• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.

Staff No conspiracy theories or fringe content on the Politics board

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sep 9, 2018
530
867
385
Understandable I suppose. This new internet is dogshit, teleport me back to 1999 so I can download the UT bonus pack off fileplanet.com please. Politically I'm to the right of Ghenghis Khan according to the REEE crowd that used to infest the place, so I'm used to it lol.


GAF survived the exodus it can survive leaving the crazy conspiracies off the forums.

For a decent chunk of time this was a pariah forum and the only people who I saw here were the alt-right/conspiracy crowd.
 

spootime

Member
Jul 27, 2007
1,979
374
1,075
I have a lot of respect for you but I think this is not the right course of action here.
Having legitimate discourse about the way the election was handled, specifically in regards to the actions of States county officials, and States Executives is vital to pushing the discourse for election reform and election transparency in the future.

This is your site of course but I respectfully think you should reconsider or at least be more surgical in what topics are taboo. A blanket “2020 is over get over it” approach is not the way to handle the recent events.
It's not any different than banning anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers, etc. They all exist on the same plane. After losing 50+ cases in court there is no legitimate discourse to be had about the election being stolen
 

Johnny Silver

Banned
Oct 24, 2018
240
464
315

The 1A doesn't protect someone from discrimination. The act to discriminate is an innate human right.

However, there's a clear different between voluntary association/dissociation and denying someone the right express their opinions.

Being "cancelled" is most certainly not something in line with the 1A. It is an act of censorship.

As the comic tells, you can tell me I'm an asshole, but that doesn't deny the fundamental right that I can speak what I wish while risking the chance of giving the image of being an asshole.

And when "consequences" are mentioned, censorship is not an acceptable one. The comic uses the term "consequences" to excuse the act of censorship, this is a totalitarian and tyrannical mindset. Only one kind of consequence to someone's speech is acceptable, the very act of discrimination, or in other words, voluntary association or dissociation.
 
Last edited:

Platinumstorm

Member
Oct 19, 2011
1,524
705
885
Politics is an ugly thing, but it's integrated into our lives whether we like it or not. I'm sorry for any shit you take in regards to this new policy on the forum.
A problem though is this forum degraded from politics into conspiracy. We don't discuss a lot of politics here anymore; mostly current events or conspiracy. There's not a lot of politics to actually discuss since the Trump administration has been rendered utterly moot except for executive actions and pardon powers.
 

PhoenixTank

Member
Jul 13, 2017
1,327
1,449
685
This. If the forum is still kicking after the split a couple of years ago, it'll be fine with other shake-ups.
Indeed.
For those of you with conservative leanings, have a little faith. The boss has done right by the site and by all of us since then.
We should never be the opposite or mirror image of Era and, of course, never the same either. Be better.

I lean left, so this probably sounds like I'm speaking with shit in my mouth, but I honestly mean it in good faith.
 

ShadowLag

Member
Jun 4, 2013
363
364
595
It's not particularly nebulous and you can just ask if you're not sure.

I do have a question - in your OP you mention "stick to mainstream sources". Unfortunately as we speak, various mainstream sources are going totally 1984 and talking about "re-education", detainment, defunding, and deplatforming of Trump supporters, conservatives, and what have you, in an incredibly dangerous blanket-y kind of way. Now to me, this is insane and fringe. But it's coming from mainstream sources.

In my mind, that's one of the biggest examples of extreme-ism I've ever seen, and I'm willing to bet the vast majority of freedom loving humans would as well. How are we to know that posting "I don't think some guy who voted for Trump is a bad person" won't be considered REEEEEE levels of a wrongthink bannable offense in the future, too? Is a group of people going to get banned for saying they BELIEVE there was fraud and Trump should've won?
 

