Support NeoGAF

[prag16]

Well, I'll be calling it out when it inevtiably happens in a conversation vs me, and I hope we all keep an eye out for it. This is a very common occurance in online conversations and it happens everywhere regardless of political leaning, no group is immune to it.

As you should. I'd say I report more posts from conservatives on here than liberals. I don't like it when people make my "side" look bad, heh.

 

[Blam]

''Punished''

Just one hint at

and ERA goes

Meanwhile us folks @ GAF present ourselves in an educated manner (most of the times)

Yeah pretty much that's what they did when they saw the bowsette mod for BotW

 

[Arkage]

But this is a leap in logic, Arkage, and I speak as one of the conservatives who posted a lot in that thread.

The response to one highly-divisive issue doesn't indicate the overall leanings of a website. Heck, you'd be hard-pressed to convince me that it indicates a lean among the users who replied in that thread. I saw a lot of posts in there saying "as a Democrat/Liberal/Progressive, I can't condone this". Opinions in one thread cannot be extrapolated as representative of each user's opinions, let alone the consensus of the entire website.

"If the site was 50/50, we would've seen more of a 50/50 in supporting him vs wanting a different nominee" is a leap.

However, let's assume it is not a leap. Even so, when applying that standard to a general thread about economics or public assistance, it does end up with the 50/50 you're describing, if not leaning heavily to the LEFT. But I wouldn't take that as evidence that GAF is heavily left-leaning.

While a more serious statistical look would be helpful, anecdotally it should be noted that this whole conversation was started up due to a left leaning individual and 7 of his friends finding this site too strongly partisan, essentially a political polar opposite of ree without the mod banhammer issue. I, and even apparently a right leaner like Corrik, agree there is an overall partisan swing of this site when you can count on a single hand the number of self-described liberals on the forum that post in Politics with any regularity. I would bet money on this, especially the drive-by posts. A few weeks ago I was actually going to tally up one of the pages on Kavanaugh and how the comments leaned back when I was posting in it, because it was like 70% pro-Kav (which had a significant number of posts just making general shitposts about liberals), 15% neutral, and 15% anti-Kav all of which was a single liberal user (forget who exactly) rebutting multiple users. While I didn't read every single page, it certainly was the overall tone, and one that carries over to people like the individual and his friends this conversation started with.

Also the titles of threads in general lead to a right leaning feel when many of them are "Have Democrats lost their mind?" or etc. There's barely any Trump trolling on this site in comparison. I'd bet money a thread title tally would also illustrate the partisan lean, though it's gotten a bit better since Dev1 stopped creating his conspiracy threads on the Clintons every day.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

While a more serious statistical look would be helpful, anecdotally it should be noted that this whole conversation was started up due to a left leaning individual and 7 of his friends finding this site too strongly partisan, essentially a political polar opposite of ree without the mod banhammer issue. I, and even apparently a right leaner like Corrik, agree there is an overall partisan swing of this site when you can count on a single hand the number of self-described liberals on the forum that post in Politics with any regularity. I would bet money on this in, especially the drive-by posts. I few weeks ago I was actually going to tally up one of the pages on Kavanaugh and how the comments leaned back when I was posting in it, because it was like 70% pro-Kav (which had a significant number of posts just making general shitposts about liberals), 15% neutral, and 15% anti-Kav all of which was a single liberal user (forget who exactly) rebutting multiple users. While I didn't read every single page, it certainly was the overall tone, and one that carries over to people like the individual and his friends this conversation started with.

I take no issue with your assessment of the pro-Kav posts. Your gut is probably right: 70% were pro-Kav myself included.

I take issue with your further assessment that because of that distribution of posts in that thread, then that was evidence the posters in that thread were more right-leaning or that the forum in general is right leaning due to the results of that thread.

Unless am I misunderstanding you?

I concede that the posts in that thread were overwhelmingingly pro-Kav. I don't take the same leap to assume the same ratio of posters were Right-leaning or that the forum in general is right leaning based on that evidence?

This would be built on the assumption that supporting Kav = right-leaning and even I don't agree with that assumption, as someone who is right-leaning in plenty of areas.

Also the titles of threads in general lead to a right leaning feel when many of them are "Have Democrats lost their mind?" or etc. There's barely any Trump trolling on this site in comparison. I'd bet money a thread title tally would also illustrate the partisan lean, though it's gotten a bit better since Dev1 stopped creating his conspiracy threads on the Clintons every day.

The Trump-trolling ones need to step their game up, then. I just posted a thread about impeaching Trump and if I can do it, so can the Left-leaners.

Again, I don't equate # of threads on a topic to be a direct confirmation of the partisan lean or bias of the overall forum. Maybe that topic is just hot? I do agree that some threads start off with a very biased OT and -- personally -- I try to avoid that. I can only do my own part.

 

[Arkage]

I take no issue with your assessment of the pro-Kav posts. Your gut is probably right: 70% were pro-Kav myself included.

I take issue with your further assessment that because of that distribution of posts in that thread, then that was evidence the posters in that thread were more right-leaning or that the forum in general is right leaning due to the results of that thread.

Unless am I misunderstanding you?

I concede that the posts in that thread were overwhelmingingly pro-Kav. I don't take the same leap to assume the same ratio of posters were Right-leaning or that the forum in general is right leaning based on that evidence?

This would be built on the assumption that supporting Kav = right-leaning and even I don't agree with that assumption, as someone who is right-leaning in plenty of areas.


The Trump-trolling ones need to step their game up, then. I just posted a thread about impeaching Trump and if I can do it, so can the Left-leaners.

Again, I don't equate # of threads on a topic to be a direct confirmation of the partisan lean or bias of the overall forum. Maybe that topic is just hot? I do agree that some threads start off with a very biased OT and -- personally -- I try to avoid that. I can only do my own part.

It's the pro-Kav stuff combined with the partisan swing of the more hyperbolic thread titles combined with the partisan swing of the # of drivebys one may see when browsing any given political thread. It certainly isn't a definitive conclusion but it's a strong gut feeling that other users have felt themselves. Which is why I wanted those 8 guys to join, as I stated earlier even just 8 more left leaners would likely balance it out significantly since it's not like there's a ton of users in the political threads to begin with who are attempting a real dialogue.

I did see your impeach Trump post.... dare I post in it?

