The best and most appropriate word that I thought applied to the meaning and feeling I wanted to get across was "censoring".

 

[A Link to the Past]

Great post.

Except it doesn't address that if the poster got banned, it'd be for making a single post in a thread that made a pretty bold claim and never came back to back it up in any capacity.

I literally had legions of Hillary fans call me a horrible person and dogpile on me for questioning the democratic establishment's various conflicts of interest that went against progressive policy.

That's pretty hypocritical now that Trump is in power and we can all rally against him like a team and nothing is wrong.

The fact of the matter is, we all need principles, and not sticking to them is what gets us in trouble. Its not about purity but standing for something important.

I agree that Clinton had plenty of problems, but it's not as if Bernie was perfect either. I'm rather unhappy with how his record on SSM is whitewashed. Bernie is definitely a more progressive candidate, by a pretty decent margin in fact, but you're also going to find flaws in them.

 

[Laevateinn]

This thread has nothing to do with videogames, either, and should be moved or closed.

Am I colorblind now? Your name looks blue to me.

 

[Snowybreak]

Someone hasn't seen their podcast titles.

Oh man... They have the most politically incorrect podcast titles and I fucking love it. "Three Fifths of a Podcast" is a particularly fantastic episode. Also anything having to do with blackface.

 

[Garrett Hawke]

Except it doesn't address that if the poster got banned, it'd be for making a single post in a thread that made a pretty bold claim and never came back to back it up in any capacity.

it also blames the left for making trump which is like... what?

as is usual the left get blamed for everything.

cus the right is SO welcoming and SO warming that they elected someone who said mexicans are rapists, women should be punished for having abortions, and that muslims are most likely terrorists.

 

[Yado]

While I can't really say I agree with anything he's said in these Twitter messages, I can't really agree with calling him a 'sexist shithead' either.

If the last few years has taught us anything it's that throwing around terms like 'sexist', 'racist', 'misogynist' etc., while sometimes completely deserved and more often than not very cathartic, it doesn't push these people back or provoke them to rethink their position. In fact, it seems to galvanize them or even make them worse.

I wonder how America managed to swing from voting in thier first black president 9 years ago to voting in a someone who could hardly be more starkly antithetical. One things for sure, though, outright condemnation (however reasonably justfied) doesn't seem to be working.

There are Twitter screencaps in this thread that show people approaching him in a calm, mannerly way and him not giving a fuck.

 

[HunteronX]

Ironically you're probably going to get banned (i.e. suppressed) for expressing that opinion, thus proving your point. I disagree with your opinion on this issue, but I agree that you should have the right to express it and engage in respectful discussion.

Neogaf is an interesting place - when discussion on the matter comes up many people on one side (and only one side) of the debate are banned thus creating a self selected population of people and group think that is heavily (and arguably non-representatively) skewed to the progressive side. Anyone who does have a dissenting opinion is either banned, or is so afraid of being banned/dogpiled on that they do not express it. In contrast those on the other side of the issue are allowed to act with impunity, slinging unfounded accusations at the other side, calling people "sexist shit heads" etc - arguably behaviour that should result in a ban.

I think there can be an argument made that there is an issue in the tact that some in the progressive movement have chosen to take in what is an admirable goal. Equality is certainly where the world should be IMO, and something we all aspire towards. That doesn't mean that any and all tactics towards that goal are positive and helpful though - hence the term "SJW".

For example, often instead of trying to change hearts and minds of those we disagree with some of us progressives simply attack them, and demonise them. Arguably this does more to hurt our cause, and society as a whole, as it results in an "us against them" mentality from both sides, galvanising both sides and ultimately resulting in narrow mindedness from both sides.

In many ways, it could be argued that those kind of tactics helped give the presidency to trump as he united those who have felt (sometimes correctly) to be under attack over the past 4-8 years by the left. He successfully unified the right mostly because of the tactics used by some within the left.

The problem is that on this issue it seems that battle lines have been drawn by both sides, when really those of us seeking to change the world should be reaching out to those we want to change. Alienating and attacking people people we want to change isn't going to change them. If one were to be cynical about it one would suspect that is because many within our movement enjoy the feeling of righteous superiority rather than wanting to change others. As a progressive very much in favour of a more inclusive and diverse society, I equally very much dislike that little voice within me that says "you're better you're not sexist/racist/etc" - that voice is hubris, it is pride, it is self-righteousness. And it is not helpful in making the world a more inclusive place. It also makes my actions and opinions on the matter all the less altruistic and noble.

