GAF (and other forums) are stricter than Facebook and Twitter combined!

[e&e]

Maybe because the scope of each platform is different and mods are quicker to post bans/warnings than Facebook/Twitter. Also someone mentioned earlier, Facebook and Twitter have small recruitment groups that I don’t think would fly around here...

 

[HE1NZ]

GAF should probably get stricter. It's swarming with reeeturners now, worse than 4chan with glowies. Most reeeturners here are not to have a conversation but to gloat.

 

[SF Kosmo]

GAF should probably get stricter. It's swarming with reeeturners now, worse than 4chan with glowies. Most reeeturners here are not to have a conversation but to gloat.

Check how many have been capped in the ban log though.

 

[Nobody_Important]

GAF should probably get stricter. It's swarming with reeeturners now, worse than 4chan with glowies. Most reeeturners here are not to have a conversation but to gloat.

I don't think people should be banned just for returning. If they return and behave like asses sure, but otherwise a bigger community isn't a bad thing.


And gloating isn't bannable. Otherwise the whole politics section would be a graveyard lol

 

[Piku_Ringo]

Yeah, I love realities that ignore evidence. You can pretend everything's peachy and even try and force us to pretend with you, it doesn't make you right, it makes you the same sort of coward running all these other tech sites.

rest in pepperonis brother

 

[Catphish]

It's not about having ban-able offenses in your ToS. It's about enforcing the ToS selectively, which I have yet to see happen here.

 

[Birgitte2004-2]

Fringe views, hateful ideologies, and nuthouse conspiracy theories aren't welcome.

If I get banned for asking I'll risk it, but how is the people on this site who supported the violence, rioting, CHAZ from this summer, and stuff like CRT and the 1619 project not "Fringe views, hateful ideologies, and nuthouse conspiracy theories" that deserve a ban?

Or for that matter 4 years of "Russian collusion stole the election" was ok, but it's now a nuthouse conspiracy to think that the Dems did the same thing?

 

[SF Kosmo]

If I get banned for asking I'll risk it, but how is the people on this site who supported the violence, rioting, CHAZ from this summer, and stuff like CRT and the 1619 project not "Fringe views, hateful ideologies, and nuthouse conspiracy theories" that deserve a ban?

Or for that matter 4 years of "Russian collusion stole the election" was ok, but it's now a nuthouse conspiracy to think that the Dems did the same thing?

Democrats didn't want to stage a revolution over Russian collusion. They established and independent council and they investigated it and found smoke but no fire and that was the end of it.

This shit is way more out there, a grandiose conspiracy involving anyone and everyone by any means anyone can think of and everyone is culpable and then it's being used as a justification for violence. That last part I think is where the line really gets drawn.

 

[e&e]

If I get banned for asking I'll risk it, but how is the people on this site who supported the violence, rioting, CHAZ from this summer, and stuff like CRT and the 1619 project not "Fringe views, hateful ideologies, and nuthouse conspiracy theories" that deserve a ban?

Or for that matter 4 years of "Russian collusion stole the election" was ok, but it's now a nuthouse conspiracy to think that the Dems did the same thing?

I’ll engage the Whataboutism argument this time:

Really? No really...

*Looks at what has happened this week because of eLeCtIoN FrAuD...

 

[B-universe]

Fringe views, hateful ideologies, and nuthouse conspiracy theories aren't welcome. Liberals, Conservatives, Libertarians, etc. are welcome. Some temporary concessions had been made due to the POTUS personally leading many Americans on with what would otherwise be fringe lunacy, as it's relevant to broader political discussion, but that's over. It's time to exist in reality.

That's a development.

Throughout my time on GAF I've tried to stress the point that nobody is owed anything outside of so-called negative rights, and that owners of platforms do have the legitimacy to kick anybody out, for whatever reason seen as appropriate. Naturally, the same rationale applies to GAF. You own GAF. Therefore you have the right to decide who you're going to deny or offer the IT infrastructure you pay from your own pockets.

But it does rub me the wrong way that you can say with disconcerting ease that "temporary concessions" have been made to a certain demographic during a period when GAF was in shambles, with extremely low post and member count, a demographic I myself am not part of, since I'm not a Trumpist, but nonetheless a demographic that quite possibly sustained GAF though that long arduous crossing of the post-2017 dessert, so to speak. And now that a very apparent influx of left-wing posters has boosted traffic, now that Trump is discredited and on his way out, suddenly those "temporary concessions" expire and the demographic is no longer welcome. I am truly and terribly sorry, but I wouldn't have to think long and hard to find a word ending in -ism that just might reasonably describe this kind of behaviour.

