Support NeoGAF

[Ogbert]

You're literally arguing against the established definition of a word.

I'm not though. I'm arguing against certain interpretations of the word and/or its application, such that they apply to the term *everything is political*.

A) The first definition is that of the organs of Government - agree (governmental influence)
B) The second defintion is the business of getting ahead in an office - half agree:
(i) Agree where it is behaviour that falls under the purview of national employment law i.e. equality legislation.
(ii) Do not agree where it's the idiomatic use of 'political' in terms of how you go about getting ahead. Who you make friends with etc. Government's do not and cannot influence this.

I think a lot of modern politics is about trying to categorise as much as possible in either A or B (i), so that they can control it.

Most of life is lived in B (ii).

 

[supermassiveblackhole]

If you insist on using the second definition (which is a turn of phrase, not a standard definition used by any governing body), the you need to demonstrate why that definition applies to governmental politics.

Additionally, the etymology of that usage stems directly from the standard definition. You're using slang to replace the original meaning of the term.

Most people are familiar with office politics in the workplace. Most people do not use that same definition when discussing Senators and bills, let alone the whole scope of society.

In order for the word to have any meaning, we must be precise with that meaning. I agree with

It's an established definition in established dictionaries, it's certainly not slang at this point, so let's drop that now please.

And, again, it's to highlight both the ridiculousness of the phrase and the laziness of the phrase. And I'm just talking about the specific low quality posts as called out ITT.

If you're going to contribute please use precise language and actually add some substance to your posts. It's not unreasonable to request this.

I'm not though. I'm arguing against certain interpretations of the word and/or its application, such that they apply to the term *everything is political*.

A) The first definition is that of the organs of Government - agree (governmental influence)
B) The second defintion is the business of getting ahead in an office - half agree:
(i) Agree where it is behaviour that falls under the purview of national employment law i.e. equality legislation.
(ii) Do not agree where it's the idiomatic use of 'political' in terms of how you go about getting ahead. Who you make friends with etc. Government's do not and cannot influence this.

I think a lot of modern politics is about trying to categorise as much as possible in either A or B (i), so that they can control it.

Most of life is lived in B (ii).

Circles now, we can safely drop this I think. Thanks!

 

[Ogbert]

Circles now, we can safely drop this I think. Thanks!

It's not circles though. It's just getting good.

It's the detail that matters.

Do you think Governments could, potentially, arbitrate over childrens parties?

If you're going to contribute please use precise language and actually add some substance to your posts.

More then a touch ironic to chide others for not being specific in their use of language but, at the same time, insist on stating that 'everything is political'.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

It's an established definition in established dictionaries, it's certainly not slang at this point, so let's drop that now please.

And, again, it's to highlight both the ridiculousness of the phrase and the laziness of the phrase. And I'm just talking about the specific low quality posts as called out ITT.

If you're going to contribute please use precise language and actually add some substance to your posts. It's not unreasonable to request this.

Slang is perhaps the wrong word. But if you want to rest your whole case on secondary dictionary definitions, you're right, it's not unreasonable to request that you add substance to your post.

No one considers dictionary definitions to be substantive in a political discussion. You are making an ideological statement when you say:

But politics exist even when not talking about the government. It can simply be about power struggles in a specific group, from day care mums arranging a kid's party, to workplace rivalries vying for attention.

You'll need more than a vague dictionary definition to prove that day care mums jostling for power is the same as governmental politics.

"It's all politics" is an empty truism. Why is it "all" politics? Politics are merely the expression of a society's moral underpinning.

I'll offer a counter: stop making everything about religion. You are being religious. You are pushing your religious definitions on us.

After all, "religion" is "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance"

 

[supermassiveblackhole]

Slang is perhaps the wrong word. But if you want to rest your whole case on secondary dictionary definitions, you're right, it's not unreasonable to request that you add substance to your post.

No one considers dictionary definitions to be substantive in a political discussion. You are making an ideological statement when you say:



You'll need more than a vague dictionary definition to prove that day care mums jostling for power is the same as governmental politics.

"It's all politics" is an empty truism. Why is it "all" politics? Politics are merely the expression of a society's moral underpinning.

I'll offer a counter: stop making everything about religion. You are being religious. You are pushing your religious definitions on us.

