Support NeoGAF

[Papa]

I even said if I'm wrong I'm wrong but that is what I thought the term represented and even sites like Brietbart use the term to describe the movement. I am open to having my worldview challenged. If I didn't let sites like neogaf challenge and ultimately help change my worldview I would have really bad opinions on homosexuals.

I hope you are willing to have your worldview challenged as well and don't respond to it by attacking those that challenge it like the person I quoted constantly does.

A lot has happened while you've been away so it will probably take some time for you to get back into the groove. We have a broader range of people here than before the split (some would call this diversity), including many conservatives. I think most of them would object to being called alt-right or being associated with Breitbart. People who have isolated themselves in Ree Era (not saying you necessarily have) will often come back and freak out at all the wrongthinking alt-right Nazis displaying their colours in public and most of us are just tired of it at this point. It's just not true and they only think that because they've been cut off from reality for too long in their social justice echo chamber.

TrainedRage is actually one of the more chill posters here (despite being a daywalker and therefore having no soul). Dunno how you got that impression of him unless you misread his sarcasm or something.

 

[Musky_Cheese]

+1 for TrainedRage being chill but having no soul

 

[TrainedRage]

How so?



You, in particular, are one of the posters I can immediately think of that instantly attack any idea or poster that doesn't conform to your view of the world. I didn't come into this thread with any malice, I explained why I used the word I used and yet here you are attacking me based on your preconceived notion of what/who you think I am.

Here have more rope. Moderation here won't take it from you.

I'm not "attacking" you. I'm conservative, you called me alt-right. I'm not.
I just pointed out that despite me saying all this, you will still label me and other 'right wingers' alt-right. When I have really have no problem with most liberal policies.
I don't know how I gave you the impression I'm alt-right. I'm not even very political in my daily life. I just shit talk about articles I see online.

...I don't even know what you are talking about with the bolded.

 

[bitbydeath]

The posts I see here from that perspective fall outside of traditional conservative views oftentimes a more Hardline "alternative" view of the same basic positions. Hence "alt-right"

Like what?
I don't think this place is even very religious.
There's been a number of dumping religion threads which goes against the values of the right.
There's also been threads asking if they're left, centre or right and the majority was left.

Are you coming at it all from an alt-left perspective where left is also considered alt-right?

 

[Scopa]

Like what?
I don't think this place is even very religious.
There's been a number of dumping religion threads which goes against the values of the right.
There's also been threads asking if they're left, centre or right and the majority was left.

Are you coming at it all from an alt-left perspective where left is also considered alt-right?

He/she still hasn’t provided an example of this supposed heavy alt-right leaning bent the forum has.

If it follows the usual route, they will cherry-pick a single example of an off-colour post and then use it to tarnish the whole forum and then handwave away any discrepancies.

But, I’m an optimist. So, maybe this’ll be different.

 

[Papa]

He/she still hasn’t provided an example of this supposed heavy alt-right leaning bent the forum has.

If it follows the usual route, they will cherry-pick a single example of an off-colour post and then use it to tarnish the whole forum and then handwave away any discrepancies.

But, I’m an optimist. So, maybe this’ll be different.

Eh, we need to give him time to respond. I get the impression he’s genuine.

 

[DietRob]

He/she still hasn’t provided an example of this supposed heavy alt-right leaning bent the forum has.

If it follows the usual route, they will cherry-pick a single example of an off-colour post and then use it to tarnish the whole forum and then handwave away any discrepancies.

But, I’m an optimist. So, maybe this’ll be different.

I'm not going to go back to threads I've read here over the past several months and try to pick out posts that color my perspective on the "status of the site" just to satisfy you. Because, you and at least 3 other posters in this thread already have me all figured out and tucked away in my neat little box with your preconceived notions.

Speaking generally though in many liberal leaning threads I've visited there are plenty of "SJW's" , "snowflake" and disparaging leftist rhetoric being thrown around. I've been member of this site for around a decade so seeing posts like those indacates the tone of the board has shifted.

But Lord forbid I make a broad generalization with a term that I had the decency to say might be wrong. I don't see how that is fair. Practice what you are trying to preech.