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

It's the pro-Kav stuff combined with the partisan swing of the more hyperbolic thread titles combined with the partisan swing of the # of drivebys one may see when browsing any given political thread. It certainly isn't a definitive conclusion but it's a strong gut feeling that other users have felt themselves. Which is why I wanted those 8 guys to join, as I stated earlier even just 8 more left leaners would likely balance it out significantly since it's not like there's a ton of users in the political threads to begin with who are attempting a real dialogue.

My observation is that the left-leaning arguments presented can be very emotionally-driven and emotionally-charged, and I don't necessarily count yours among them, which is why you and I always seem to get along even when we're constantly disagreeing.

The "If you support [this], then you must really be some sort of awful [that]" characterization included in a high number of very-left-leaning opinions posted on this site is not something I see nearly as much of from "middle" or right-leaning opinions. There is animosity from left-leaning posters toward non-left-leaning posters based on who they support, and I don't really see the opposite. The refusal to stick to some common rules of debate and conversation is very prevalent among the very-left-leaning members here.

Maybe I'm blind to it? I just don't see people grousing with characterizations like "well you're a Democrat so of course you would side with a murderer like that" except sometimes between a very narrow number of posters, and half the time gets moderated. For instance, I don't see people jumping into Cybrwzrd's thread with immediate mockery of Warren "LOL who would believe her? SJW feminist hahahaha Pocahontas" instead of engaging with her proposal, do you?

I think the left-leaning posters could do well to slow down and hammer out their proposals instead of resorting to such aggravated outbursts whenever they are challenged to prove themselves. We're all guilty of it. Sometimes it's fun and games. Sometimes a hot-take is oh-so sweet, but when the callouts start happening the not-far-left-leaning posters are more than happy to debate and defend themselves but with the far-left-leaning posters... lots of them abandon ship or say "lol why would I talk to those transphobic idiots?"

I did see your impeach Trump post.... dare I post in it?

I'm not baiting. I posted my opinion right at the start. Other posters seem to have given little more than hot-takes so far, so I dunno.

 

[bigedole]

I will say that I am clearly on the small government side of the political spectrum and outside of the Kavanaugh thread I've debated with many of the people I was agreeing with inside of it. I think there are some blinders on if you consider the Kavanaugh situation as a purely partisan one, and I would tend to agree with Matt that conflating an appreciation for classical western liberalist values and Conservatives is a dangerous game to play for anyone calling themselves a Democrat.

 

[Arkage]

My observation is that the left-leaning arguments presented can be very emotionally-driven and emotionally-charged, and I don't necessarily count yours among them, which is why you and I always seem to get along even when we're constantly disagreeing.

The "If you support [this], then you must really be some sort of awful [that]" characterization included in a high number of very-left-leaning opinions posted on this site is not something I see nearly as much of from "middle" or right-leaning opinions. There is animosity from left-leaning posters toward non-left-leaning posters based on who they support, and I don't really see the opposite. The refusal to stick to some common rules of debate and conversation is very prevalent among the very-left-leaning members here.

Maybe I'm blind to it? I just don't see people grousing with characterizations like "well you're a Democrat so of course you would side with a murderer like that" except sometimes between a very narrow number of posters, and half the time gets moderated. For instance, I don't see people jumping into Cybrwzrd's thread with immediate mockery of Warren "LOL who would believe her? SJW feminist hahahaha Pocahontas" instead of engaging with her proposal, do you?

I think the left-leaning posters could do well to slow down and hammer out their proposals instead of resorting to such aggravated outbursts whenever they are challenged to prove themselves. We're all guilty of it. Sometimes it's fun and games. Sometimes a hot-take is oh-so sweet, but when the callouts start happening the not-far-left-leaning posters are more than happy to debate and defend themselves but with the far-left-leaning posters... lots of them abandon ship or say "lol why would I talk to those transphobic idiots?"


I'm not baiting. I posted my opinion right at the start. Other posters seem to have given little more than hot-takes so far, so I dunno.

It may because I am personally subjected to ad hominems. It was bad in the Kavanaugh thread at first with stuff like this and this. Posts like this one isn't a drive by but just a long angry diatribe, which also crop up pretty often common. The right won't call you a racist, they'll call you a monkey brained asshole zombie. "NPC" is literally a catchphrase designed for driveby shitting on liberals and has been seeping into the conversation more.

I'm also unsure of what liberal posters you're talking about that do the "you must be a [x] if you believe [x]" stuff. Can you link?

 

[Helios]

Meanwhile us folks @ GAF present ourselves in an educated manner (most of the times)

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

It may because I am personally subjected to ad hominems. It was bad in the Kavanaugh thread at first with stuff like this and this. Posts like this one isn't a drive by but just a long angry diatribe, which also crop up pretty often common. The right won't call you a racist, they'll call you a monkey brained asshole zombie. "NPC" is literally a catchphrase designed for driveby shitting on liberals and has been seeping into the conversation more.

I'm also unsure of what liberal posters you're talking about that do the "you must be a [x] if you believe [x]" stuff. Can you link?

I'd rather not hunt down specific users, but I will use specific quotes that you can look up if you need to:

Typical racist douche Trump supporter.
Hes your typical narcissistic boomer Canadian conservative. Nothing more.
Welcome to your typical conservative idiot
Hilarious! The typical Republican hypocrisy is stunning.

You can tell I put a lot of time into searching because they all have one word in common.

Anyway, I'm not sure it matters. I don't label or lump you into a group based on your affiliation. And since people said they felt it was too much of a generalization, I've also stopped using broad terms like "the right",. After all, I would be on "the right" for some issues yet I didn't call you a monkey brained asshole zombie, did I? When I frame my arguments by saying "the right" or "the left" then proceed to make a sweeping statement, it is my opinion is that I am contributing to the problem.

I'm worn out from the scorekeeping, honestly. Either an opinion is backed up by sound argument or it isn't. I don't care for the tone policing and I don't care for the tally-keeping on how "balanced" the forum is. I also don't care for the concern about how their isn't "enough" concern for certain issues, or the strange false equivalencies like "oh, so now that Trump says something it's fine but when..." sort of drive-bys. All of that nonsense is divisive and petty.

What I do see happening is that everyone is calling one another out. The ones who appear to be struggling and getting hit the hardest are the sort of posters who were previously accustomed to saying "well that's racist" without scrutiny and are now required to back up their statements. I would wager their ideology has become sloppy and as a result they cannot hold their argument nearly as well as the conservatives/middles who've had to defend their standpoints for much longer against much tougher opposition.

 

[Arkage]

I'd rather not hunt down specific users, but I will use specific quotes that you can look up if you need to:

Typical racist douche Trump supporter.
Hes your typical narcissistic boomer Canadian conservative. Nothing more.
Welcome to your typical conservative idiot
Hilarious! The typical Republican hypocrisy is stunning.