Personally I very much side with the progressive movement on this issue. However I am not so blinded by my own bias as to excuse the intolerable and unhelpful behaviour of many on my side, nor turn a blind eye to the "self selection" and bias within the Neogaf groupthink. Anyone who debates that "SJWs" exist, or believes that everything done to support their agenda is positive, is blinded by their own bias.

TLR You catch more bees with honey than with vinegar. If we really want to make the world a better and more inclusive place we should be using honey, not vinegar. Fewer ban hammers and less name calling, more engagement and hope.

I really shouldn't reply again in a thread that I asked to be closed, but thanks for this great post.

 

[Byronic Hero]

I will personally boycott him now, unfortunately, I'm sure this won't affect his popularity and viewership.

Same here. I've been on the fence about him ever since he and Arin's n-word tirade in one of their earlier Game Grumps videos. Now I won't feel bad for completely ignoring everything he puts out from now on.

 

[JordanKZ]

Ironically you're probably going to get banned (i.e. suppressed) for expressing that opinion, thus proving your point. I disagree with your opinion on this issue, but I agree that you should have the right to express it and engage in respectful discussion.

Neogaf is an interesting place - when discussion on the matter comes up many people on one side (and only one side) of the debate are banned thus creating a self selected population of people and group think that is heavily (and arguably non-representatively) skewed to the progressive side. Anyone who does have a dissenting opinion is either banned, or is so afraid of being banned/dogpiled on that they do not express it. In contrast those on the other side of the issue are allowed to act with impunity, slinging unfounded accusations at the other side, calling people "sexist shit heads" etc - arguably behaviour that should result in a ban.

I think there can be an argument made that there is an issue in the tact that some in the progressive movement have chosen to take in what is an admirable goal. Equality is certainly where the world should be IMO, and something we all aspire towards. That doesn't mean that any and all tactics towards that goal are positive and helpful though - hence the term "SJW".

For example, often instead of trying to change hearts and minds of those we disagree with some of us progressives simply attack them, and demonise them. Arguably this does more to hurt our cause, and society as a whole, as it results in an "us against them" mentality from both sides, galvanising both sides and ultimately resulting in narrow mindedness from both sides.

In many ways, it could be argued that those kind of tactics helped give the presidency to trump as he united those who have felt (sometimes correctly) to be under attack over the past 4-8 years by the left. He successfully unified the right mostly because of the tactics used by some within the left.

The problem is that on this issue it seems that battle lines have been drawn by both sides, when really those of us seeking to change the world should be reaching out to those we want to change. Alienating and attacking people people we want to change isn't going to change them. If one were to be cynical about it one would suspect that is because many within our movement enjoy the feeling of righteous superiority rather than wanting to change others. As a progressive very much in favour of a more inclusive and diverse society, I equally very much dislike that little voice within me that says "you're better you're not sexist/racist/etc" - that voice is hubris, it is pride, it is self-righteousness. And it is not helpful in making the world a more inclusive place. It also makes my actions and opinions on the matter all the less altruistic and noble.

Personally I very much side with the progressive movement on this issue. However I am not so blinded by my own bias as to excuse the intolerable and unhelpful behaviour of many on my side, nor turn a blind eye to the "self selection" and bias within the Neogaf groupthink. Anyone who debates that "SJWs" exist, or believes that everything done to support their agenda is positive, is blinded by their own bias.

TLR You catch more bees with honey than with vinegar. If we really want to make the world a better and more inclusive place we should be using honey, not vinegar. Fewer ban hammers and less name calling, more engagement and hope.

Quality post. More of this please, GAF.

EDIT: Yikes, dude got banned

 

[AnyoneInCherno]

Ironically you're probably going to get banned (i.e. suppressed) for expressing that opinion, thus proving your point. I disagree with your opinion on this issue, but I agree that you should have the right to express it and engage in respectful discussion.