As for the moderation kindly tagging my post with a "Beg to differ" .. proof is in the posts. Posters freely throwing around devisive rhetoric like "SJW", "snowflakes" or "Nazis", "Republicunts"(my word), ect.. is not conducive to conversation. It causes people to immediately shut down and go on the defensive. (I didn't realize that "alt-right" was one of those conversation stoppers, noted). That is the rope I'm talking about.

I can admit that if I'm going to continue to post here I need to tone down my rhetoric. I'm not going to be a hypocrite.

So if you all "beg to differ"....prove it. It's not something I can take your word for. Not with what I've seen of the site thus far.


Edit- and now I'm going to bed. I'll respond to anything else in the morning, I guess.

 

[Scopa]

I'm not going to go back to threads I've read here over the past several months and try to pick out posts that color my perspective on the "status of the site" just to satisfy you. Because, you and at least 3 other posters in this thread already have me all figured out and tucked away in my neat little box with your preconceived notions.

Speaking generally though in many liberal leaning threads I've visited there are plenty of "SJW's" , "snowflake" and disparaging leftist rhetoric being thrown around. I've been member of this site for around a decade so seeing posts like those indacates the tone of the board has shifted.

But Lord forbid I make a broad generalization with a term that I had the decency to say might be wrong. I don't see how that is fair. Practice what you are trying to preech.



As for the moderation kindly tagging my post with a "Beg to differ" .. proof is in the posts. Posters freely throwing around devisive rhetoric like "SJW", "snowflakes" or "Nazis", "Republicunts"(my word), ect.. is not conducive to conversation. It causes people to immediately shut down and go on the defensive. (I didn't realize that "alt-right" was one of those conversation stoppers, noted). That is the rope I'm talking about.

I can admit that if I'm going to continue to post here I need to tone down my rhetoric. I'm not going to be a hypocrite.

So if you all "beg to differ"....prove it. It's not something I can take your word for. Not with what I've seen of the site thus far.


Edit- and now I'm going to bed. I'll respond to anything else in the morning, I guess.

So, you make an accusation and refuse to supply proof and then state that others here need to “prove it”.

Yeah, I’m not buying it.

Goodnight.

Eh, we need to give him time to respond. I get the impression he’s genuine.

I like where you are coming from Matt, but he had time to respond and instead chose to ignore my questions and respond to others after my post. It was a convenient skip over until I called him/her out on it, in my opinion.

 

[Cunth]

I think we all need to go to bed. Together.

 

[DietRob]

Yeah, I’m not buying it.

Ok, *shrugs*... It's still my opinion.

 

[Kadayi]

Ok, *shrugs*... It's still my opinion.

All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.” - Douglas Adams

 

[bitbydeath]

Posters freely throwing around devisive rhetoric like "SJW", "snowflakes" or "Nazis", "Republicunts"(my word), ect

Attacking others is an offense so be sure to report them. Everyone should be showing each other respect.

 

[hariseldon]

If this place was truly the nest of alt-right that DietRob claims, it would be hard for me, as a British Labour Party* voter to remain here. My values are pretty socialist economically, and for the rest I'm a live and let live kinda guy. I don't hate white people, or straight people, because that's just as bad as hating black people and gay people, and I don't buy the power+ redefinitions of standard terms. You're welcome to paint this as an alt-right haven, but you'd be missing out on some excellent conversations - I've had very interesting chats with people on the other side of the fence since I've been here and we've both learned from each other. Don't pass up such a useful opportunity by seeking to antagonise people in a drive-by "you suck you nazi bastards" post to impress your mates at Resetera.

* Labour are waaay to the left of the dems economically, slightly more conservative socially [ie not full-on SJW] but generally friendly to gay/bi/trans/black/brown/etc

 

[Dr. Claus]

If this place was truly the nest of alt-right that DietRob claims, it would be hard for me, as a British Labour Party* voter to remain here. My values are pretty socialist economically, and for the rest I'm a live and let live kinda guy. I don't hate white people, or straight people, because that's just as bad as hating black people and gay people, and I don't buy the power+ redefinitions of standard terms. You're welcome to paint this as an alt-right haven, but you'd be missing out on some excellent conversations - I've had very interesting chats with people on the other side of the fence since I've been here and we've both learned from each other. Don't pass up such a useful opportunity by seeking to antagonise people in a drive-by "you suck you nazi bastards" post to impress your mates at Resetera.