You can tell I put a lot of time into searching because they all have one word in common.

Anyway, I'm not sure it matters. I don't label or lump you into a group based on your affiliation. And since people said they felt it was too much of a generalization, I've also stopped using broad terms like "the right",. After all, I would be on "the right" for some issues yet I didn't call you a monkey brained asshole zombie, did I? When I frame my arguments by saying "the right" or "the left" then proceed to make a sweeping statement, it is my opinion is that I am contributing to the problem.

I'm worn out from the scorekeeping, honestly. Either an opinion is backed up by sound argument or it isn't. I don't care for the tone policing and I don't care for the tally-keeping on how "balanced" the forum is. I also don't care for the concern about how their isn't "enough" concern for certain issues, or the strange false equivalencies like "oh, so now that Trump says something it's fine but when..." sort of drive-bys. All of that nonsense is divisive and petty.

What I do see happening is that everyone is calling one another out. The ones who appear to be struggling and getting hit the hardest are the sort of posters who were previously accustomed to saying "well that's racist" without scrutiny and are now required to back up their statements. I would wager their ideology has become sloppy and as a result they cannot hold their argument nearly as well as the conservatives/middles who've had to defend their standpoints for much longer against much tougher opposition.

Ah I should've used that search function as well In any case I agree the score keeping is needless, but I still agree with Corrik/supermassiveblackhole about conservative lean, a broader category.

 

[mekes]

I’m left leaning myself but I’m glad the politics sub forum exists and I’ve only been in that section once since the change was adopted. Browsing Era honestly soured me on political discussion on forums as a whole, not that I was heavily into it, but I would browse and make the occasional comment. Eras version of political discussion is name calling and ban baiting people who have a different view. Kind of maddening to read and even worse to participate in. The mods are as stupid as the crowd that fill the political threads.

“Fuck that guy”
“They need to die tbh”
“Banned for (insert gibberish)”
“White people”
“Yikes”
“Womp”
“So you support racist views, sexism and killing children?”

 

[farmerboy]

I’m left leaning myself but I’m glad the politics sub forum exists and I’ve only been in that section once since the change was adopted. Browsing Era honestly soured me on political discussion on forums as a whole, not that I was heavily into it, but I would browse and make the occasional comment. Eras version of political discussion is name calling and ban baiting people who have a different view. Kind of maddening to read and even worse to participate in. The mods are as stupid as the crowd that fill the political threads.

“Fuck that guy”
“They need to die tbh”
“Banned for (insert gibberish)”
“White people”
“Yikes”
“Womp”
“So you support racist views, sexism and killing children?”

You forgot,"....... is a piece of shit"
Everything and everyone is a piece of shit. I can't believe how many times they use this phrase.

Its almost like they're bereft of critical thought......

 

[Boss Mog]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/‘s...forms-make-them-a-target-of-harassment.75286/
These idots make it seem like it's men who wanted short skirts but when school uniforms were first introduced the skirts were down the the ankles and it's the girls that campaigned relentlessly over decades to get them to become shorter and shorter. These people really want to destroy the boundaries between male and female, clamouring for unisex pants and shirts. Why not shave everyone heads while we're at it., then we can truly all be comrades.

 

[Ribi]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/‘sexualized-and-fetishized-’-british-girls-say-school-uniforms-make-them-a-target-of-harassment.75286/
These idots make it seem like it's men who wanted short skirts but when school uniforms were first introduced the skirts were down the the ankles and it's the girls that campaigned relentlessly over decades to get them to become shorter and shorter. These people really want to destroy the boundaries between male and female, clamouring for unisex pants and shirts. Why not shave everyone heads while we're at it., then we can truly all be comrades.

there's always a "men were a mistake" reply in those types of threads lol

 

[Yoshi]

I’m left leaning myself but I’m glad the politics sub forum exists and I’ve only been in that section once since the change was adopted. Browsing Era honestly soured me on political discussion on forums as a whole, not that I was heavily into it, but I would browse and make the occasional comment. Eras version of political discussion is name calling and ban baiting people who have a different view. Kind of maddening to read and even worse to participate in. The mods are as stupid as the crowd that fill the political threads.

“Fuck that guy”
“They need to die tbh”
“Banned for (insert gibberish)”
“White people”
“Yikes”
“Womp”
“So you support racist views, sexism and killing children?”

"communist"
"emotional"
"hypocrisy"
"trannies"
"reeee"
"sjw"
"liar"
"murderer" (in the context of abortion rights"
"look at what <that minority person> did"

There are many simple minded, unsubstantiated catch phrases and behaviours on the right as well.

 

[supermassiveblackhole]

Yeh, centre and the right all have vocal minorities using language like the above. Framing the left like they're exclusive here is very dishonest.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Yeh, centre and the right all have vocal minorities using language like the above. Framing the left like they're exclusive here is very dishonest.

There are many simple minded, unsubstantiated catch phrases and behaviours on the right as well.

Slow down. Who is framing it like "the left" are the only ones using explosive language? Why the constant tone-policing and balance-checking?

 

[supermassiveblackhole]

Slow down. Who is framing it like "the left" are the only ones using explosive language? Why the constant tone-policing and balance-checking?

There are people ITT doing this, framing the left as overly emotional and the centre and right as more rational.

The truth is the left, the centre, the right all have vocal minorities who use language like the above and don't engage in productive discourse. Era is a mess, but it is a vocal minority of the left.

Every single left leaning person I know outside of the internet would agree that Era is full of ridiculous emotional nonsense, these people are not the standard.

 

[Blam]

There are people ITT doing this, framing the left as overly emotional and the right as more rational.

Which imo is wrong and both sides are equally the same

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

There are people ITT doing this, framing the left as overly emotional and the centre and right as more rational.

I'm looking for the broad-stroke statements like "every Democrat" or "everyone on the Left" and I'm not seeing it, but this is quite a long thread. When you say "framing" that is what I expect to see.

Calling out specific statements, specific reactions, or specific ideologies as overly emotional is an observation that can be weighed and measured. This isn't "framing" though. If someone is mischaracterizing their opponent by appealing to strawman terms, call it out.

However, vague statements like "ohhh geez guys, quit trying to point out flaws on The Left when you have those same problems" and then not calling out those problems is... what's the term? Disingenuous? Arguing in bad faith?