Neogaf is an interesting place - when discussion on the matter comes up many people on one side (and only one side) of the debate are banned thus creating a self selected population of people and group think that is heavily (and arguably non-representatively) skewed to the progressive side. Anyone who does have a dissenting opinion is either banned, or is so afraid of being banned/dogpiled on that they do not express it. In contrast those on the other side of the issue are allowed to act with impunity, slinging unfounded accusations at the other side, calling people "sexist shit heads" etc - arguably behaviour that should result in a ban.

I think there can be an argument made that there is an issue in the tact that some in the progressive movement have chosen to take in what is an admirable goal. Equality is certainly where the world should be IMO, and something we all aspire towards. That doesn't mean that any and all tactics towards that goal are positive and helpful though - hence the term "SJW".

For example, often instead of trying to change hearts and minds of those we disagree with some of us progressives simply attack them, and demonise them. Arguably this does more to hurt our cause, and society as a whole, as it results in an "us against them" mentality from both sides, galvanising both sides and ultimately resulting in narrow mindedness from both sides.

In many ways, it could be argued that those kind of tactics helped give the presidency to trump as he united those who have felt (sometimes correctly) to be under attack over the past 4-8 years by the left. He successfully unified the right mostly because of the tactics used by some within the left.

The problem is that on this issue it seems that battle lines have been drawn by both sides, when really those of us seeking to change the world should be reaching out to those we want to change. Alienating and attacking people people we want to change isn't going to change them. If one were to be cynical about it one would suspect that is because many within our movement enjoy the feeling of righteous superiority rather than wanting to change others. As a progressive very much in favour of a more inclusive and diverse society, I equally very much dislike that little voice within me that says "you're better you're not sexist/racist/etc" - that voice is hubris, it is pride, it is self-righteousness. And it is not helpful in making the world a more inclusive place. It also makes my actions and opinions on the matter all the less altruistic and noble.

Personally I very much side with the progressive movement on this issue. However I am not so blinded by my own bias as to excuse the intolerable and unhelpful behaviour of many on my side, nor turn a blind eye to the "self selection" and bias within the Neogaf groupthink. Anyone who debates that "SJWs" exist, or believes that everything done to support their agenda is positive, is blinded by their own bias.

TLR You catch more bees with honey than with vinegar. If we really want to make the world a better and more inclusive place we should be using honey, not vinegar. Fewer ban hammers and less name calling, more engagement and hope.

I fully agree. I wish everyone could read this.

I'm on the far, far left - socially and economically. And I don't distance myself from people who don't share my radical ideology; if I did, I would have no friends. Politics and ideologies aren't about locking your opponent out of the debate chamber - it's about bringing everyone together, criticising everyone's ideas (including your own), finding what works best, and then repeating that process until everyone agrees. People with opposite ideologies never switch through insults, dogpiling, namecalling and censoring - they switch by being convinced.

That's not to say that everyone deserves a platform or that everyone's opinion is equally valid. Neonazis like Steve Bannon do not deserve a platform because they posess an ideology that is inherently violent; similarly, the 0.01% of feminists who actually deserve the "anti-man" label, shouldn't be given attention because they're almost as bad as the anti-women men.

JonTron has shown some despicable behaviour. He supports some people with truly horrifying ideologies. Does this mean he's "over"? No. Does this mean he's literally worse than Hitler? No. But what happens to those who defend him? I don't think his actions can be defended, but why shouldn't we allow it to happen?

This isn't just about JonTron - NeoGaf is widely ridiculed for its echo chamber aspects. This is almost entirely the fault of the moderators, who, if they really believe in fairness, ought to stop creating such an echo chamber. Either ban political discussion or let it flourish, but don't just ban users who respectfully make points that you happen to disagree with. Sometimes, I see banned people in old threads and check out their post history to see why they were banned. More often than not, their last post was simply a polite disagreement.

I understand why the moderators are so trigger-happy. NeoGaf is huge, and it's a forum clearly meant to be completely free of trolls and arguments. However, it would be better for everyone - left wingers, right wingers, moderates and radicals, to not be put into an echo chamber. The western world is polarised, and even the smallest changes can help undo the damage that has been done. Banning someone just because they disagree with our progressive ideas only makes them further entrench themselves in their beliefs, and robs us of the chance to be exposed to much-needed criticism of our ideas, which is how we improve them and make sure they work.