* Labour are waaay to the left of the dems economically, slightly more conservative socially [ie not full-on SJW] but generally friendly to gay/bi/trans/black/brown/etc

Left-leaning/Liberal myself. I wouldn't be on this site if it was a "bastion" of alt-right thinking folk. DietRob is just another in a sad little conga line of people returning to spout disingenuous rhetoric without ever bringing forth evidence when confronted.

 

[DietRob]

Left-leaning/Liberal myself. I wouldn't be on this site if it was a "bastion" of alt-right thinking folk. DietRob is just another in a sad little conga line of people returning to spout disingenuous rhetoric without ever bringing forth evidence when confronted.

This is going great sjw, dick riding Anita and snowflakes.

Looks like a lovely community will remain.

A sad end to a great website.

"SJW" is like "white knight" but defending snowflakes instead of women.

Some of the best days on this forum were right after the shit storm with EvilLore and all of the super SJW mods quit. People were no longer afraid to voice normal liberal, centrist, or even right wing views. The snowflakes had an absolute meltdown. It was glorious to behold.

I love violence in games, especially if it pisses off SJW snowflakes. As long as games have adult ratings, i dont see the problem in it.

Small sampling. Somehow these will be invalid. Can't wait to find out how!

I'll do "alt-right shitheads" , "Nazi", exct.. next if I rely need to. There is plenty of devisive rhetoric to go around. I'm not singling anyone out and have admitted my own fault in the matter.

 

[hariseldon]

Left-leaning/Liberal myself. I wouldn't be on this site if it was a "bastion" of alt-right thinking folk. DietRob is just another in a sad little conga line of people returning to spout disingenuous rhetoric without ever bringing forth evidence when confronted.

No point insulting him, after all it's worth remembering that good posters lurk, and being shitty to people might put them off from becoming non-lurkers.

 

[Redneckerz]

I'm not going to go back to threads I've read here over the past several months and try to pick out posts that color my perspective on the "status of the site" just to satisfy you. Because, you and at least 3 other posters in this thread already have me all figured out and tucked away in my neat little box with your preconceived notions.

You see, that is essentially what we want to read: A well sourced out range of examples that provide verifiable evidence to the argument. I know for a fine fact that there is a discussion to be had there. The whole reason why this is asked is because prior we always ended up in a deadloop because users who say that x is bad, but they could not back it up.

How can we ever have a proper conversation on this if all we have to go with are remarks and not evidenced problematic posts?

Mind you, i am not attacking your stance here, but i hope you can understand why the request is made. It is not that we don't want that conversation, its because we want a proper conversation about this. In order to do that, we need documented posts and evidence to support your notion.

So if you all "beg to differ"....prove it. It's not something I can take your word for. Not with what I've seen of the site thus far.

That's not how this is supposed to go: You are presenting an argument, a sentiment. Then you ask the rest that we should prove you wrong. Why should we? We aren't presenting an argument here, you do. Therefore, the onus of evidence has to rely on you first. When you would have presented this, then i could point out threads that support or disagree with your notion.

I have a feeling much of your sentiment relies on the Offtopic discussion thread on ResetERA and the Politics sub-forum. Is that the case?

Have a nice sleepy night, by the way!

I think we all need to go to bed. Together.

The only one with a wet Cunth is going to be you bozo!

No point insulting him, after all it's worth remembering that good posters lurk, and being shitty to people might put them off from becoming non-lurkers.

On the other hand, there is something to be said against the common argument used there:

''T'his place does x wrong''

''Okay, can you prove that?''

Either ''here is one post'' or ''just look around LGBTer.''

ad nauseam.