Also, let's not forget the context: dozens of pages in this thread have been spent arguing over claims that NeoGAF is "right-leaning". Therefore, the evidence for how it has plenty of left-leaning and far-left-leaning posters was presented, weighed, and measured.

Don't change the subject when your own claims are being challenged by evidence. If you feel like entire conversations are being cut short by drive-bys like "lol that's something the stupid Left would say" then point it out.

You cannot pivot by claiming "well...we all have vocal minorities who say crazy stuff".

Okay, so where was that admission when you insisted that GAF was right-leaning?

Pick an argument and stick with it.

The truth is the left, the centre, the right all have vocal minorities who use language like the above and don't engage in productive discourse. Era is a mess, but it is a vocal minority of the left.

Every single left leaning person I know outside of the internet would agree that Era is full of ridiculous emotional nonsense, these people are not the standard.

This doesn't address what I am saying:

What is the need for tone-policing and keeping an internal balance sheet of all the wrongthink posted by each side? It is as though some posters in this thread and in other threads are bothered when a negative impression of "the Left" exists and they react accordingly, i.e. behave in an overly emotional way.

There is a whole lot of defense of "the Left" that amounts to nothing more than a critique of how the Left is being "framed". Since you can't actually dismiss the very real, very hysterical behavior of certain people from "the Left", the next best thing is to criticize those who bring it up as not being "balanced".

I do hope that isn't your intention, but it is definitely how it comes across, not just from you but from the bulk of posters who are rising to the defense of "the Left".

 

[supermassiveblackhole]

Your concern over my intent is misplaced. This thread has plenty of exmaples that validate the posts your questioning.

This is not about tone policing, you'll notice I didn't call for people to change. I'm sharing my observations. I have no interest in attempting to control how this place operates, if it pans out that Gaf becomes the better place of the two for discourse I will stay.

This thread itself is highly emotional anyway, lots of banned users venting for example. I'd personally say it doesn't matter as much here for that reason, if it spills to other discussions then we'll start running into similar issues as Era. I think that specific concern isn't a valid one.

 

[supermassiveblackhole]

Is a valid one*

Sorry for the double post, I didn't realise there was a time limit on edits.

Also I'm going to concede at this point as I'm too lazy right now to find the posts in question, and if I'm making these claims I should be providing examples.

I won't mention this again unless I decide to put more effort in. I'll call it out if I see it in future, though.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Is a valid one*

Sorry for the double post, I didn't realise there was a time limit on edits.

Also I'm going to concede at this point as I'm too lazy right now to find the posts in question, and if I'm making these claims I should be providing examples.

I won't mention this again unless I decide to put more effort in. I'll call it out if I see it in future, though.

Please do. I'll try to hold myself accountable as well. I agree that in general making broad statements and characterizing others to "win" is unhealthy for the forum regardless of who is doing it. As long as we can call out specific bullcrap and not worry about the rest, it opens space for good conversation (from my optimistic vantage point).

 

[Yoshi]

I'm looking for the broad-stroke statements like "every Democrat" or "everyone on the Left" and I'm not seeing it, but this is quite a long thread. When you say "framing" that is what I expect to see.

Unquantified statements are often read as allquantified ones. "The left does" talks about the whole group, if you were just talking about some people, you'd have to say "some on the left". This distinction is not being made. It is particularly hypocritical if this type of misbehaviour that is being criticised (non-rational form of discussion, self-elevation, talking others down) is very present on the own site as well and is readily demonstrated in this very place, as well.

In some ways, you could boil down left vs right positions not to a general differnece in rationality vs. emotionality, but in empathy vs. egoism (where the latter sounds negative, but it is not meant as such in this context). Emotional and rational aspects come into play in most topics on both sides, though of course there are topics, where either both sides are acting predominantly emotional (e.g. the matter of abortion or privacy vs. security), there are topics where the right typically leans on the more emotional side (e.g. weapons, scientific education vs. religious indoctrination, minority rights such as gay marriage) and there of course are topics where the left typically leans on the more emotional side (e.g. speech policing, migration, lgbt / gender issues beyond legal rights), finally there are also topics that both sides are typically leaning rational in their arguments (especially fiscal issues, social security). This is of course broad strokes and not everyone on the left is alike, neither is everyone on the right, but in terms of rationality, both sides have their more rational and their more emotionally laden topics.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Unquantified statements are often read as allquantified ones. "The left does" talks about the whole group, if you were just talking about some people, you'd have to say "some on the left". This distinction is not being made.

Compared to a month ago, I really do think people have been more mindful about specifying to whom they are referring and trying not to make broad strokes.

The distinction is being made. I've made it. Others have made it. To say the distinction is not being made is false. Is the distinction sometimes not being made? Sure, but this goes back to the issue of score-keeping and tone-policing. What's the point?

It is particularly hypocritical if this type of misbehaviour that is being criticised (non-rational form of discussion, self-elevation, talking others down) is very present on the own site as well and is readily demonstrated in this very place, as well.

This reveals more about your own mindset than it does about the situation itself. You seem trapped by the idea that "GAF" is a single entity. You've leveled numerous accusations that GAF is a "hivemind" and other similar monikers.

Therefore, you feel justified in pointing out this "hypocrisy" whenever it suits you.

Sorry, but unless you can point to specific users who are posting conflicting opinions, then you are performing the same sort of generalization that you're complaining about a few sentences up.

In some ways, you could boil down left vs right positions not to a general differnece in rationality vs. emotionality, but in empathy vs. egoism (where the latter sounds negative, but it is not meant as such in this context). Emotional and rational aspects come into play in most topics on both sides, though of course there are topics, where either both sides are acting predominantly emotional (e.g. the matter of abortion or privacy vs. security), there are topics where the right typically leans on the more emotional side (e.g. weapons, scientific education vs. religious indoctrination, minority rights such as gay marriage) and there of course are topics where the left typically leans on the more emotional side (e.g. speech policing, migration, lgbt / gender issues beyond legal rights), finally there are also topics that both sides are typically leaning rational in their arguments (especially fiscal issues, social security). This is of course broad strokes and not everyone on the left is alike, neither is everyone on the right, but in terms of rationality, both sides have their more rational and their more emotionally laden topics.

This is true, both sides have their emotionally-laden topics.

 

[Yoshi]

This reveals more about your own mindset than it does about the situation itself. You seem trapped by the idea that "GAF" is a single entity. You've leveled numerous accusations that GAF is a "hivemind" and other similar monikers.