GAF is not an airport, so one doesn't have to announce one's departure. But please check your inbox. You'll find a request for a perma-ban from me.

 

[EviLore]

That's not an accurate representation of my position at all. You're free to be a Trump supporter here, as with being a Biden supporter, same as before. I was referring to the notion that the election was stolen in a "sacred landslide," which prompted the disgraceful Capitol Incident. The Trump admin had ample opportunity to prove this landslide, but didn't prove it sufficient to a legal standard in any courts, Trump has conceded, and Biden will be inaugurated on the 20th. This is the straightforward truth of the matter that should be accepted so that discussion can move forward, lest we descend into a similar madness that overtook this forum after the 2016 election.

You've already requested a permaban, though. So be it.

 

[notseqi]

this should mean other governments can block these social media sites without complaints of restrictions on free speech. like Egypt, Hungry and Brazil.

weirdly I agree because you can really swing public opinion by spewing of baseless 'information' and in times where facts need to be researched and made available, ie impending or ongoing riots, these services can do almost nothing to hinder further incitement.
I don't value social media at all and while turning off these services are a restriction on free speech it would be interesting to see what solutions could be put forward to lessen the impact of these services.

 

[RSTEIN]

If I get banned for asking I'll risk it, but how is the people on this site who supported the violence, rioting, CHAZ from this summer, and stuff like CRT and the 1619 project not "Fringe views, hateful ideologies, and nuthouse conspiracy theories" that deserve a ban?

Or for that matter 4 years of "Russian collusion stole the election" was ok, but it's now a nuthouse conspiracy to think that the Dems did the same thing?

Surely you can see the difference between a social justice movement in response to police brutality and systemic racism vs calls to occupy the Capitol building due to a belief in a conspiracy theory that the election was “stolen”. This was a mass delusion fanned by the certain members of the government.

The US has a proud history of social justice marches—against wars, racial and gender discrimination, calls for greater equality, etc. You may not not agree with these or recent protests. that’s your right and you won’t be kicked off any platform for these beliefs. However, expect to receive harsh treatment for participating or perpetuating violence on the basis of conspiracy theories that have no basis in reality.

 

[Schrödinger's cat]

GAF isn't, in my opinion, stricter than social media giants and big tech.

GAF is more consistent in the application of their standards, and more transparent.

 

[Birgitte2004-2]

Surely you can see the difference between a social justice movement in response to police brutality and systemic racism vs calls to occupy the Capitol building due to a belief in a conspiracy theory that the election was “stolen”. This was a mass delusion fanned by the certain members of the government.

The US has a proud history of social justice marches—against wars, racial and gender discrimination, calls for greater equality, etc. You may not not agree with these or recent protests. that’s your right and you won’t be kicked off any platform for these beliefs. However, expect to receive harsh treatment for participating or perpetuating violence on the basis of conspiracy theories that have no basis in reality.

The Floyd Riots were just as much of a conspiracy theory as election fraud, they were based on a blatant lie, and were egged on by way more politicians and businesses than what just happened in the Capitol, and the belief that the Police are the problem has no basis in reality.

The US does have a proud history of social justice marches, and what happened this last summer took a massive dump on that history, and made a mockery of people like MLK Jr.

EDIT: Please note, I don't believe people should be banned even for the things I mentioned, but I don't think still believing in election fraud this November means you deserve to be banned either, and it's supremely disappointing to me to see Evilore decide that's now the right thing to do.

 

[RSTEIN]

The Floyd Riots were just as much of a conspiracy theory as election fraud, they were based on a blatant lie, and were egged on by way more politicians and businesses than what just happened in the Capitol, and the belief that the Police are the problem has no basis in reality.

The US does have a proud history of social justice marches, and what happened this last summer took a massive dump on that history, and made a mockery of people like MLK Jr.

EDIT: Please note, I don't believe people should be banned even for the things I mentioned, but I don't think still believing in election fraud this November means you deserve to be banned either, and it's supremely disappointing to me to see Evilore decide that's now the right thing to do.

Unfortunately it seems like you’ve been dragged down the conspiracy theory hole.