I mean.. It does not really prove anything in the sense that it forfeits a basis from which we can work around with. I know Yoshi did a good attempt (admittely) some time ago, so i don't consider it impossible, at the same time, dogpiling and mocking these users is the opposite. I would want to see a better example than what is mentioned though.

 

[Dr. Claus]

No point insulting him, after all it's worth remembering that good posters lurk, and being shitty to people might put them off from becoming non-lurkers.

I am not insulting him. Just stating he is part of the same group and comparing that group to a rather sad (subjective) conga line of people.

 

[Dr. Claus]

Small sampling. Somehow these will be invalid. Can't wait to find out how!

I'll do "alt-right shitheads" , "Nazi", exct.. next if I rely need to. There is plenty of devisive rhetoric to go around. I'm not singling anyone out and have admitted my own fault in the matter.

Please explain to me how the use of "SJW" or "NPC" is indicative of the alt-right. Given the large number of left leaning folks here that use those terms, it is not a strong indicator that this place is "alt-right".

 

[Kadayi]

Small sampling. Somehow these will be invalid. Can't wait to find out how!

I'll do "alt-right shitheads" , "Nazi", exct.. next if I rely need to. There is plenty of devisive rhetoric to go around. I'm not singling anyone out and have admitted my own fault in the matter.

I'll be honest I'm not entirely sure what you're attempting to prove with any of these quotes. The fact that one of them dates back over a year makes me question your sanity. I mean jeez have you been keeping a dossier on everyone here or something?

 

[Redneckerz]

I am not insulting him. Just stating he is part of the same group and comparing that group to a rather sad (subjective) conga line of people.

''is just another in a sad little conga line of people returning to spout disingenuous rhetoric without ever bringing forth evidence when confronted. ''

I have to disagree with you there. Whilst you aren't personally insulting him specifically, the tone very much is of an attacking nature with little nuance, and it may or may not be absolutely true. I don't find it practical to label someone as part of a sad little conga line of people within a few posts that they have made. It can be demotivational, for sure.

Clearly, his statement is The forum does something wrong. Okay, then lets talk about that. Why would that be? I understand its enticing to grab a trampoline and jump ever higher on top of him and dismiss his intents but i don't think everyone having this sentiment is of the same caliber.

 

[Christopher]

I'm only here until my Resetera account is approved, then it's "bye bye, fuckers"!

You’ll be banned within a week there.

 

[DietRob]

Please explain to me how the use of "SJW" or "NPC" is indicative of the alt-right. Given the large number of left leaning folks here that use those terms, it is not a strong indicator that this place is "alt-right".

Read my posts. I've explained why the use of terms like "SJW", "snowflake", "alt-right shitheads" ect is detrimental to discussion.

God damn man is the plan here for people to keep going around my posts and picking out new things do disagree with while ignoring the context if my posts until I finally just throw up my hands and quit?

If so It's working. This shit is exhausting. I guess it's my own damn fault. For continuing to reply.

 

[DietRob]

That's not how this is supposed to go: You are presenting an argument, a sentiment. Then you ask the rest that we should prove you wrong. Why should we? We aren't presenting an argument here, you do. Therefore, the onus of evidence has to rely on you first. When you would have presented this, then i could point out threads that support or disagree with your notion.

I have a feeling much of your sentiment relies on the Offtopic discussion thread on ResetERA and the Politics sub-forum. Is that the case?

Have a nice sleepy night, by the way!


.

I'm not asking you or this community to prove anything. That part of my post was fir the moderation staff. I thought that was pretty clear.

if they beg to differ on allowing devisive rhetoric then they should prove it. Not just tag a post of mine talking about it.

 

[Redneckerz]

I'm not asking you or this community to prove anything. That part of my post was fir the moderation staff. I thought that was pretty clear.

Didn't catch that honestly. Apologies.

I'
if they beg to differ on allowing devisive rhetoric then they should prove it. Not just tag a post of mine talking about it.

See that is what my post is talking about. You mention there is an issue, but your answers to that are to just look around. I don't want that rather vague remark to be the basis on which we are ought to discuss this, hence why i am asking to represent your point with posts that prove your point.