After all, "religion" is "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance"

I'm not even close to attempting to equate those things, my point has always been that the phrase I had an issue with is both not true from a factual standpoint, that language is specific, and that the phrase itself is almost always stand-alone and devoid of any actual contribution merely lamenting that "everything is too political I can't stand it!"

It's equal parts pedantry and mocking to try to highlight the fact the person in question has put too little effort in to contribute meaningfully. It was never meant to get this in depth, but as people kept insisting the 2nd definition didn't exist... here were are.

It's not circles though. It's just getting good.

It's the detail that matters.

Do you think Governments could, potentially, arbitrate over childrens parties?



More then a touch ironic to chide others for not being specific in their use of language but, at the same time, insist on stating that 'everything is political'.

No thanks.

 

[Ogbert]

No thanks.

Fair enough.

It's difficult when you have to actually justify and defend your position rather than simply throw out vacuous platitudes and patronise peoples' use of language.

 

[supermassiveblackhole]

Fair enough.

It's difficult when you have to actually justify and defend your position rather than simply throw out vacuous platitudes and patronise peoples' use of language.

I have justified my position, you're going in weird circles. Feel free, but I'm not interested.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I'm not even close to attempting to equate those things, my point has always been that the phrase I had an issue with is both not true from a factual standpoint, that language is specific, and that the phrase itself is almost always stand-alone and devoid of any actual contribution merely lamenting that "everything is too political I can't stand it!"

It's equal parts pedantry and mocking to try to highlight the fact the person in question has put too little effort in to contribute meaningfully. It was never meant to get this in depth, but as people kept insisting the 2nd definition didn't exist... here were are.

Looks like I misunderstood, then, because I agree that saying "everything is too political" is not an argument without additional evidence.

I also think that saying "everything is political" -- which is often the counterpoint -- is not an argument without additional evidence.

 

[supermassiveblackhole]

Looks like I misunderstood, then, because I agree that saying "everything is too political" is not an argument without additional evidence.

I also think that saying "everything is political" -- which is often the counterpoint -- is not an argument without additional evidence.

Agreed on both points, both need further articulation and clarifying and actual substance to back them up. Too often thrown around in lieu of actual contributions.

 

[Dr. Claus]

This isn't true.

Politics is part of your everyday life regardless of political leaning. Workplace politics, family, friends, all exist with and without influence from the party/policy line you tow.

And then there are politics that don't seem as important to you if you're not a part of the demographic or group affected. Both types exist here.

So the call for less politics is usually focused on something specific that annoys the person, or they simply don't understand how inherent it is to everything.

From a philosophical perspective, you could look at everything through the lens of politics - which is a rather silly/shitty way to live life.

Take A Hat In Time as an example (since this *IS* a gaming forum after all). It is nothing but a cute little girl trying to find time pieces to fuel her ship and get back home. It was not made to be political or have political undertones, yet people still forced their views of politics onto the game itself. This is why we had people trying to force the developers to remove content from the game, because it didn't align with their political views.

It is an asinine way to live life.

 

[supermassiveblackhole]

From a philosophical perspective, you could look at everything through the lens of politics - which is a rather silly/shitty way to live life.

Take A Hat In Time as an example (since this *IS* a gaming forum after all). It is nothing but a cute little girl trying to find time pieces to fuel her ship and get back home. It was not made to be political or have political undertones, yet people still forced their views of politics onto the game itself. This is why we had people trying to force the developers to remove content from the game, because it didn't align with their political views.

It is an asinine way to live life.

Haha, ok, I don't think I've single thing that suggests I disagree with you.

 

[Dr. Claus]

Haha, ok, I don't think I've single thing that suggests I disagree with you.

Oh, I know. I am semi-agreeing with you while throwing in an example of this idiotic "everything is political" mindset the children tend to use. Apologies if that wasn't clear.

 

[hariseldon]

From a philosophical perspective, you could look at everything through the lens of politics - which is a rather silly/shitty way to live life.

Take A Hat In Time as an example (since this *IS* a gaming forum after all). It is nothing but a cute little girl trying to find time pieces to fuel her ship and get back home. It was not made to be political or have political undertones, yet people still forced their views of politics onto the game itself. This is why we had people trying to force the developers to remove content from the game, because it didn't align with their political views.

It is an asinine way to live life.

What were people trying to remove?

 

[Ogbert]

What were people trying to remove?

They used a famous YouTuber to voice one of the characters and he said something homophobic or racist (I can't remember which) on his stream. I think his name was JohnTron.