 

[SomedayTheFire]

There are Twitter screencaps in this thread that show people approaching him in a calm, mannerly way and him not giving a fuck.

Nah just lay down and let them walk over you. That's the real way to deal with oppressors, racists and sexists

Spoiler

/s if that's even needed

 

[Inuhanyou]

I agree that Clinton had plenty of problems, but it's not as if Bernie was perfect either. I'm rather unhappy with how his record on SSM is whitewashed. Bernie is definitely a more progressive candidate, by a pretty decent margin in fact, but you're also going to find flaws in them.

That's true. I'm just airing my final frustrations. It was a very hectic time for everyone and emotions ran high too often for my taste for a lot of people even supposedly 'on the same side' to think straight about what was best for the country.

We can't afford to have that happen now, especially with the democratic party itself in pieces

 

[joe2187]

Someone hasn't seen their podcast titles.

Oh man... They have the most politically incorrect podcast titles and I fucking love it. "Three Fifths of a Podcast" is a particularly fantastic episode. Also anything having to do with blackface.

Aryan Resurrection needs to be the official Trump OT title.

 

[Yokai]

Anyways, him being a sexist, racist, bigot/pig/idiot, and holding no accountability to the fact he has done/said those things, has almost nothing to do with his role as president.

What? It most certainly does when your job is to literally direct the entire government of our nation. By that logic, Hitler would also be a viable candidate for president. Hell, the HRC email bullshit would also have been meaningless if that was the case.

 

[Lime]

It must be nice to be able to ignore the bigotry in video games culture and just think politics is not related to video games. I really wish I could try that one day.

Meanwhile I can't play online or go on YouTube or to conventions without meeting someone who'll say something about one being subhuman or deny one's lived experience of oppression. And some want me to coddle them to "catch more flies with sugar"? The whole liberal approach of appeasing bigots just doesn't work and they'll exploit this appeasement (this discussion is also seen in the nazi punching discussion where 'moderates' treated being a nazi as just a difference of opinion)

But you do your whole ostrich thing while some of us others are getting fucked over and harassed by far-right elements in video game culture - that's par for the course in both the industry and the culture. But just don't tell others how to handle the shitty bigot elements that denigrate one's existence and lived experience.

 

[What did he mean by this?]

The NeoGAF sweetspot for me was the whole post-GG sensitivity period where everyone was getting banned. The ban graveyards were very funny to me because it drove people to hidey holes and alt junior accounts and people cried censorship before getting squashed. It was humorous: the entitlement vs reality. But nowadays there's less and less bans happening in general, and it makes me sad and bored with the whole site.

I've been unsubbed for JonTron for years since he stopped making content on a regular basis (and stopped making funny content all together) but this is icing on the cake. He's BANNED from my life.

 

[Aroll]

Ironically you're probably going to get banned (i.e. suppressed) for expressing that opinion, thus proving your point. I disagree with your opinion on this issue, but I agree that you should have the right to express it and engage in respectful discussion.

Neogaf is an interesting place - when discussion on the matter comes up many people on one side (and only one side) of the debate are banned thus creating a self selected population of people and group think that is heavily (and arguably non-representatively) skewed to the progressive side. Anyone who does have a dissenting opinion is either banned, or is so afraid of being banned/dogpiled on that they do not express it. In contrast those on the other side of the issue are allowed to act with impunity, slinging unfounded accusations at the other side, calling people "sexist shit heads" etc - arguably behaviour that should result in a ban.

I think there can be an argument made that there is an issue in the tact that some in the progressive movement have chosen to take in what is an admirable goal. Equality is certainly where the world should be IMO, and something we all aspire towards. That doesn't mean that any and all tactics towards that goal are positive and helpful though - hence the term "SJW".

For example, often instead of trying to change hearts and minds of those we disagree with some of us progressives simply attack them, and demonise them. Arguably this does more to hurt our cause, and society as a whole, as it results in an "us against them" mentality from both sides, galvanising both sides and ultimately resulting in narrow mindedness from both sides.

In many ways, it could be argued that those kind of tactics helped give the presidency to trump as he united those who have felt (sometimes correctly) to be under attack over the past 4-8 years by the left. He successfully unified the right mostly because of the tactics used by some within the left.