 

[DietRob]

Didn't catch that honestly. Apologies.


See that is what my post is talking about. You mention there is an issue, but your answers to that are to just look around. I don't want that rather vague remark to be the basis on which we are ought to discuss this, hence why i am asking to represent your point with posts that prove your point.

Already did that. Read my posts.

 

[Redneckerz]

Already did that. Read my posts.

I have read these now back from the start, but i am afraid you aren't backing up your posts. What you do, is present your view. This is something different from backing up said view. I am not rejecting your opinion by any means, but what i am trying to say is to give examples of posts that showcase a problematic nature on GAF. *

Those examples should form the basis for conversation. Not just saying that there is an issue and leaving it at that.

You linked to one example only once, and that was Breitbart. Not specifically directed towards problematic posts from NeoGAF. Scopa has asked you aswell to provide examples.

Perhaps i need to illustrate this in a better manner?

*Unless you refer to posts outside this thread, which admittely, i didn't look over.

 

[DietRob]

I'll be honest I'm not entirely sure what you're attempting to prove with any of these quotes. The fact that one of them dates back over a year makes me question your sanity. I mean jeez have you been keeping a dossier on everyone here or something?

How did I know this post was coming. People keep asking me to provide proof. I do just what is asked and now I'm a crazy guy documenting posts because I got an axe to grind. SMH.

Redneckerz idk you missed them I guess. Read again.

 

[Scopa]

How did I know this post was coming. People keep asking me to provide proof. I do just what is asked and now I'm a crazy guy documenting posts because I got an axe to grind. SMH.

Redneckerz idk you missed them I guess. Read again.

Good morning. Ok, to summarise:

- You claimed alt-right
- People asked you for proof
- You refused to provide it
- People asked you again
- You quote a handful of members using the terms “SJW” and “NPC” in a rather benign fashion as apparent proof of an alt-right infestation.
- You then claim that you have provided proof and people must have missed it.

Go back to bed.

 

[Dr. Claus]

Read my posts. I've explained why the use of terms like "SJW", "snowflake", "alt-right shitheads" ect is detrimental to discussion.

God damn man is the plan here for people to keep going around my posts and picking out new things do disagree with while ignoring the context if my posts until I finally just throw up my hands and quit?

If so It's working. This shit is exhausting. I guess it's my own damn fault. For continuing to reply.

There is a major difference between terms being "detrimental" to discussion and making insinuations/claims of alt-right infestation/indoctrination/control/far-left-buzzword-of-the-week.

Your disingenuous discussion/debate tactics (moving of goalposts, strawmen arguments) are what is exhausting.

 

[Redneckerz]

Redneckerz idk you missed them I guess. Read again.

Alright, lets do that, going from this thread. Again, if you are referring to posts outside this thread, please mention this. For now, i am just focussing on the posts in this thread.

• Your first post contains your opinion. It does not however elaborate on this by way of actual posts proving your opinion.
• Your second post is a continuation of your first. Whilst these two combined present a proper opinion, they do not provide evidence to what you are talking. You are sharing a sentiment, but not an example that would corroborate your sentiment into a factual point of view.
• Your third post is a call out to another poster and as such has little to do with the first 2 posts. Mind you, i am not judging this post by any means.
• Your fourth post links to Breitbart, but this isn't referring to the problematic posts that reside on GAF, but to a broad term used in current politics and forums. As such this has little to do with the first 2 posts.
• Your fifth post is a reaction to your third. I can understand the dislike to the piling so again, i am not judging this. However, this still has little to do with your first 2 posts, which prove to be the body of your argument.
• Your sixth post is similar to your fifth and contains no examples, so i have to disregard this for this conversation.
• Your seventh post is of similar nature, so disregard. This also goes for post 8 and post 9, which are reactions to other users (including myself), suggesting to ''read my posts ''and not showcasing examples of the original opinion you brought forward in post 1 and 2.

Then at your tenth post you are requesting to me to read your posts since you state that you already proved your point with examples that proved your point. For what it is worth: I am not referring to the post where you quote a lot of users, i am talking about examples that prove your point as outlined in post 1 and 2.