There was then a huge campaign to get him kicked out of the game - he said about five seconds worth of dialogue - and the designers refused.

The conversation then switched to *everything is political* and if you bought the game, you were therefore a racist, homophobic, anti-Science, free market Capitalist pig dog who argued in bad faith and were therefore problematic.

 

[hariseldon]

*sigh* I should have known it would be some bullshit like that. Kill me now. Fucking kill me. FWIW the game is ok.. better then Yooka Laylee but quite annoying in places and not a patch on old-skool stuff like Croc.

 

[Musky_Cheese]

They used a famous YouTuber to voice one of the characters and he said something homophobic or racist (I can't remember which) on his stream. I think his name was JohnTron.

There was then a huge campaign to get him kicked out of the game - he said about five seconds worth of dialogue - and the designers refused.

The conversation then switched to *everything is political* and if you bought the game, you were therefore a racist, homophobic, anti-Science, free market Capitalist pig dog who argued in bad faith and were therefore problematic.

Well unfortunately for them, no one outside of their safe space gives 2 shits what they say.

They are the Wild E. Coyote of getting shit done. Didn’t they try to hurt Kingdom Come in sales or some shit?

They are less successful than the criminals Scooby Doo and Company stop every episode lol.

“We would have gotten away with it if it wasn’t for that pesky reality and the people who live in it”.

 

[Ogbert]

Didn’t they try to hurt Kingdom Come in sales or some shit?

The Kingdom Come stuff was truly hilarious. Not least as the game was an absolute stellar success.

They were angry about the fact that middle 15th Century Bohemia was presented as a bunch of white people living in villages, rolling around in mud and fighting with swords.

The next one on the Hit List is 'Last Night' by Tim Soret. I'm afraid to say that it is *highly problematic*. It presents a dystopian future where femism could lead to unitended, unattractive consequences. If there's one thing these chaps can't abide it's using science fiction to explore ideas.

Absolutely verbotten.

 

[Redneckerz]

Don't you lean more on the Libertarian / laissez faire economy side?

If so, let them have their dogs. They'll be all the more crippled and unable to usurp your own job position when they do eventually enter the job market.

We do have a Libertarian party, but they are too small to be represented in all national districts and as such they aren't on the roll when there are elections.

Even so, although i do support some views of them, there are other parties who i support more by way of tallying good points. The party that i would want however does not exist, so i have to settle for compromises.

Who are you referring to with they, by any means?

No mate, it would have taken you a few seconds to google it. If it were an actual effort involved to find the evidence required to back up my claim I would have provided links, but the fact you're too lazy to type a word into google and view the immediate results is not on me at all.

I have to disagree here. Even for more obscure points of view you can find it easily within Google, but i find this always a dead ringer point to bring forward. ''Just Google It'' does not prove you know the evidence or the exact specifics of your argument, since that's redelegated to the party who asked for said evidence in the first place.

I had this with a guy (Now a Ree mod, how bou dah) who felt Todd Howard was a lying sleazebag so i asked him to evidence this and he used this exact rhetoric. I knew what he was referring to, and i even would have agreed with some of it, but simply telling the parties who ask for said evidence to just Google it does not establish your factual interest or knowledge of the topic at hand. I don't expect people to know things exactly, but if they can relay things non-verbatim and back that up with a simple link, then that establishes his/her status as a serious discussional partner.

How am i now supposed to know that you know what you are talking about? I can look it up yes in 5 secs and be aware, but the whole request for evidence is to establish that you too also know what you are talking about, thus confirming your status as a serious discussion partner.

A long explanation, but i rather take a more friendly and explanative approach to this piece and explain why it is a poor debational tool to do so then to just say ''this isn't how that works here'' since i remembered an earlier post from you regarding political affilations. I hope you can respect that i do it this way around though.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

We do have a Libertarian party, but they are too small to be represented in all national districts and as such they aren't on the roll when there are elections.

Even so, although i do support some views of them, there are other parties who i support more by way of tallying good points. The party that i would want however does not exist, so i have to settle for compromises.

Who are you referring to with they, by any means?

"They" meaning the people who need comfort dogs to make it through the extremely dangerous and rigorous lifestyle of secondary education.