ShadowLag

Member
Jun 4, 2013
363
364
595
I’m honestly curious if Cloudflare and AWS sent out some kind of notice to their customers that right wing conspiracies are verboten?
I'm 100% certain, and I bet you they are all cheering in their offices right now. Unfortunately, the term "conspiracy" will be totally subjective and defined willy-nilly to get rid of anyone they don't like at the time.
 

prag16

Member
Jul 12, 2012
12,020
4,117
860
It's not particularly nebulous and you can just ask if you're not sure.
I can understand why this is being done, but I don't like the "main stream" stipulation. You would agree that mainstream media leaves A LOT to be desired, wouldn't you?

As for the election, I have several problems with how numerous aspects of the election itself and its aftermath were handled by the powers that be, along the lines of SpartanN92 SpartanN92 's comments. But I can live without beating that particular horse so much moving forward, because my bigger issue with the election is the behavior of big tech, pollsters, and mainstream media all engaged in a circle jerk with the DNC framing (and creating.. or suppressing) narratives every step of the way...

...which brings me back to "mainstream"; these are all "mainstream" entities that behaved abhorrently and very clearly had their thumbs (or much larger bodyparts) on the scale 100% of the time for the past four years.

Though I guess some will say claiming pollsters are deliberatly trying to shape public opinion rather than report on it will be seen as something of a conspiracy theory. Nevertheless, even taking that out of it, the rest of the above stands as pretty inarguable I think. But maybe we're still cool here as long as "mainstream" is a very wide interpretation that really only excludes the Alex Joneses of the world on the right.
 

Liberty4all

Banned
Nov 11, 2007
10,826
5,622
1,685
The bottom line is that it’s Evilore‘s forum and life‘s work - focused on game Discussions.

Given what just happened to Parler and the current purge of anything remotely associated with Trumpism on social media .... can’t say i blame him for having to crack down on politics.

I think the current purge going on internet wide is terrible and antiAmerican, however, that battle can be fought elsewhere.

Will be sticking to more mainstream political discussion on GAF from here on out.
 

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
May 30, 2004
27,944
65,239
2,450
I do have a question - in your OP you mention "stick to mainstream sources". Unfortunately as we speak, various mainstream sources are going totally 1984 and talking about "re-education", detainment, defunding, and deplatforming of Trump supporters, conservatives, and what have you, in an incredibly dangerous blanket-y kind of way. Now to me, this is insane and fringe. But it's coming from mainstream sources.

In my mind, that's one of the biggest examples of extreme-ism I've ever seen, and I'm willing to bet the vast majority of freedom loving humans would as well. How are we to know that posting "I don't think some guy who voted for Trump is a bad person" won't be considered REEEEEE levels of a wrongthink bannable offense in the future, too? Is a group of people going to get banned for saying they BELIEVE there was fraud and Trump should've won?
I'm not down with that nonsense. We're not cancelling people or demonizing people over who they voted for.
 

desertdroog

Member
Aug 12, 2008
6,683
13,370
1,400
Thanks for the announcement EviLore EviLore . Will do my best not to spread conspiracies. I expect a private chat if any of us goes down a road you deem not suitable to guide the forum away from subjects not suited for your forum before a boot? That is, as long as it isn't overt or against the TOS.

Thanks for the space to debate and discuss.
 

SF Kosmo

...please disperse...
Jul 7, 2020
5,854
6,957
695
EviLore EviLore So question: Is discussion about lawsuits or other official proceedings okay? Like can we talk about what's happening with Dominion's lawsuit against Sydney Powell, or should we avoid the subject altogether?
 

The Shift

Banned
Sep 6, 2009
1,059
931
1,010
It's not particularly nebulous and you can just ask if you're not sure.

Is it ok to ask your opinion regarding the posting of Twitter links on the site? Many users across all political alignment deem its content as toxic and hateful, nevermind the sheer amount of soft and hard conspiracy that gets posted on that platform that has and is causing widespread mental health issues. Chopping of a couple of tentacles and not finishing the job by removing what remains probably won't be wholly effective.

Does the current forum infrastructure allow hotlink banning chartz style? Maybe at the user level? A purposed spoiler wrapper/warning for that content perhaps?

Apologies for brainfart.
 