Judging upon these posts, i am afraid you haven't proved your point as outlined in post 1 and 2 with examples: Posts of other users that showcase and prove the issue you are describing.

I don't think i missed anything in regard to this thread, so unless you refer to posts outside this thread, what am i missing then from this thread?

I also would want to invite P Pavaloo to this thread. I have seen you regularly like posts from users who use the ''This place is bad''' commentary and i would like to hear your position on this. Alternative opinion can be useful, which is why i appreciate Dietrob's.

 

[DietRob]

Good morning. Ok, to summarise:

- You claimed alt-right
- People asked you for proof
- You refused to provide it
- People asked you again
- You quote a handful of members using the terms “SJW” and “NPC” in a rather benign fashion as apparent proof of an alt-right infestation.
- You then claim that you have provided proof and people must have missed it.

Go back to bed.

1. I mistakingly used the term alt-right because I thought it was the name of the movement.
2. Said I was wrong using it and said I wouldn't anymore.
3. People still latched onto my using g that term because it helps them put me in a box.
4. Was asked to show posts proving to devisive rhetoric I claimed.
5. Gave some general examples.
6. Asked again for proof of devisive rhetoric.
7. Posted proof.
8. Got my sanity questioned for providing proof I was asked for.
9. Still have people latching onto my incorrect use of alt-right because reasons.
10. My entire point was/is the state of the site is not as good as it could be bc if devise rhetoric from everyone.

 

[Musky_Cheese]

Maybe agree to disagree and move on?

 

[Scopa]

Maybe agree to disagree and move on?

Yeah, I’m done with him. No further questions, your honour. Next witness.

 

[DietRob]

Redneckerz post #415.

And now my phone is on 5% so if I reply again it's going to have to be after work.

 

[Redneckerz]

Redneckerz post #415.

And now my phone is on 5% so if I reply again it's going to have to be after work.

Okay. I don't see how those posts prove a problematic nature. I do see posts that either attack you on the personal or contain terminology that i wouldn't use. Others sound more childish than they are truly problematic. These posts can be reported, as they should be.

I am looking for examples that prove GAF is a terrible and racist vile place. These posts do not show this, hence why i skipped over it initially.

If those examples (And i appreciate mentioning the exact number) are proof that GAF is:

'''It's much slower and less traffic than before so I think that really limits discussions. I've been mostly just reading and not posting since the Exodus from here. But I seem to see the same handful of either alt-right lite users arguing with the same liberal posters.

The new style of moderation has it's benefits but also huge consequences. You give these idlogical warriors an inch by tolerating abhorrent positions as long as they are well sourced they take a mile. They now have a space on the internet where they can antagonize the side they disagree with which attracts more of them.''

Then i would disagree with you on that. Those are reportable posts, and far less the abhorrent positions you refer to, in my opinion.

 

[Domisto]

It's a cynical world and sometimes labels are thrown around in mean spirited ways. That can feel bad. We could all do with a little less hostility in our lives. We should all get out into nature. Feel the grass beneath our feet. Sit around a camp fire. Get naked. And see what happens.

 

[Gunztrix]

I'm posting this so that people reading can view another perspective, so if you disagree with my view... well then cool. Also this is not a defence of resetera.

I'm a former neogaf poster who went to resetera to just follow the community. I'm a self described liberal/Democrat who likes to read both side inorder to forum my own opinion. I came back here out of curiosity to find how the site is doing.

I am on neogaf to lurk and post infrequently for the purpose of exposing myself to what I percieve as a right to far right leaning form. Sometimes I find semi-balanced conservative opinions other times I will find alt-right conspiracy threads. Either way this is one of the two sites I go to get a perspective on differing opinions.

The other site I go to is conservativesforum.com they are a small community of what appears to be heavily far right to alt right conservatives senior citizen who hate Democrats (Demoncraps) and liberals (libtards) and dedicate their time to creating an alternate reality of events by calling any negative trump news as fake news and finding news they like. It's really interesting but also really disturbing.