I said present on this site, not everyone on this site is a right winger who resorts to such behaviour. Where do you read anything about GAF as a single entity here? Or about hivemind? When I want to talk about echo chamber aspects, I name them as such, here I absolutely was not talking about this at all.

Compared to a month ago, I really do think people have been more mindful about specifying to whom they are referring and trying not to make broad strokes.

A month ago is not a long time. I cannot really say if this is true because I haven't been active enough to really spot a such a difference within a single month. If I gain that impression it will be reflected in my future statements, of course.

The distinction is being made. I've made it. Others have made it. To say the distinction is not being made is false. Is the distinction sometimes not being made? Sure, but this goes back to the issue of score-keeping and tone-policing. What's the point?

One posting that I am referring to is this one: https://www.neogaf.com/threads/off-...eep-it-in-here.1462647/page-91#post-253510242
Because yes, from my perspective it is the case that you are selective in your reading if you - evne within the context of GAF identify such behaviour specifically with the left. The precise tactics and vocabulary used differs, but the condescending nature of speech is the same.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I said present on this site, not everyone on this site is a right winger who resorts to such behaviour. Where do you read anything about GAF as a single entity here? Or about hivemind? When I want to talk about echo chamber aspects, I name them as such, here I absolutely was not talking about this at all.

You said the hypocricy is "very present" on this site, which would then be easy to prove by showing specific posters who are specifically contradicting themselves.

But that's not what you're saying. You're saying that it is hypocritical to criticize poor arguments if "that side" is also making similar arguments.

I can't take you seriously when you pretend to be neutral:

But, well, NeoGAF now has a hive mind mentality too, which is very apparent in how a lot of people deal e.g. with Nobody_Important. It is not a moderation enforced hive mind, so chances are it will improve over time, but currently, there is a pretty big right-leaning bias here.

So which one is it? Does GAF have a hive mind mentality or not? Is that a sweeping characterization or not?

A month ago is not a long time. I cannot really say if this is true because I haven't been active enough to really spot a such a difference within a single month. If I gain that impression it will be reflected in my future statements, of course

You've been active enough to stick by your stance that this is a "hive mind" and that GAF "leans heavily to the right" though.

One posting that I am referring to is this one: https://www.neogaf.com/threads/off-...eep-it-in-here.1462647/page-91#post-253510242
Because yes, from my perspective it is the case that you are selective in your reading if you - evne within the context of GAF identify such behaviour specifically with the left. The precise tactics and vocabulary used differs, but the condescending nature of speech is the same.

Nope, you're reading into it what you want to read into it. When you say "the tactics and vocabulary used differs, but the nature remains the same" then you are ascribing meaning to my words while ignoring my actual words. Poor "argument" technique and you can cut that out. My actual quotes:

included in a high number of very-left-leaning opinions posted on this site

My observation is that the left-leaning arguments presented can be very emotionally-driven and emotionally-charged, and I don't necessarily count yours among them

Maybe I'm blind to it? I just don't see people grousing with characterizations like "well you're a Democrat so of course you would side with a murderer like that" except sometimes between a very narrow number of posters, and half the time gets moderated.

There is animosity from left-leaning posters toward non-left-leaning posters based on who they support, and I don't really see the opposite. The refusal to stick to some common rules of debate and conversation is very prevalent among the very-left-leaning members here.

I think the left-leaning posters could do well to slow down and hammer out their proposals instead of resorting to such aggravated outbursts whenever they are challenged to prove themselves. We're all guilty of it. Sometimes it's fun and games. Sometimes a hot-take is oh-so sweet, but when the callouts start happening the not-far-left-leaning posters are more than happy to debate and defend themselves but with the far-left-leaning posters... lots of them abandon ship or say "lol why would I talk to those transphobic idiots?"

Show me on the doll where I made sweeping characterizations towards "the Left"? Everything I said is full of words like "some" and "opinions" and "can be" in order to specifically avoid painting a whole group of people with that behavior. My goal was to call out the behavior. You seem more interested in commenting on the "lean" and the "bias" of the website based on your own observations -- which you admit may not be all that accurate because you "haven't been active enough".

 

[Kadayi]

there's always a "men were a mistake" reply in those types of threads lol

Surely projection that being the result of men, that they are the mistake? No

 

[Yoshi]

You said the hypocricy is "very present" on this site, which would then be easy to prove by showing specific posters who are specifically contradicting themselves.

I have given specific examples of behaviour that I deem comparable to what has been criticised on left-leaning examples. I will not call out specific posters, but the list I gave above should be sufficient to easily find examples.

But that's not what you're saying. You're saying that it is hypocritical to criticize poor arguments if "that side" is also making similar arguments.

I saying it is hypocritical if it is portrayed as a specifically left problem and I mean specifically you and quite a few other posters who complain about "communists" and "reeing" and so on in this topic (which I, again, will not call out by name).

I can't take you seriously when you pretend to be neutral:

I never said I was neutral. I am far left leaning and in fact have been for a long while. I was always just greated as "that communist" by my Latin teacher and while I think this is inaccurate, I certainly am significantly left of e.g. Bernie Sanders (and I'd argue: A significant portion of Resetera). What I did claim is that I was not speaking about this topic at that time. So a quote of something I have said in a different topic and a different discussion does not have any relevance to this statement.

You've been active enough to stick by your stance that this is a "hive mind" and that GAF "leans heavily to the right" though.

If this has changed - which I cannot observe so far - I will gladly note that. A change of average posting behaviour is hard to make out within just one month.

So which one is it? Does GAF have a hive mind mentality or not? Is that a sweeping characterization or not?

From my impression: Yes. It is a characterisation of the forum, not each invidiual user, it is more of a structural observation; corresponding sympthoms have been discussed on the previous postings: Heavy tendencies in headline of threads, right-leaning viewpoints being extraordinarily over represented (e.g. the Kavanaugh case) and aggressive behaviour towards people who have opposing viewpoints with the most crass example being Nobody_Important .

Show me on the doll where I made sweeping characterizations towards "the Left"?