Razvedka

Member
Oct 20, 2018
416
569
375
Understandable, however what is "fringe content"? Some guidance would be useful.
And this is where it all will become murky and unclear.

I understand and empathize with why Evilore is doing this, but it's something of a fool's errand all told. Freedom of speech on the internet is now facing an incredible amount of pressure, and I don't see it letting up.

As ever, we address symptoms and not causes. Grappling with a post-truth age we think that it is possible to simply 'suppress' and 'stamp out' false information. I wish the mods the best of luck with that.

What really sucks is that I feel dirty just saying this, because it comes across like I'm empathetic towards Trump and those he's egged on and it just isn't true.
 
Last edited:

SpartanN92

Member
Sep 7, 2012
5,629
11,398
1,155
Kentucky, it’s not as bad as Australia
It's not any different than banning anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers, etc. They all exist on the same plane. After losing 50+ cases in court there is no legitimate discourse to be had about the election being stolen
Stop spouting this 50+ cases nonsense. The overwhelming majority of those cases were not filed by the President or the campaign and nearly all of them were dismissed on procedural grounds such as lack of specific injury (standing in cases brought by citizens) or Latches (basically the courts saying you waited too long to bring a case, when had they brought the case BEFORE the election it would have been tossed for being presumptive and lack of injury.) These cases were NOT rejected based on the merits of their arguments.

This is what I’m talking about and why I think this is a mistake. Arguments such as “50+ cases” may be technically true but they are lacking in context (and are lies by omission as a result) and I think it is important that these kinds of discussions about election procedures and the illegalities found in the contested states should be ENCOURAGED not hand waived as conspiracies.

This is the last you’ll here me say on the issue but I felt that point needed to be addressed at the very least.
 
Last edited:

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
May 30, 2004
27,944
65,239
2,450
EviLore EviLore So question: Is discussion about lawsuits or other official proceedings okay? Like can we talk about what's happening with Dominion's lawsuit against Sydney Powell, or should we avoid the subject altogether?
Doesn't seem like a great idea, high percentage it turns into an inadvertent honey pot. You think there's a worthwhile unresolved non-conspiracy discussion there?
 

ShadowLag

Member
Jun 4, 2013
363
364
595
We don't want this forum to end up like Parler but I think it's pretty obvious that free speech on the internet is dead.
I'm sad when I see digs against Parler. While it's true they should be policing their content more when it comes to threats of violence and especially organized violence, you can find many, many posts on Twitter right now that are just as bad or worse. These posts have been up for months and months, and not a single action is taken against them, either - despite armies of people calling them out.

You could say the exact same thing about Facebook and even YouTube. Believe me - the YT community especially is outraged on a daily basis that super old videos of horrible violence against people and animals are never taken down, nor are the channels deactivated or restricted in any way, yet some milque-toast YouTubers get banned or demonetized for merely criticizing certain people.

Parler is NO WORSE than Twitter or any other site on any front. Make no mistake about it - Parler is only being singled out right now because the people with Internet power don't want to allow their political enemy to be speaking there, and they have an avenue to prevent it.
 

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
May 30, 2004
27,944
65,239
2,450
Is it ok to ask your opinion regarding the posting of Twitter links on the site? Many users across all political alignment deem its content as toxic and hateful, nevermind the sheer amount of soft and hard conspiracy that gets posted on that platform that has and is causing widespread mental health issues. Chopping of a couple of tentacles and not finishing the job by removing what remains probably won't be wholly effective.

Does the current forum infrastructure allow hotlink banning chartz style? Maybe at the user level? A purposed spoiler wrapper/warning for that content perhaps?

Apologies for brainfart.
Twitter, for all its flaws and harm to society, is a valuable news source. Stick with reputable, known people and organizations though.
 

Zog

Member
Oct 24, 2017
4,615
3,183
445
I'm sad when I see digs against Parler. While it's true they should be policing their content more when it comes to threats of violence and especially organized violence, you can find many, many posts on Twitter right now that are just as bad or worse. These posts have been up for months and months, and not a single action is taken against them, either - despite armies of people calling them out.