So to summarize I lurk and semi post on neogaf to get conservatives opinion but every once in a while I will find alt-right propoganda which I would expect from other alt-right forums.

Anyways thank you for reading and sharing.

 

[DietRob]

Okay. I don't see how those posts prove a problematic nature. I do see posts that either attack you on the personal or contain terminology that i wouldn't use. Others sound more childish than they are truly problematic. These posts can be reported, as they should be.


I am looking for examples that prove GAF is a terrible and racist vile place. These posts do not show this, hence why i skipped over it initially.

If those examples (And i appreciate mentioning the exact number) are proof that GAF is:

'''It's much slower and less traffic than before so I think that really limits discussions. I've been mostly just reading and not posting since the Exodus from here. But I seem to see the same handful of either alt-right lite users arguing with the same liberal posters.

The new style of moderation has it's benefits but also huge consequences. You give these idlogical warriors an inch by tolerating abhorrent positions as long as they are well sourced they take a mile. They now have a space on the internet where they can antagonize the side they disagree with which attracts more of them.''

Then i would disagree with you on that. Those are reportable posts, and far less the abhorrent positions you refer to, in my opinion.

Where did I ever said GAF is a terrible and racist vile place? I’m not sure where that is coming from but it’s not from me. I don’t know why the posts I linked aren’t a good enough indicator for you that the place gives cover to people by allowing them to use that sort of divisive rhetoric. I didn’t link the posts throwing disparaging names at conservative posters but those certainly exist as well and I know that because a few of the ones I could find would be mine (as I’ve already admitted a few times) and I need to be better.



I feel like maybe we are misunderstanding each other. The only thing I’ve been trying to communicate is that divisive rhetoric is not conducive to good communication because it immediately puts the attacked party on the defensive and shuts down productive conversation in favor of more bomb throwing. Allowing a community that kind of rope only strangles it and decreases the status of the board.



However, other posters here have done their best to turn my posts into an indictment on the entire board being an ‘alt-right’ haven based on my misuse of the term. I genuinely thought that was the preferred name of the movement similar to the ‘Tea Party’ people. Instead of accepting that I was wrong about the term (which I expressed a few times) these posters continued to double down on the word and just wouldn’t let it go. When really it has nothing to do with the point of the overall state of the board which I was trying to make.



I feel like you are trying to talk on the level with me so I want to make sure we aren’t talking past each other based on a misunderstanding perpetuated by other members who aren’t trying to engage on the level.

 

[Kadayi]

How did I know this post was coming. People keep asking me to provide proof. I do just what is asked and now I'm a crazy guy documenting posts because I got an axe to grind. SMH..

Clearly, you knew it was coming because you've got psych profiles on us all, from your months of study. Guilty as charged.

 

[Blam]

Maybe agree to disagree and move on?

Haha I've tried that already once and it doesn't work lol.

 

[BraveOne]

Small sampling. Somehow these will be invalid. Can't wait to find out how!

I'll do "alt-right shitheads" , "Nazi", exct.. next if I rely need to. There is plenty of devisive rhetoric to go around. I'm not singling anyone out and have admitted my own fault in the matter.

There's even a user on here who admits to being friends with Skin Heads,

 

[Douche McBaggins The 3rd]

I got warned for mentioning that ajit pai has some of the most magnificent dick sucking lips I've ever seen in my life. If you put those lips on a woman, thats money.

 

[ramuh]

Breath of fresh air is what it is. The ability to state your view on something that might not be mainstream (outside of stupid shit like racism, anti- whatever etc) and not get dogpiled is quite nice. There is like a buffer, instead of you having to read every word you write and be like could this be offensive, could this? And the best part is getting corrected. Not by insinuations about who and what you are, but with facts, anecdotes, and just people exchanging ideas. The mods have done an excellent job in allowing discourse without it getting stupid for the sake of the community. No "history of trolling, serious infraction" crap. It's amazing! I'm enjoying the topics and dialogue (albeit with less population) more than I ever have as a member/lurker.

 

[Papa]

I’d rather we all just eat some cement, harden the fuck up, and stop handwringing about “divisive rhetoric”. This isn’t a hugbox anymore.