The problem is that on this issue it seems that battle lines have been drawn by both sides, when really those of us seeking to change the world should be reaching out to those we want to change. Alienating and attacking people people we want to change isn't going to change them. If one were to be cynical about it one would suspect that is because many within our movement enjoy the feeling of righteous superiority rather than wanting to change others. As a progressive very much in favour of a more inclusive and diverse society, I equally very much dislike that little voice within me that says "you're better you're not sexist/racist/etc" - that voice is hubris, it is pride, it is self-righteousness. And it is not helpful in making the world a more inclusive place. It also makes my actions and opinions on the matter all the less altruistic and noble.

Personally I very much side with the progressive movement on this issue. However I am not so blinded by my own bias as to excuse the intolerable and unhelpful behaviour of many on my side, nor turn a blind eye to the "self selection" and bias within the Neogaf groupthink. Anyone who debates that "SJWs" exist, or believes that everything done to support their agenda is positive, is blinded by their own bias.

TLR You catch more bees with honey than with vinegar. If we really want to make the world a better and more inclusive place we should be using honey, not vinegar. Fewer ban hammers and less name calling, more engagement and hope.

My only ever ban here was for this exact reason, and the fact I am offering my own alternative view point again probably means I too will be banned... again. :/

And I think a lot of it is because of as you say, we all probably deep down want the same things, even if we have differeing ideas and approaches, but we need to reach across the lines and help further each other's understandings, instead of allowing hate to bate more hate.

 

[A Link to the Past]

That's true. I'm just airing my final frustrations. It was a very hectic time for everyone and emotions ran high too often for my taste for a lot of people even supposedly 'on the same side' to think straight about what was best for the country.

We can't afford to have that happen now, especially with the democratic party itself in pieces

I generally stayed out of it, but in hindsight I wish I had done more to call out people for dogpiling on Bernie supporters - not just for Bernie supporters, but also because the glow of assuredness made Hillary's loss that much more painful.

 

[Garrett Hawke]

TLR You catch more bees with honey than with vinegar. If we really want to make the world a better and more inclusive place we should be using honey, not vinegar. Fewer ban hammers and less name calling, more engagement and hope.

this

doesn't

work

the republicans just swept house with inarguably the most hostile and least inclusive political campaign run in recent years.


stop telling the left to reach around the aisle when the right is unwilling to compromise. republicans blocked every single thing obama tried to do for the past 6 years and are now doing everything they can to fuck over anyone who didn't vote for them (women, pocs, lgbt+ individuals).

 

[Doctor Avatar]

it's not ironic at all.

people on neogaf are very rarely banned for having right wing opinions. they are banned for breaking the tos:

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use NeoGAF to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law. Sexual, racial, or ethnic slurs will not be tolerated in any form and are bannable on the first offense.

which a lot of far right opinions tend to include.

So why aren't people who accuse other people of being sexist at the drop of a hat also banned?

As far as I can see they break TOS too - see bolded. Or is that form of abuse and harassment acceptable, because it is "for the cause"?

I would far rather engage someone with an opinion I disagreed with respectfully, and try to win them over, than simply resort to name calling and dismissal which seems to be the case more often than not.

Again, if we want to change those we disagree with we are not going about it in a way that will produce any change. We are not making the world a more inclusive place by name calling.

 

[MrNelson]

I feel this way too. Usually try to avoid off-topic and stick to games.

It's already been mentioned several times, but people aren't banned just because they have right-winged opinions, they are banned because they end up violating the TOS.

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use NeoGAF to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law. Sexual, racial, or ethnic slurs will not be tolerated in any form and are bannable on the first offense. It is recommended that profanity be held to a minimum in order to keep the level of discourse high, and profanity should not be used when addressing others. Though NeoGAF is an international forum, discussion is to be held in English unless otherwise designated.

If people were banned just for holding conservative views, then quite a few people that post in Off-Topic would have been perma'd long ago. The difference is that they know how to express their opinions without crossing that line.

 

[What did he mean by this?]

So why aren't people who accuse other people of being sexist at the drop of a hat also banned?

As far as I can see they break TOS too - see bolded. Or is that form of abuse and harassment acceptable, because it is "for the cause"?