You could say the exact same thing about Facebook and even YouTube. Believe me - the YT community especially is outraged on a daily basis that super old videos of horrible violence against people and animals are never taken down, nor are the channels deactivated or restricted in any way, yet some milque-toast YouTubers get banned or demonetized for merely criticizing certain people.

Parler is NO WORSE than Twitter or any other site on any front. Make no mistake about it - Parler is only being singled out right now because the people with Internet power don't want to allow their political enemy to be speaking there, and they have an avenue to prevent it.
What we are seeing in unprecedented and I wonder if people are still loving Biden now.
 

The Shift

Banned
Sep 6, 2009
1,059
931
1,010
And this is where it all will become murky and unclear.

I understand and empathize with why Evilore is doing this, but it's something of a fool's errand all told.

It's a difficult situation. Politics is rife with conspiracy from local government all the way to the top. I can't see a way forward without a mod team parsing each and every post from here on out. Problem with that is power corrupts and you're back at GAF modsquad circa 2017.

Probably best just to close this part of the board and focus on games, media and other pastimes. That is a successful model for many sites truth be told.
 
Last edited:

Loki

Count of Concision
Jun 6, 2004
7,369
367
1,635
I think the takeaway here is that advocating for a position that cannot be empirically proven with evidence, which also has precedent of manifesting into real world violence needs to be discouraged in order to maintain order and integrity.

The closer you get to the position of the election was stolen so imma riot or the the USA is racist so imma riot while justifying it with no evidence or citing kooky ass sources, the closer you get to the line.

I think we can all generally agree what constitutes reasonably justified evidence and reasonably justified belief. Discussions are fine. Talking out your ass with inflammatory or baseless rhetoric is not.

Imagine being so naïve as to think that every sociopolitical argument can be "empirically proven" in this day and age of attacking the sources and skewing data. Forget about the election - this runs the gamut. Let's say someone wants to cite data to support the argument that blacks are not killed at a higher rate than white during encounters with the police. Then the other side calls the data into question for various reasons, offers a counter-study etc. Where does the truth lie? (Hint: likely somewhere in the middle). Who adjudicates it? Do we need to take every political opinion up to the Supreme Court just to ensure that we are sufficiently supported by the "evidence" that we are allowed to express an opinion online or elsewhere? Do you see how insane that all sounds? How unfeasible it is?

Side note, and not germane to this topic: progressives are keen on "evidence"...except when it doesn't support them. Then they reach into their bag of obfuscation and logical fallacies to distort, obscure, and vilify. For example, try to advocate for a traditional nuclear family on any social media platform based on the MOUNTAINS of unassailable evidence which shows that children of such families perform better by all metrics and lead more productive lives. You will be attacked before you can hit "post."
 
Last edited:

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
44,771
17,054
1,770
Best Coast
Imagine being so naïve as to think that every sociopolitical argument can be "empirically proven" in this day and age of attacking the sources and skewing data. Forget about the election - this runs the gamut. Let's say someone wants to cite data to support the argument that blacks are not killed at a higher rate than white during encounters with the police. Then the other side calls the data into question for various reasons, offers a counter-study etc. Where does the truth lie? (Hint: likely somewhere in the middle). Who adjudicates it? Do we need to take every political opinion up to the Supreme Court just to ensure that we are sufficiently supported by the "evidence" that we are allowed to express an opinion online or elsewhere? Do you see how insane that all sounds? How unfeasible it is?

Side note, and not germane to this topic: progressives are keen on "evidence"...except when it doesn't support them. Then they reach into their bag of obfuscation and logical fallacies to distort, obscure, and vilify. For example, try to advocate for a traditional nuclear family on any social media platform based on the MOUNTAINS of unassailable evidence which shows that children of such families perform better by all metrics and lead more productive lives. You will be attacked before you can hit "post."
Imagine missing the point by going off on theorycrafting tangents and hypotheticals.

Concern yourself with the tangible and not so much the boogeymen.
 