 

[TBiddy]

There's even a user on here who admits to being friends with Skin Heads,

I think some of my friends are pretty racist. Does that make me a bad person? I also have friends who are quite left-leaning. Does that equal it out, perhaps?

 

[Cunth]

I’d rather we all just eat some cement, harden the fuck up, and stop handwringing about “divisive rhetoric”. This isn’t a hugbox anymore.

I don't like the way it sticks to my teeth. Maybe I'm supposed to eat it after it sets. Shit.

 

[Douche McBaggins The 3rd]

I’d rather we all just eat some cement, harden the fuck up, and stop handwringing about “divisive rhetoric”. This isn’t a hugbox anymore.

If Mayweather jr comes out of retirement, the hugbox will return

 

[Airola]

It seems the problem here comes from the clash of annoying terms.

He used the word "alt-right" and people get up on barricades. Others use the words SJW and snowflake and such and he has gone up on barricades.

We call each other with all kinds of loaded words and terms and somehow think that would do any good to a discussion. No, all it does is that it makes one group of people laugh at the inside jokish insult and irritate the people the words are used towards. One side calls the other side alt-right and racist and whatever else and that makes them angry and frustrated because those terms paint a picture they don't feel they are. One side calls the other side SJW and alt-left and snowflakes and whatever else and that makes them angry for the same reasons.

It's now got to the point where people don't necessarily even look at actual writings or actions, but are just seeing if certain terms are being used. Like "what, did you just call me alt-right! You must be leftist sjw asshole because you use that word." and "what, did you just call me a snowflake! You must be a nazi because you use that word." Ironically most of these terms end up being used by the other side too in one way or another. You call me alt-right, well you are alt-left! He's calling me a snowflake, we'll he's the real snowflake! He says I'm fascist nazi, well actually the real fascist are the left! He's telling me I'm a fragile sjw, well he's the one who is the epitome of male fragility! I'm 100% sure NPC will be used by the other side at some point too.

EDIT:
I have to say that you guys gave a bit too hard time to DietRob. It's actually pretty rare that after being called out on falsely using the word "alt-right" someone would own up to that mistake even the amount of what DietRob did. Then he's being asked to give examples and when he gives some his sanity is being questioned. That's not too far from whatever dogpiling and discussion tactics were used in OldGaf.

 

[Scopa]

It seems the problem here comes from the clash of annoying terms.

He used the word "alt-right" and people get up on barricades. Others use the words SJW and snowflake and such and he has gone up on barricades.

We call each other with all kinds of loaded words and terms and somehow think that would do any good to a discussion. No, all it does is that it makes one group of people laugh at the inside jokish insult and irritate the people the words are used towards. One side calls the other side alt-right and racist and whatever else and that makes them angry and frustrated because those terms paint a picture they don't feel they are. One side calls the other side SJW and alt-left and snowflakes and whatever else and that makes them angry for the same reasons.

It's now got to the point where people don't necessarily even look at actual writings or actions, but are just seeing if certain terms are being used. Like "what, did you just call me alt-right! You must be leftist sjw asshole because you use that word." and "what, did you just call me a snowflake! You must be a nazi because you use that word." Ironically most of these terms end up being used by the other side too in one way or another. You call me alt-right, well you are alt-left! He's calling me a snowflake, we'll he's the real snowflake! He says I'm fascist nazi, well actually the real fascist are the left! He's telling me I'm a fragile sjw, well he's the one who is the epitome of male fragility! I'm 100% sure NPC will be used by the other side at some point too.

That doesn’t change the fact that he made an accusation and didn’t provide evidence to back it up.

It’s been a tactic used excessively since the GAF enema, where an old member pops in for the first time and then takes a jab at the posters here with broad and insulting generalisations and very little to no proof.

It is totally understandable that some of us have no patience for it anymore and call it out immediately.

It’s quite simple. If someone wants to come in here and label our userbase as predominantly “alt-right”, as a veiled insult, then they can pony up with the evidence. That is more courtesy than what they would be afforded at their usual hangouts.