You don’t believe in something where the facts have been laid bare (the existence of systemic racism in the justice system) yet you believe in something that has been discredited by numerous courts and investigations conducted by reputable people.

Evilore put it well that now is the time to accept it and put the conspiracy theories to rest. Come up for air.

 

[Maiden Voyage]

 

[DeepEnigma]

Publicly traded “private company.”

 

[Flame_alchemist]

Publicly traded “private company.”

Just because mcdonald is public doesn't mean you can take a shit in the lobby

 

[DeepEnigma]

Just because mcdonald is public doesn't mean you can take a shit in the lobby

Why would I need to when it’s already in the “food.”

 

[QSD]

Unfortunately it seems like you’ve been dragged down the conspiracy theory hole.

You don’t believe in something where the facts have been laid bare (the existence of systemic racism in the justice system) yet you believe in something that has been discredited by numerous courts and investigations conducted by reputable people.

Evilore put it well that now is the time to accept it and put the conspiracy theories to rest. Come up for air.

I think the "blatant lie" he's referring to is not the existence of systemic racism, but rather the assumption that Floyd died in a racially motivated murder. You can infer from the circumstances that Floyd died because of his skin color, but that cannot be proven according to the facts that I'm aware of. He died as a result of mistreatment by police officers, that much is clear, but the racial component, that was central in all the protests and riots, is conjecture in this case AFAIK. (this is barring the surfacing of any explicit racist statements or an explicit pattern of previous racist behaviours by Chauvin that I'm not aware of, I haven't looked into the case for a while) I.E. you can't prove that Floyd would have lived had he been white and all other things being equal.

It's a bit like if an angry mob would storm the FBI building and start tearing the place up because they believe Epstein didn't kill himself but was murdered in some FBI coverup. You can certainly hypothesize that that is true, but unless you can prove it, it's certainly no good to start destroying property because of a "hunch". These things cannot easily be undone (I mean you can rebuild the real estate, but the broken trust is far harder to replace) You have to leave some room for the eventuality that you are mistaken in your assumption.

I'd just like to say I in no way envy EviLore as he has to thread a really fine needle in real time, in a time where the waters have never been murkier or the future more unpredictable.

 

[HE1NZ]

It's not entirely public if it benefits from the government. Like with section 230. Monopolies are always the result of companies lobbying the government to reduce competition. So don't blame it on capitalism.

 

[oagboghi2]

It's not about having ban-able offenses in your ToS. It's about enforcing the ToS selectively, which I have yet to see happen here.

This has always been the issue, and what people like E e&e refuse to address.

 

[Durask]

You don’t believe in something where the facts have been laid bare (the existence of systemic racism in the justice system) .

There is no "systemic racism" in the US in any way shape or form.
Even the whole term is nonsensical.

 

[DragoonKain]

Let's test this theory.

A man is not a woman.

I shall await to see if I get suspended for that comment.

 

[RSTEIN]

There is no "systemic racism" in the US in any way shape or form.
Even the whole term is nonsensical.

It’s a free country, you can believe whatever you want. But don’t expect freedom from consequences when you express fringe opinions our tout conspiracy theories.

 

[Claus Grimhildyr]

It’s a free country, you can believe whatever you want. But don’t expect freedom from consequences when you express fringe opinions our tout conspiracy theories.

Oh like what you are doing right now? Gotcha.

OT: You can generally discuss most anything on GAF as long as you aren’t a rabid cunt about it - though a few things are off limits for obvious reasons. Conspiracy theories really don’t have a place here unless it is about has stupid they are like the dribble of “systemic racism” or “white priviledge”.

Ultimately this is a site dedicated to video games. The fact folks get so bent out of shape in politics discussions in a gaming forum is silly.

 

[McCheese]

in threads here I see some opinions I agree with, and some that I do not.

It's the reason I come here, as most other forums seem to enforce one side of the argument and curtail the other based on their mod teams being hand picked to share the same ideals.

It's not perfect, the boobs thread having more views than the ass thread is a tragedy, but the mod team here are doing a bang up job with not steering the conversation.

 

[Durask]

It’s a free country, you can believe whatever you want. But don’t expect freedom from consequences when you express fringe opinions our tout conspiracy theories.

So, refusing to believe in all-encompassing "systemic racism" that permeates everything - from the legal system to harvesting of cucumbers - is it a fringe belief or a conspiracy theory?