Razvedka

Member
Oct 20, 2018
416
569
375
It's a difficult situation. Politics is rife with conspiracy from local government all the way to the top. I can't see a way forward without a mod team parsing each and every post from here on out. Problem with that is power corrupts and your back at GAF modsquad circa 2017.

Probably best just to close this part of the board and focus on games, media and other pastimes. That is a successful model for many sites truth be told.

It's a philosophical problem. These sorts of issues aren't the kind that most people are equipped to deal with, their thinking just doesn't lend itself to the task. I can't imagine there are many widely accessible frameworks for dealing with this problem, as it exists today, in any sort of applicable way (e.g. forums, social media, what have you). There's probably a lot of wisdom tucked away in guidelines, research papers, texts, and manuals from think tanks, intelligence agencies, and militaries though.

It would just have to be transpiled.

Welcome to the Information Warfare age, I guess. What Evil Lore has done is restrict the breadth of acceptable dialogue and sources to whatever is within the Overton Window (which itself is not static as we've all seen in the past 4 years).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: The Shift

Loki

Count of Concision
Jun 6, 2004
7,369
367
1,635
Imagine missing the point by going off on theorycrafting tangents and hypotheticals.

Concern yourself with the tangible and not so much the boogeymen.

No need to get pissy - I should have clarified that I wasn't calling YOU naive, per se, but rather speaking of the current sentiment regarding "evidence" and how that plays out in political discourse.
 

spootime

Member
Jul 27, 2007
1,979
374
1,075
Stop spouting this 50+ cases nonsense. The overwhelming majority of those cases were not filed by the President or the campaign and nearly all of them were dismissed on procedural grounds such as lack of specific injury (standing in cases brought by citizens) or Latches (basically the courts saying you waited too long to bring a case, when had they brought the case BEFORE the election it would have been tossed for being presumptive and lack of injury.) These cases were NOT rejected based on the merits of their arguments.

This is what I’m talking about and why I think this is a mistake. Arguments such as “50+ cases” may be technically true but they are lacking in context (and are lies by omission as a result) and I think it is important that these kinds of discussions about election procedures and the illegalities found in the contested states should be ENCOURAGED not hand waived as conspiracies.

This is the last you’ll here me say on the issue but I felt that point needed to be addressed at the very least.
Are you an attorney? if not, just stop.
 

GAMETA

Member
Jun 3, 2014
2,616
3,669
885
EviLore EviLore Man, if I can give my two cents, I've seen the downfall of 2 of the biggest Brazilian forums that were framed in the same situation, and each on opposite political sides.

First one was in 2018, Fórum UOL Jogos, biggest gaming forum in South America, went down because the company (big internet group, left leaning despite the forum) lost government support after Bolsonaro's (right wing) election. Reminded me a lot of GAF, allowed for political discussions but was definitively leaning right in its last years (seemed like a global phenomenon, tbh). Lost gov support, lost ad-sense support, went down.

Second one was Fórum Politz, admittedly right-wing and allowed for whatever conspiracies you wanted. Google changed its policies on ads and the forum lost most of its financial support, then changed the rules to try and save it (as you understandably seem to be doing now), but it eventually lead to mass bans, too strict moderation, less income one way or the other...


What do I mean by this? I think GAF has started the 2021 game in a disadvantage here... the ad-sense thing is the perfect set up for a trap, and I understand that maintaining the website is not possible without the revenue, but it's a trap nonetheless... some people will try to frame GAF as dangerous no matter what, they don't want to stop the threads, they're not worried about the threads, they want the website gone, and then Google just don't give a damn, you either comply or you're out... the problem is that the community will start to corrode as soon as GAF users start getting banned for non compliance, the users will claim freedom of speech, you'll do what's necessary to keep the livelihood of the website going, users will get mad... bans, people abandoning... I've seen this happen twice, the exact same thing, same vibe, same traps... I really don't want this happening here...