I am refering to your select excerpts numbering from 1-5.
2: Insinuating an increased emotionality and reduced rationality with left leaning people as a specific property of left leaning people. The fact that emotionally charged responses can occur on left leaning posters is insiginificant by itself, as it is framed it implies a specific property that is worth noting on left leaning people over right leaning people.
4: Specifically saying left leaning posters without quantification. Animosity towards people for who they support is something that can be observed on both sides pretty well, but you not only note it specifically on the left without quantification, you even claim it does not happen on the right. It does. And it even does with hilarious misattributions (not to say this is not also something happening on the left, I say this just to contrast your claim it does not happen on the right), e.g. "cultural marxism" (the only purpose of such a crass mischaracterisation can be to slander people who think positively about Marx' body of work), or e.g. complaints as to how one could dare to say something more nuanced about a Resetera mod, how complaints about the abuse towards Nobody_Important is playing his advocate and how one could dare to say a "little helper" did something harmless in one specific posting.
5: Strong case of us / them: Look at how you describe the behaviour of "left leaning posters" (unquantified first, later "many") and how you describe the behaviour "not-far-left-leaning" posters.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I have given specific examples of behaviour that I deem comparable to what has been criticised on left-leaning examples. I will not call out specific posters, but the list I gave above should be sufficient to easily find examples.

I saying it is hypocritical if it is portrayed as a specifically left problem and I mean specifically you and quite a few other posters who complain about "communists" and "reeing" and so on in this topic (which I, again, will not call out by name).

But I don't complain about "communists" or "reeing", so you're brushing me with a generalization that doesn't apply to me, committing the same sin that you're whining about.

You've missed the point (or you're choosing to dodge it) anyway: finding individual examples doesn't prove an overall bias, lean, or an echo chamber. That's the point you're relying on when you claim it's unfair to broadly characterize "the left", yet here you are using specific, isolated examples to characterize "NeoGAF".

I never said I was neutral. I am far left leaning and in fact have been for a long while. I was always just greated as "that communist" by my Latin teacher and while I think this is inaccurate, I certainly am significantly left of e.g. Bernie Sanders (and I'd argue: A significant portion of Resetera). What I did claim is that I was not speaking about this topic at that time. So a quote of something I have said in a different topic and a different discussion does not have any relevance to this statement.

Sorry, but you don't get to make broad statements about the whole site and then cry that I include your own statements from across the site as a counter-argument.

So, I'll repeat myself: why do you pretend to be neutral in one topic and expect to be treated as such when you are making such broad mischaracterizations of your own? You are the boy who cried wolf.

If this has changed - which I cannot observe so far - I will gladly note that. A change of average posting behaviour is hard to make out within just one month.
From my impression: Yes. It is a characterization of the forum, not each indvidiual user, it is more of a structural observation; corresponding sympthoms have been discussed on the previous postings: Heavy tendencies in headline of threads, right-leaning viewpoints being extraordinarily over represented (e.g. the Kavanaugh case) and aggressive behaviour towards people who have opposing viewpoints with the most crass example being Nobody_Important .

Then you are characterizing the forum while complaining (or making a "structural observation") that people on the forum are characterizing others. And then calling them hypocrites while you're at it.

You contradict yourself repeatedly.

I am refering to your select excerpts numbering from 1-5.
2: Insinuating an increased emotionality and reduced rationality with left leaning people as a specific property of left leaning people. The fact that emotionally charged responses can occur on left leaning posters is insiginificant by itself, as it is framed it implies a specific property that is worth noting on left leaning people over right leaning people.
4: Specifically saying left leaning posters without quantification. Animosity towards people for who they support is something that can be observed on both sides pretty well, but you not only note it specifically on the left without quantification, you even claim it does not happen on the right. It does. And it even does with hilarious misattributions (not to say this is not also something happening on the left, I say this just to contrast your claim it does not happen on the right), e.g. "cultural marxism" (the only purpose of such a crass mischaracterisation can be to slander people who think positively about Marx' body of work), or e.g. complaints as to how one could dare to say something more nuanced about a Resetera mod, how complaints about the abuse towards Nobody_Important is playing his advocate and how one could dare to say a "little helper" did something harmless in one specific posting.
5: Strong case of us / them: Look at how you describe the behaviour of "left leaning posters" (unquantified first, later "many") and how you describe the behaviour "not-far-left-leaning" posters.

This gives me a lot of insight into how you view things, but there's still none of the broad categorization that you are accusing the site of. It also is rather telling that you would pick apart a post that was clearly made with deference and caveats to avoid labeling people, yet throw up your hands and feign innocence when you are getting called to the carpet to explain your own biases.

After all, I was merely making "structural observations". So why are my statements broad-brush mischaracterizations but yours aren't? If you're going to invent fake rules to hide behind, at least stick to them.

Up to this point, you have leveled the following accusations:
1) NeoGAF is heavily right-leaning.
2) NeoGAF is hypocritical because it mocks things that take place on its forum and then doesn't mock other times that same behavior takes place.
3) NeoGAF is an echo chamber.

You've proven none of that. In fact, your existence on this forum and your posts in this thread are evidence against your own standpoints. Go ahead and continue making the same accusations, but please don't whine in the corner about how hypocritical the forum is being when not everyone agrees with being labeled an "echo chamber" and "heavily right leaning".

 

[Blam]

Yoshi and DunDunDunpachi I've been watching both of you go back and forth for who know how long and it doesn't seem like it's gonna end. I'd say roughly you've both written maybe 20+ pages each of stuff to talk about (did not read it as it was wayy to much to read).

I dunno if that's a good indicator but you guys should probably call it quits lol.

 

[Yoshi]

But I don't complain about "communists" or "reeing", so you're brushing me with a generalization that doesn't apply to me, committing the same sin that you're whining about.

The wording was maybe a bit imprecise: I was referring to you, as well as some other people which i do not want to name, because the are not part of the discussion. Those other people you may identify by some of the commonly used phrases above, for instance reeing and calling people communists who have said nothing that indicates specific communist positions. So I was talking about a group you are part of and gave indicators as how you could identify on your own who else I might mean without wanting to say that everyone in that group uses that vocabulary or to state that you do. I am unaware if you use this vocabulary or not.

You've missed the point (or you're choosing to dodge it) anyway: finding individual examples doesn't prove an overall bias, lean, or an echo chamber. That's the point you're relying on when you claim it's unfair to broadly characterize "the left", yet here you are using specific, isolated examples to characterize "NeoGAF".

As I stated numerous times, I did not want to discuss this topic here, I was talking about something else. You brought it up, but that's all. Therefore I "dodged" it, because it was off topic from my point of view. Anyway, yes, finding individual examples does not prove an overall bias, a look at the quantity of this does though. And the headlines in the politics subforum and the discourse there is hard right leaning and this is the reason I am calling echo chamber characteristics. What do you want from me here? Shall I give formal criteria for thread titles to be tendentious and and right leaning positions to be dominant and then go through the politics subforum and give you hard statistics on that? That's an awful lot of work for something to do in my freetime and just to show you that my use of a word is justified, without any consequences outside of the discussion. I will not do this. What I did give you, was indicators you can use yourself to see the high prevalance yourself on the go.