 

[supermassiveblackhole]

I have to disagree here. Even for more obscure points of view you can find it easily within Google, but i find this always a dead ringer point to bring forward. ''Just Google It'' does not prove you know the evidence or the exact specifics of your argument, since that's redelegated to the party who asked for said evidence in the first place.

Sorry, but when we're talking a two second goolge to fine the secondary definition of a word this is just ridiculous.

Person A: Politics has a secondary definition
Person B: No it doesn't
Person A: Google it, it will take you a few seconds!
Person B: No, you link me!

I hope you see why this is ridiculous. Context.

 

[Redneckerz]

"They" meaning the people who need comfort dogs to make it through the extremely dangerous and rigorous lifestyle of secondary education.

I see, thanks

Well on the show (where this was posted) one of the members attending did say what you said and added if it works..

But that's the thing: Why aren't people asking why it works? Because its a solution to a problem you don't need to have. Its just another excuse (on top of blaming college or that your kid has some kind of bracket popular disorder eg. anything that avoids saying the real truth here) to not having to admit that your kid/daughter is less equipped to something than elsewhere. That's the whole problem with modern society today imo - Kids are drilled to be perfectionist and they can't be kids anymore.

So what that your son/daughter got a C- on their exams. Flaws and fault exist to be made and to learn from them. By a compulsory obsession to avoid flaws and faults you just set your kids (or if its personal, yourself) up for anxiety/depression/fragility. To the point where you need this ridicoulous anti-stress dog to survive an exam.

Let people live their lives instead of always wanting to shelter them from negative influences.

/Rant/Rant.

Sorry, but when we're talking a two second goolge to fine the secondary definition of a word this is just ridiculous.

I would wager that using the definition argument as a valid point of discussion is not a great one either.

Even so, the general point is what i just said. Its far easier to support a cite than to be like ''Eh just Google it''. Despite that i think both sides should have taken a better discussional playground than to appeal to definitions and Google. That level of discussion is not something i would want to involve myself with, but that's just me.

 

[supermassiveblackhole]

I would wager that using the definition argument as a valid point of discussion is not a great one either.

Agreed, I was using it to call out lazy posts, as reasoned above. Venting a little frustration.

Even so, the general point is what i just said. Its far easier to support a cite than to be like ''Eh just Google it''. Despite that i think both sides should have taken a better discussional playground than to appeal to definitions and Google. That level of discussion is not something i would want to involve myself with, but that's just me.

I completely agree. But when I see a person who can't even be arsed to do a check that'll take a few seconds before they speak, I also have no problem calling that out. I understand it might not be productive, but then neither is bickering about this now so...

 

[Ogbert]

Agreed, I was using it to call out lazy posts, as reasoned above. Venting a little frustration.


I completely agree. But when I see a person who can't even be arsed to do a check that'll take a few seconds before they speak, I also have no problem calling that out. I understand it might not be productive, but then neither is bickering about this now so...

You found the definition about Children’s party yet?

Apparently party can mean up to four different things!

The good news is that each different definition is political.

 

[Cybrwzrd]

This gave me a nice chuckle.

 

[Ogbert]

This gave me a nice chuckle.

It actually misses out their favourite, being ‘bad faith’.

I am convinced they have absolutely no idea what the term means, as its closest internet equivalent is concern trolling.

 

[Kadayi]

No mate, it would have taken you a few seconds to google it. If it were an actual effort involved to find the evidence required to back up my claim I would have provided links, but the fact you're too lazy to type a word into google and view the immediate results is not on me at all.

Again, you're being absolutely absurd.

The only one being lazy and absurd around here is you if you can't do the basics necessary to support an argument, and then you have the temerity to get belligerent because you're called out on it Neomember with 87 posts to his name, most of which revolve around ResetEra as a topic it seems. Buyers remorse?

 

[supermassiveblackhole]

The only one being lazy and absurd around here is you if you can't do the basics necessary to support an argument, and then you have the temerity to get belligerent because you're called out on it Neomember with 87 posts to his name, most of which revolve around ResetEra as a topic it seems. Buyers remorse?

I love it when people get cute and try to "expose" another user as... something...

Era is a mess, we all know this. They promised an open platform for discussion, but then populated their staff with left-wing known faces that where clearly not up to impartial judgement. And... we've seen the results, the platform is caving in on itself slowly. I mean, that's my view and why I'm here hoping for better. What is it you think you're uncovering with your little detective work?