Edit: believe it or not, I believe that there should be freedom from consequences for fringe opinions or conspiracy theories. This is real tolerance, as opposed to "totalitarian tolerance" which your side practices.

 

[e&e]

Let's test this theory.

A man is not a woman.

I shall await to see if I get suspended for that comment.

Do you get banned for saying that on Twitter?

 

[Tesseract]

It’s a free country, you can believe whatever you want. But don’t expect freedom from consequences when you express fringe opinions our tout conspiracy theories.

you basically just said a whole lot of nothing, congrats

 

[oagboghi2]

Do you get banned for saying that on Twitter?

If enough people report it as harassment, yes

It’s a free country, you can believe whatever you want. But don’t expect freedom from consequences when you express fringe opinions our tout conspiracy theories.

Believing that people aren't systemic racists is a conspiracy theory?

This is what the left new playbook is

 

[notseqi]

So, refusing to believe in all-encompassing "systemic racism" that permeates everything - from the legal system to harvesting of cucumbers - is it a fringe belief or a conspiracy theory?

What are the words you'd use for it? From what I gather it's a long string of complicated matters that makes police act different towards the stereotypically crime-prone races, making police interaction more of a symptom.
(Not taking a side here. Not from the US.)

 

[MagnesG]

There is no "systemic racism" in the US in any way shape or form.
Even the whole term is nonsensical.

There is some truth in it albeit not the absolute truth, kind of a grey area. Stereotypes are built due to repeated histories. Then again Floyd is a substance user highly susceptible of having heart attack and his case was made on pedestal for parades, riots and looting.

 

[DragoonKain]

Do you get banned for saying that on Twitter?

Yes.

and “learn to code”

and other insane things.

 

[oagboghi2]

What are the words you'd use for it? From what I gather it's a long string of complicated matters that makes police act different towards the stereotypically crime-prone races, making police interaction more of a symptom.
(Not taking a side here. Not from the US.)

And this "string of complicated matters" encompasses every issue of life.

Becuase that is what "systemic racism" is.

Why nothing investigating, or thinking over matters. Just boil every human interaction to racism.

 

[Durask]

What are the words you'd use for it? From what I gather it's a long string of complicated matters that makes police act different towards the stereotypically crime-prone races, making police interaction more of a symptom.
(Not taking a side here. Not from the US.)

System implies some kind of intelligent design - as in police are instructed to act differently towards different people, there should be manuals, instructions, etc.
Ultimately every interaction is an interaction between people. People have thoughts and beliefs and act on them.

 

[RSTEIN]

So, refusing to believe in all-encompassing "systemic racism" that permeates everything - from the legal system to harvesting of cucumbers - is it a fringe belief or a conspiracy theory?

If you have an opinion that disagrees with decades of research by health organizations, various levels of the justice system, academics, non partisan think thanks, scientists, etc., then I’d classify that as a fringe opinion. Fringe doesn’t mean wrong; history is full or breakthroughs that start as fringe/speculative/provocative ideas.

But you need to provide evidence that supports your idea. I haven’t seen anyone here or elsewhere provide any evidence that would lead me to doubt the conclusions from research around systemic racism. Just that “it’s not real.” Like I said, that’s you’re right. But don’t be surprised if you’re deplatformed/banned when you keep touting ideas that aren’t supported by evidence, especially when it comes to things that are essential to our social fabric like ideas around racism and elections.

 

[Tesseract]

If you have an opinion that disagrees with decades of research by health organizations, various levels of the justice system, academics, non partisan think thanks, scientists, etc., then I’d classify that as a fringe opinion. Fringe doesn’t mean wrong; history is full or breakthroughs that start as fringe/speculative/provocative ideas.

But you need to provide evidence that supports your idea. I haven’t seen anyone here or elsewhere provide any evidence that would lead me to doubt the conclusions from research around systemic racism. Just that “it’s not real.” Like I said, that’s you’re right. But don’t be surprised if you’re deplatformed/banned when you keep touting ideas that aren’t supported by evidence, especially when it comes to things that are essential to our social fabric like ideas around racism and elections.

what are the conclusions from research around systemic racism?

try to be specific

 

[notseqi]

System implies some kind of intelligent design - as in police are instructed to act differently towards different people, there should be manuals, instructions, etc.
Ultimately every interaction is an interaction between people. People have thoughts and beliefs and act on them.