Sorry, but you don't get to make broad statements about the whole site and then cry that I include your own statements from across the site as a counter-argument.

I was not talking about the whole site in this topic, you brought up a statement I made at a different time and a different place about the whole site. Here, I was talking about oversimplification, vilification and absolutist positions phrased with formulaic statements not being a characeristic of the left, but something that occurs on both sides pretty evenly, just with different vocabulary. You made it about the whole site, but just because I talked about some issue at one point, I am not talking about it at all time.

So, I'll repeat myself: why do you pretend to be neutral in one topic and expect to be treated as such when you are making such broad mischaracterizations of your own? You are the boy who cried wolf.

Where did I claim to be neutral and on what topic? Where did I voiced the expectation to be treated as neutral whatsoever?

Then you are characterizing the forum while complaining (or making a "structural observation") that people on the forum are characterizing others. And then calling them hypocrites while you're at it.

You contradict yourself repeatedly.

We are talking about very different things here and your reframing of what I say in a completely wrong context is the reason you perceive a contradiction.

It also is rather telling that you would pick apart a post that was clearly made with deference and caveats to avoid labeling people

Now that's rich, you have sliced the poting in parts and specifically asked me to state where I can observe the criticised behaviour in that posting, what exactly were you expecting as an answer?

yet throw up your hands and feign innocence when you are getting called to the carpet to explain your own biases.

I have no idea what you are talking about here. I do not even recall a point where I wa asked to explain my own biases.

Up to this point, you have leveled the following accusations:
1) NeoGAF is heavily right-leaning.
2) NeoGAF is hypocritical because it mocks things that take place on its forum and then doesn't mock other times that same behavior takes place.
3) NeoGAF is an echo chamber.

1) Yes, indeed.
2) No, specific people on the right are hypocritical, as evident here. I did not say NeoGAF as a whole is.
3) Yes, indeed.

What kind of proof do you require? This is not hard science, even if I invested the time to give you statistics on that, we would then run into an argument on whether my stated criteria for right leaning positions is valid ("Hey, innocent until proven guilty is not a right position is it?" - I hope people saying this are well-aware they are being dishonest and they are not that dense to actually believe the issue was one of deciding a court verdict) when all of this is a pretty individual thing, because even the definition of what is left and what is right is not universal.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

The wording was maybe a bit imprecise: I was referring to you, as well as some other people which i do not want to name, because the are not part of the discussion. Those other people you may identify by some of the commonly used phrases above, for instance reeing and calling people communists who have said nothing that indicates specific communist positions. So I was talking about a group you are part of and gave indicators as how you could identify on your own who else I might mean without wanting to say that everyone in that group uses that vocabulary or to state that you do. I am unaware if you use this vocabulary or not.

As I stated numerous times, I did not want to discuss this topic here, I was talking about something else. You brought it up, but that's all. Therefore I "dodged" it, because it was off topic from my point of view. Anyway, yes, finding individual examples does not prove an overall bias, a look at the quantity of this does though. And the headlines in the politics subforum and the discourse there is hard right leaning and this is the reason I am calling echo chamber characteristics. What do you want from me here? Shall I give formal criteria for thread titles to be tendentious and and right leaning positions to be dominant and then go through the politics subforum and give you hard statistics on that? That's an awful lot of work for something to do in my freetime and just to show you that my use of a word is justified, without any consequences outside of the discussion. I will not do this. What I did give you, was indicators you can use yourself to see the high prevalance yourself on the go.


I was not talking about the whole site in this topic, you brought up a statement I made at a different time and a different place about the whole site. Here, I was talking about oversimplification, vilification and absolutist positions phrased with formulaic statements not being a characeristic of the left, but something that occurs on both sides pretty evenly, just with different vocabulary. You made it about the whole site, but just because I talked about some issue at one point, I am not talking about it at all time.


Where did I claim to be neutral and on what topic? Where did I voiced the expectation to be treated as neutral whatsoever?

We are talking about very different things here and your reframing of what I say in a completely wrong context is the reason you perceive a contradiction.

Now that's rich, you have sliced the poting in parts and specifically asked me to state where I can observe the criticised behaviour in that posting, what exactly were you expecting as an answer?

I have no idea what you are talking about here. I do not even recall a point where I wa asked to explain my own biases.

1) Yes, indeed.
2) No, specific people on the right are hypocritical, as evident here. I did not say NeoGAF as a whole is.
3) Yes, indeed.

What kind of proof do you require? This is not hard science, even if I invested the time to give you statistics on that, we would then run into an argument on whether my stated criteria for right leaning positions is valid ("Hey, innocent until proven guilty is not a right position is it?" - I hope people saying this are well-aware they are being dishonest and they are not that dense to actually believe the issue was one of deciding a court verdict) when all of this is a pretty individual thing, because even the definition of what is left and what is right is not universal.

Yoshi, you insist on making baseless statements and then saying that you don't want to spend your free-time on backing them up. It's clear that I've spent my time poorly in trying to understand where you are coming from. Continue your accusations. I'll concede the argument at this point.

 

[Yoshi]

Yoshi, you insist on making baseless statements and then saying that you don't want to spend your free-time on backing them up. It's clear that I've spent my time poorly in trying to understand where you are coming from. Continue your accusations. I'll concede the argument at this point.

Then tell me how you want me to back them up other than with completely unrealistic statistical analysis or with calling out uninvolved users by name (which at the same time you can just write off as individual examples insufficient to prove an echo chamber). I am not generally unwilling to give you more elaborate reasonings according to your preference, but the measures that I would know of are either an unreasonable amount of work or easily dismissed and pretty rude towards uninvolved individuals.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Then tell me how you want me to back them up other than with completely unrealistic statistical analysis or with calling out uninvolved users by name (which at the same time you can just write off as individual examples insufficient to prove an echo chamber). I am not generally unwilling to give you more elaborate reasonings according to your preference, but the measures that I would know of are either an unreasonable amount of work or easily dismissed and pretty rude towards uninvolved individuals.

I don't need you to prove your standpoints. You can have your opinions and I'm not here to talk you out of them.

Just stop propping them up as "structural observations" if you insist on accusing the rest of the forum of being a hypocritical, heavily right-leaning echo-chamber for doing the same thing, that's all.

 

[Redneckerz]

Yoshi and DunDunDunpachi might as well give it up at this point lol.