I would far rather engage someone with an opinion I disagreed with respectfully, and try to win them over, than simply resort to name calling and dismissal which seems to be the case more often than not.

Again, if we want to change those we disagree with we are not going about it in a way that will produce any change. We are not making the world a more inclusive place by name calling.

Is that the "You calling me racist, makes you the real racist!" argument rearing it's intolerable head?

 

[Garrett Hawke]

So why aren't people who accuse other people of being sexist at the drop of a hat also banned?

the op of this thread has evidence of this accusation.

I would far rather engage someone with an opinion I disagreed with respectfully, and try to win them over, than simply resort to name calling and dismissal which seems to be the case more often than not.

Again, if we want to change those we disagree with we are not going about it in a way that will produce any change. We are not making the world a more inclusive place by name calling.

Not sure if you noticed but the man who just took highest office in the united states is a name caller, and he will effect a LOT of change.

 

[MazeHaze]

Yeah fuck this guy. Never heard of him before, wish it could have stayed that way.

 

[FIREKNIGHT2029]

Sounds like a complete douchebag. Good thing I don't follow him or care to know who he is.

 

[Akronis]

So why aren't people who accuse other people of being sexist at the drop of a hat also banned?

As far as I can see they break TOS too - see bolded. Or is that form of abuse and harassment acceptable, because it is "for the cause"?

I would far rather engage someone with an opinion I disagreed with respectfully, and try to win them over, than simply resort to name calling and dismissal which seems to be the case more often than not.

Again, if we want to change those we disagree with we are not going about it in a way that will produce any change. We are not making the world a more inclusive place by name calling.

Spoken like someone who's never had any of their rights threatened.

 

[joe2187]

this

doesn't

work

the republicans just swept house with inarguably the most hostile and least inclusive political campaign run in recent years.


stop telling the left to reach around the aisle when the right is unwilling to compromise. republicans blocked every single thing obama tried to do for the past 6 years and are now doing everything they can to fuck over anyone who didn't vote for them (women, pocs, lgbt+ individuals).

This.

You want to fight, fight. dont hold back when the other side doesn't call them out on their shit, just because they dont like it doesnt mean you need to stop. They dont care about your feelings, why should you give a fuck about theirs?

 

[SomedayTheFire]

So why aren't people who accuse other people of being sexist at the drop of a hat also banned?

As far as I can see they break TOS too - see bolded. Or is that form of abuse and harassment acceptable, because it is "for the cause"?

I would far rather engage someone with an opinion I disagreed with respectfully, and try to win them over, than simply resort to name calling and dismissal which seems to be the case more often than not.

Again, if we want to change those we disagree with we are not going about it in a way that will produce any change. We are not making the world a more inclusive place by name calling.

Calling a spade a spade is not abusive, nor is it harassment

this

doesn't

work

the republicans just swept house with inarguably the most hostile and least inclusive political campaign run in recent years.


stop telling the left to reach around the aisle when the right is unwilling to compromise. republicans blocked every single thing obama tried to do for the past 6 years and are now doing everything they can to fuck over anyone who didn't vote for them (women, pocs, lgbt+ individuals).

Now this is a good post. It's plainly clear to see who has and has not had their human rights infringed in here tbh.

 

[| Praxis |]

Just this guy's face made me want to headbutt my screen, but it's nice to know judging a book by its cover actually paid off in this instance.

 

[Prithee Be Careful]

There are Twitter screencaps in this thread that show people approaching him in a calm, mannerly way and him not giving a fuck.

Rome sadly wasn't built in a day and you won't win over hearts and minds in a handful of tweets, because for every good and well-mannered tweet, there's a half-dozen of the other.

Is your point of view that we should keep slinging the mud and hope for the best? I'm just looking for better solutions here - my experience is that throwing perjoratives at people rarely endears them to you or what you might have to say.

 

[HunteronX]

Spoken like someone who's never had any of their rights threatened.

So, you ignore rules because your rights are threatened?

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

Agreed, but the majority of gaf can't handle varying political opinions well.

Is sexism a political opinion? Since when?

 

[Mahonay]

I do agree saying "sexist shithead" isn't exactly constructive or helpful in anyway.

My choice of words would be more along the lines of just "disappointing".