And I didn't do what you suggest I did, you came in telling me to do a few second google for you in a belligerent and snarky way and I said you were being silly, no idea why you're dragging this out.

 

[Kadayi]

I love it when people get cute and try to "expose" another user as... something...

From your days on?

Era is a mess, we all know this. They promised an open platform for discussion, but then populated their staff with left-wing known faces that where clearly not up to impartial judgement. And... we've seen the results, the platform is caving in on itself slowly. I mean, that's my view and why I'm here hoping for better. What is it you think you're uncovering with your little detective work?

And you registered here specifically to tell us all about it?

And I didn't do what you suggest I did, you came in telling me to do a few second google for you in a belligerent and snarky way and I said you were being silly, no idea why you're dragging this out.

So I'm now being belligerent and snarky? Please. Your inability to acknowledge you paucity in the art of discussion is not my cross to bear. Feel free to carry on with the projection though.

 

[Redneckerz]

Agreed, I was using it to call out lazy posts, as reasoned above. Venting a little frustration.


I completely agree. But when I see a person who can't even be arsed to do a check that'll take a few seconds before they speak, I also have no problem calling that out. I understand it might not be productive, but then neither is bickering about this now so...

 

[hariseldon]

Concern trolling is one that does my fucking head in. It's literally a perfect way to avoid having to listen to anyone who might be trying to help but thinks you're slightly off base. That and sea-lioning basically mean that proper discussion is gone from the beginning.

 

[bitbydeath]

Stop trying to spin it like you're right here, you're not. You know very well what the focus was here.

Breaks are on the individual, you decide that. Just walk away from debates. Calling for less political engagement is a stupid position, you don't need to do this to take a break.

I didn’t say to stop entirely from politics, I said less politics ie a break.

I think you misunderstood, Redneckerz got it.

 

[supermassiveblackhole]

I didn’t say to stop entirely from politics, I said less politics ie a break.

I think you misunderstood, Redneckerz got it.

I'm confused, if you follow the conversation thread between us, I agreed from you from the start that breaks were healthy, and you insisted I meant something else. I'm not sure how you think we got to this point?

 

[bitbydeath]

I'm confused, if you follow the conversation thread between us, I agreed from you from the start that breaks were healthy, and you insisted I meant something else. I'm not sure how you think we got to this point?

When you mentioned-

This couldn't be more wrong. There's never been a more crucial time to be involved in political debate. More and more people are voting now, and when we vote more we need to be engaged more.

If you don't like political debate you can ignore it, but calling for less is a call to dumb down.

Your basically saying you can’t stop, won’t stop.

 

[Redneckerz]

I'm confused, if you follow the conversation thread between us, I agreed from you from the start that breaks were healthy, and you insisted I meant something else. I'm not sure how you think we got to this point?

He means that not every aspect of life needs to be politicized or turned into a political debate or have further reaching consequences like strained relationships/friendships on the sole pretense of political views.

Which is a humane take to make because its absolutely pathetic that political allegiance in everyday friendships is a hard reason to dismiss everything your friend stands for.

 

[Domisto]

Is having a wank political?

Just want to be sure I'm not making a statement by going right handed.

 

[Wag]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/cd...is-time-from-gog-read-op.76395/#post-14077068

WTF is this?

So if you have a different opinion than the mods they ban you? I really won't be posting there very much anymore.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/cd...is-time-from-gog-read-op.76395/#post-14077068

WTF is this?

So if you have a different opinion than the mods they ban you? I really won't be posting there very much anymore.

Personally, I can see why they'd find it offensive.

But the cheek-clawing about every topic needs to change. I can hardly believe these are adults on the other end of the keyboard. They seem to hunt down sources of offense.

 

[Wag]

Personally, I can see why they'd find it offensive.

But the cheek-clawing about every topic needs to change. I can hardly believe these are adults on the other end of the keyboard. They seem to hunt down sources of offense.

I can see it too but is it a bannable offense because someone said something insensitive?

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

I can see it too but is it a bannable offense because someone said something insensitive?

No, it's not, I agree with you. The thread itself was about a topic they clearly believe is sensitive.

Selective sensitivity. How... ideological.

 

[Kadayi]

No, it's not, I agree with you. The thread itself was about a topic they clearly believe is sensitive.

Selective sensitivity. How... ideological.

Surely you mean political?

 

[MayauMiao]

The reactions here kind of prove my point. People get offended when confronted that they are not as enlightened as they think they are.