I feel like if this convo which seems to have gone nowhere is still continuing then it's never gonna end. Then you might as well end it because lol you've both written maybe 20 pages worth of stuff. (heads up i've not read a single word of it)

Pretty much. Whilst i appreciate that Yoshi and others have alternative voices, i am tired by the pedantic nature of the former.

Sadly my English isn't as advanced as DunDun's to express what felt off about Yoshi's mannerisms so i just chose to throw it behind a character: Questions things from the sidelines, just enough (And on everything.) so it puts the attention on him. I don't feel the interest is sincere. I also think he is a spokesperson for other users which amuses me since these folks can perfectly stand their ground on their own as of late.

3) Yes, indeed.

Then you need to prove that beyond just words.

Mind you, i do think there is a case of dogpiling around against anyone that regurgitates this kind of sentiment - As is readily apparent coming from this post - but i never see that sentiment being put to a scale of evidences. The one user who made a whole thread out of it, got proven wrong aswell and was simply throwing a tantrum.

For what it is worth: I am left leaning (European style, not US style).

 

[Boss Mog]

Kadayi I just wanted to say I love your new avatar.

 

[mekes]

"communist"
"emotional"
"hypocrisy"
"trannies"
"reeee"
"sjw"
"liar"
"murderer" (in the context of abortion rights"
"look at what <that minority person> did"

There are many simple minded, unsubstantiated catch phrases and behaviours on the right as well.

Sure. But what is the right leaning gaming forum where you’d be expected to agree with what you posted or face being banned?

 

[Cunth]

The new alt-right "NPC" meme is legitimately terrifying

This has got to be the most blatant example of dehumanizing in modern US politics. Where did it even come from? I'm assuming 4chan or Russian trolls.

/Russian trolls

 

[JordanN]

I was just about to post that thread.

Check out another Slayven hot take.
https://www.resetera.com/threads/th...imately-terrifying.75478/page-4#post-13912143

Bwahahaha. I think Resetera found their first NPC mod. He's programmed to say the dumbest things.

 

[prag16]

I was just about to post that thread.

Check out another Slayven hot take.
https://www.resetera.com/threads/th...imately-terrifying.75478/page-4#post-13912143

Bwahahaha. I think Resetera found their first NPC mod. He's programmed to say the dumbest things.

Haha the examples in that OP legit had me chuckling out loud.

It's a funny meme. And now I know what Kadayi 's new avatar is referencing. Perfection.

 

[King of Foxes]

I was reading the spanking thread and had to leave when i read some npc comment "i have been a victim of spanking and im still traumatized".

Those people are true npcs

 

[JordanN]

I was reading the spanking thread and had to leave when i read some npc comment "i have been a victim of spanking and im still traumatized".

Those people are true npcs

The average Reset user.

 

[ILLtown]

This guy copped a one week ban for "Antisemitism" for this post in a thread about boycotting RDR2, solely because he used the word "sheckels": -

Oh I will show em, I will boycott the game, wrote the thousand hypocrites either on or with their devices in their pockets, made by children earning cents an hour overseas.

If the terrible working conditions where true, then I don‘t condone it whatsoever, as any sane person would do. But let‘s not kid ourselves in thinking the boycotting crowd wouldn’t buy it anyway and simply boasting about online how they won‘t. And if they truly stick to it, then their couple sheckels won‘t matter anyway.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/ro...ockstars-response.74873/page-50#post-13874802

Another user calls his use of that word "coded antisemitism" and an "Alt Right dog whistle", hahaha! Fucking lunacy.

 

[Yoshi]

Sure. But what is the right leaning gaming forum where you’d be expected to agree with what you posted or face being banned?

I never said I was aware of one or talking about one, The moderation enforced nature is pretty specific to Resetera.

Mind you, i do think there is a case of dogpiling around against anyone that regurgitates this kind of sentiment - As is readily apparent coming from this post - but i never see that sentiment being put to a scale of evidences. The one user who made a whole thread out of it, got proven wrong aswell and was simply throwing a tantrum.

What kind of evidence do you expect?

Sadly my English isn't as advanced as DunDun's to express what felt off about Yoshi's mannerisms so i just chose to throw it behind a character: Questions things from the sidelines, just enough (And on everything.) so it puts the attention on him. I don't feel the interest is sincere. I also think he is a spokesperson for other users which amuses me since these folks can perfectly stand their ground on their own as of late.

Using stupid italicised terms does not make you wrong statements any more correct. Claiming I am insincere in my postings is pretty offensive, but since there is no way of proving intent, I will not be able to "prove" the contrary. I'll just state it is a pretty wild accusation to which I respond just this once.

I don't need you to prove your standpoints. You can have your opinions and I'm not here to talk you out of them.

Just stop propping them up as "structural observations" if you insist on accusing the rest of the forum of being a hypocritical, heavily right-leaning echo-chamber for doing the same thing, that's all.

I did not accuse the forum in this topic, you made it about that former point. If you ask for evidence for those claims, then at least provide what kind of evidence you demand, or leave me alone. What is the use of complaining about a lack of evidence when you do not even specify what you expect?

 

[Cunth]

There is some serious butt hurt about npc meme on era

 

[ostrichKing]

This guy copped a one week ban for "Antisemitism" for this post in a thread about boycotting RDR2, solely because he used the word "sheckels": -



https://www.resetera.com/threads/ro...ockstars-response.74873/page-50#post-13874802

Another user calls his use of that word "coded antisemitism" and an "Alt Right dog whistle", hahaha! Fucking lunacy.

I think the ban is an overreaction (like many to most over there)...but to say that shekels is never used in an antisemitic way is completely misunderstanding how the word has commonly been used (particularly in English speaking countries) in recent years. Look at any neo-nazi, far-right site and see if you notice a trend in how the word is used. Look at how practically every Jewish publication reacted when Eric Trump used the word to describe Woodward's book. To pretend like it's an innocent word that never has any connotations is pure ignorance.

 

[Kadayi]

I think the ban is an overreaction (like many to most over there)...but to say that shekels is never used in an antisemitic way is completely misunderstanding how the word has commonly been used (particularly in English speaking countries) in recent years. Look at any neo-nazi, far-right site and see if you notice a trend in how the word is used. Look at how practically every Jewish publication reacted when Eric Trump used the word to describe Woodward's book. To pretend like it's an innocent word that never has any connotations is pure ignorance.

Devils Triangle much?

 

[Sub_Level]

"communist"

I agree with your post except for this one. There actually are self described communists on resetera heh