In private on your own time say whatever you damn well please. But in general name calling on the internet doesn't result in good things. I've been guilty of it plenty of times myself and have to just scale it back.

 

[PSqueak]

. In contrast those on the other side of the issue are allowed to act with impunity, slinging unfounded accusations at the other side, calling people "sexist shit heads" etc - arguably behaviour that should result in a ban.

Reminds me of that Overwatch thread discussing Pharah were one poster siad he wouldn't mind if Pharah and Symmetra were removed from the game.

Cue a bunch of people calling him a racist shithead "who hates women of color" because "he wants the two WOC characters removed" with absolutely no second thought, even tho as they were pointed out by sane people in the thread, even if you removed Symmetra and Pharah from the game, there'd still be 4 WOC heroes, including Pharah's mother.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Rome sadly wasn't built in a day and you won't win over hearts and minds in a handful of tweets, because for every good and well-mannered tweet, there's a half-dozen of the other.

Is your point of view that we should keep slinging the mud and hope for the best? I'm just looking for better solutions here - my experience is that throwing perjoratives at people rarely endears them to you or what you might have to say.

So you're of a mind that if we patiently respond to JonTron in a civil fashion and eat his abuse without any retribution, that he will eventually realize that he is being an asshole?

 

[Basketball]

How did humanity even get to the point where "liberal" and "social justice" are negatively connotated words

I would say 2012-2013
It started from people getting more and more outraged at movies...then comedy...then games
Twitter wars everywhere strangers calling strangers names

 

[jett]

TLR You catch more bees with honey than with vinegar. If we really want to make the world a better and more inclusive place we should be using honey, not vinegar. Fewer ban hammers and less name calling, more engagement and hope.

From engaging with these "bees" I've realized they are beyond rational discourse. And I don't mean here, where they're obviously inhibited, but elsewhere where they show their true selves. For instance, I certainly don't want anything to do with people that not only won't condemn a nazi, they'll go as far as to defend them. "Just a difference of opinion." Because ethnic cleansing and considering people subhuman is just a difference of opinion. They don't deserve my time or my respect. People with certain ways of thinking don't change.

So, you know what, fuck em.

 

[Already Torn]

Calling a spade a spade is not abusive, nor is it harassment



Now this is a good post. It's plainly clear to see who has and has not had their human rights infringed in here tbh.

^^^

Dudes a piece of shit and is very vocal about how much of a piece of shit he is. No reason not to call atttention to the fact that he's a piece of shit.

Just telling it like it is, I'm sick of PC culture keeping me from calling out Jon Tron.

 

[Yokai]

So why aren't people who accuse other people of being sexist at the drop of a hat also banned?

Because calling someone out for what they are is worse than accusing people for what they choose to be?

 

[AESplusF]

My only ever ban here was for this exact reason, and the fact I am offering my own alternative view point again probably means I too will be banned... again. :/

And I think a lot of it is because of as you say, we all probably deep down want the same things, even if we have differeing ideas and approaches, but we need to reach across the lines and help further each other's understandings, instead of allowing hate to bate more hate.

I was also banned at one point, just for expressing this exact same criticism towards Gaf, albeit less eloquently. Course I wasn't a junior so it wasn't permanent...

 

[Inferno313]

So why aren't people who accuse other people of being sexist at the drop of a hat also banned?

I know you're banned, but "sexist" is an adjective, not a slur.

 

[HunteronX]

This.

You want to fight, fight. dont hold back when the other side doesn't call them out on their shit, just because they dont like it doesnt mean you need to stop. They dont care about your feelings, why should you give a fuck about theirs?

This is a self-fulfilling prophecy, isn't it?
I'm not religious, but isn't this the whole point behind "turning the other cheek"?

Why not just make yourself heard, without insults?

 

[NoFaceNico]

snip.

Ditto.

If you're incapable of disassociating someone's personal opinions with their work/content, it shows an even greater weakness on your own part. Even if it was overtly present in their content, if you're looking towards YouTubers to guide you in your voting or value decisions then that's pretty sad.

And for the record, I don't watch JonTron anymore, not because of his personal beliefs but because his content turned to shit over the past few years. If he were to start making great content again I'd resubscribe to his channel. I can think for myself, so don't worry about me.