This reminds me of that Voat community that is dedicated to hating NeoGAF. They claim they were tolerant but then go crazy when you disagree with them . Kotakuinaction is like that too.

Funny enough the /neofag subs on Voat has more topics about ResetEra than NeoGaf.

 

[Ogbert]

They’re so lame.

They will whinge for months and then buy the game day one.

Pathetic, unimaginative, humourless and boring quislings.

 

[louis89]

From the CDPR tweet thread:

• User Banned (1 Month): Ignoring mod post. Downplaying transphobia. Account still in junior phase. Accumulated infractions.

I definitely understand that this tweet was in very poor taste, tone deaf and a really weak attempt to ride a trend for publicity. What I don't understand is how it's malicious to the point of people calling the entire company shitstains etc. That said - I would like the tweet to be addressed by management immediately. Silence is not good indeed.​

Someone asked me why I previously thought CDPR was progressive - I was rather involved with Gwent and the way CDPR protected their minorities from harrassment was in my opinion very refreshing. Cyberpunk 2077 looks like a game that has a strong female lead with depth. Actually strong and with depth, like Aloy, not Lara.​

Holy shit they are insane! I honestly just go there to look at the banned posts, it's pure comedy.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

- I was rather involved with Gwent and the way CDPR protected their minorities from harrassment was in my opinion very refreshing. Cyberpunk 2077 looks like a game that has a strong female lead with depth. Actually strong and with depth, like Aloy, not Lara.​

​

Aaaaand this is why ERA continues to chase away intelligent people and industry folk. Developer speaks up about the actual environment in which they worked and that's considered downplaying transphobia.

They've already reached the correct conclusion. Who are you to add personal experience and facts to the conversation?

 

[royox]

https://www.resetera.com/threads/cd...is-time-from-gog-read-op.76395/#post-14077068

WTF is this?

So if you have a different opinion than the mods they ban you? I really won't be posting there very much anymore.

At this point this is 10/10 marketing. Get some hate from 10 people so other 1000 learn about your next big game and want to buy it because they don't care about SJWarriorism.

 

[The Elite]

From the CDPR tweet thread:

• User Banned (1 Month): Ignoring mod post. Downplaying transphobia. Account still in junior phase. Accumulated infractions.

I definitely understand that this tweet was in very poor taste, tone deaf and a really weak attempt to ride a trend for publicity. What I don't understand is how it's malicious to the point of people calling the entire company shitstains etc. That said - I would like the tweet to be addressed by management immediately. Silence is not good indeed.​

Someone asked me why I previously thought CDPR was progressive - I was rather involved with Gwent and the way CDPR protected their minorities from harrassment was in my opinion very refreshing. Cyberpunk 2077 looks like a game that has a strong female lead with depth. Actually strong and with depth, like Aloy, not Lara.​

Holy shit they are insane! I honestly just go there to look at the banned posts, it's pure comedy.

Why ban anyone for that? It's a balanced and reasonable opinion.

 

[centracore]

.

 

[supermassiveblackhole]

If a post actually amounts to "I don't care" in a thread about transphobia, a temp ban or warning is justified. That kind of "difference of opinion" is pretty gross to be honest.

Up to you to decide if the examples above are justified even in this context, of course.

 

[Dr. Claus]

If a post actually amounts to "I don't care" in a thread about transphobia, a temp ban or warning is justified. That kind of "difference of opinion" is pretty gross to be honest.

Up to you to decide if the examples above are justified even in this context, of course.

Having dissenting opinions is good. It needs to be shown that a number of people simply do not care about any perceived, non existent sleights that are being leveled at them via a bloody hashtag used in an unoffensive manner. However, that doesn't roll with the "I AM ALWAYS OFFENDED" that tend to plague that site and run its moderation team.

Which you already know.

 

[hariseldon]

If a post actually amounts to "I don't care" in a thread about transphobia, a temp ban or warning is justified. That kind of "difference of opinion" is pretty gross to be honest.

Up to you to decide if the examples above are justified even in this context, of course.

Depends on whether you consider the post to be:
1. not caring about transphobia
2. considering the outrage to be over the top

I'm in the second camp - that it's not enormously clever but hardly transphobic and the shitstorm is overblown. The thing is they've cried wolf so often that it will bite them eventually. As Claus observes, it's healthy to hear dissenting opinions.