What's the 'out' here? Getting a headache trying to walk the steps back from 'excessive force' to the circumstances that lead to an 'excessive' lifestyle warranting such treatment.
Protests against police seems like knocking on the wrong door but what else should protesters go for? That's to say, apart from attempting to change their own communities to abide by the laws on the same level everybody else does.

 

[SLoWMoTIoN]

Try discord OP.

 

[RSTEIN]

what are the conclusions from research around systemic racism?

try to be specific

The most specific high-profile study I can think of is probably Get on the Ground by HWR. That looks at just Tulsa. It’s avail on their site. While reading it keep in mind that HWR has bias. After that you can broaden your scope to state and then national studies. Pretty much every reputable think tank/university has something to say about it.

 

[oagboghi2]

The most specific high-profile study I can think of is probably Get on the Ground by HWR. That looks at just Tulsa. It’s avail on their site. While reading it keep in mind that HWR has bias. After that you can broaden your scope to state and then national studies. Pretty much every reputable think tank/university has something to say about it.

But hey, it's in a journal so it must be true. Can't allow "fringe" opinions that threaten the narrative.

 

[Playmasterizer]

That's not an accurate representation of my position at all. You're free to be a Trump supporter here, as with being a Biden supporter, same as before. I was referring to the notion that the election was stolen in a "sacred landslide," which prompted the disgraceful Capitol Incident. The Trump admin had ample opportunity to prove this landslide, but didn't prove it sufficient to a legal standard in any courts, Trump has conceded, and Biden will be inaugurated on the 20th. This is the straightforward truth of the matter that should be accepted so that discussion can move forward, lest we descend into a similar madness that overtook this forum after the 2016 election.

You've already requested a permaban, though. So be it.

I'm a little confused here. You are allowed to be a trump supporter but not agree with his positions?

 

[EviLore]

I'm a little confused here. You are allowed to be a trump supporter but not agree with his positions?

Crazy times we live in, huh.

 

[Durask]

The most specific high-profile study I can think of is probably Get on the Ground by HWR. That looks at just Tulsa. It’s avail on their site. While reading it keep in mind that HWR has bias. After that you can broaden your scope to state and then national studies. Pretty much every reputable think tank/university has something to say about it.

A confluence of random factors does not constitute a "system".
A system requires intelligent design, as in a set of orders, manuals, etc.

If anything, the only "systemic racism" is CRT based trainings where white people are taught to systemically discriminate against themselves.

 

[Playmasterizer]

Crazy times we live in, huh.

Yea that doesn't make much sense to me. but whateva it's your website man.

 

[RSTEIN]

A confluence of random factors does not constitute a "system".
A system requires intelligent design, as in a set of orders, manuals, etc.

If anything, the only "systemic racism" is CRT based trainings where white people are taught to systemically discriminate against themselves.

That’s not true at all. Our universe is a system, galaxies are systems, then the we have our own solar system and within that our planet which is comprised of numerous random geological and ecological systems. These systems are all the result of post Big Bang randomness. A system does not require intelligent design. Order can rise from randomness.

When talking about social systems something being systemic merely means it’s part of the system or something that happens inside a system. In the stock market we have what’s called systemic risk—an event within the system that threatens to take down the system (see 08-09 financial crisis).

 

[dr_octagon]

I think in the light of what is happening with the current bans across social media, I think it’s time to understand what censorship really is and realize not everything is censorship. Do you believe GAF and other forums promote censorship and why/why not? Lots of people have been banned/warned of stuff that not even Twitter or Facebook bans people for on these forums. Where do you draw the line at censorship? Also remember these are privately owned forums. Getting banned for breaking TOS is not censorship.

How do you quantify this? Please provide examples and comparators in your response.

We are self censoring all the time, on a wider level but it's always a compromise and looking at which areas fit within what we consider acceptable. That's true of forums as it is with things we discuss in real life such as at work.

If the TOS for Twitter was set to be automatic, that would be one thing because you are either breaking a rule or not - the computer wouldn't discriminate. There is bias with human moderation, depends on the site, some necessarily or not. It's taking an even handed approach and there is no exact science behind it.

I accept I can't post the same message as 50 individual posts in a single thread because it would be spam (although this is technically censorship). In that instance, i can find another outlet for my expression.