If I can ask, what would happen if you completely removed the Politics sub-forum? Would it drag the views and clicks down too much? Maybe cutting their excuse put you down could work, but who knows... it's just a though, it's hard to predict the consequences... it's seems like a lose lose situation one way or the other.
 
Last edited:

EviLore

Expansive Ellipses
Staff Member
May 30, 2004
27,944
65,239
2,450
EviLore EviLore Man, if I can give my two cents, I've seen the downfall of 2 of the biggest Brazilian forums that were framed in the same situation, and each on opposite political sides.

First one was in 2018, Fórum UOL Jogos, biggest gaming forum in South America, went down because the company (big internet group, left leaning despite the forum) lost government support after Bolsonaro's (right wing) election. Reminded me a lot of GAF, allowed for political discussions but was definitively leaning right in its last years (seemed like a global phenomenon, tbh). Lost gov support, lost ad-sense support, went down.

Second one was Fórum Politz, admittedly right-wing and allowed for whatever conspiracies you wanted. Google changed its policies on ads and the forum lost most of its financial support, then changed the rules to try and save it (as you understandably seem to be doing now), but it eventually lead to mass bans, too strict moderation, less income one way or the other...


What do I mean by this? I think GAF has started the 2021 game in a disadvantage here... the ad-sense thing is the perfect set up for a trap, and I understand that maintaining the website is not possible without the revenue, but it's a trap nonetheless... some people will try to frame GAF as dangerous no matter what, they don't want to stop the threads, they're not worried about the threads, they want the website gone, and then Google just don't give a damn, you either comply or you're out... the problem is that the community will start to corrode as soon as GAF users start getting banned for non compliance, the users will claim freedom of speech, you'll do what's necessary to keep the livelihood of the website going, users will get mad... bans, people abandoning... I've seen this happen twice, the exact same thing, same vibe, same traps... I really don't want this happening here...

If I can ask, what would happen if you completely removed the Politics sub-forum? Would it drag the views and clicks down too much? Maybe cutting their excuse put you down could be an option, but it's just a though, I wouldn't know the consequences... it's lose lose situation.
It'll be alright.
 

Rentahamster

Rodent Whores
Jun 26, 2007
44,771
17,054
1,770
Best Coast
No need to get pissy - I should have clarified that I wasn't calling YOU naive, per se, but rather speaking of the current sentiment regarding "evidence" and how that plays out in political discourse.
Point taken.

No pissiness intended, by the way. I'm merely mirroring your sentence structure for emphasis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Loki

TheContact

Gold Member
Jan 22, 2016
6,320
5,888
850
I have a lot of respect for you but I think this is not the right course of action here.
Having legitimate discourse about the way the election was handled, specifically in regards to the actions of States county officials, and States Executives is vital to pushing the discourse for election reform and election transparency in the future.

you can argue about how the system needs to be changed with the way the election was handled. You just can’t say that the election was stolen via fraud or otherwise, because it wasn’t.
 

Liberty4all

Banned
Nov 11, 2007
10,826
5,622
1,685
EviLore EviLore Man, if I can give my two cents, I've seen the downfall of 2 of the biggest Brazilian forums that were framed in the same situation, and each on opposite political sides.

First one was in 2018, Fórum UOL Jogos, biggest gaming forum in South America, went down because the company (big internet group, left leaning despite the forum) lost government support after Bolsonaro's (right wing) election. Reminded me a lot of GAF, allowed for political discussions but was definitively leaning right in its last years (seemed like a global phenomenon, tbh). Lost gov support, lost ad-sense support, went down.

Second one was Fórum Politz, admittedly right-wing and allowed for whatever conspiracies you wanted. Google changed its policies on ads and the forum lost most of its financial support, then changed the rules to try and save it (as you understandably seem to be doing now), but it eventually lead to mass bans, too strict moderation, less income one way or the other...


What do I mean by this? I think GAF has started the 2021 game in a disadvantage here... the ad-sense thing is the perfect set up for a trap, and I understand that maintaining the website is not possible without the revenue, but it's a trap nonetheless... some people will try to frame GAF as dangerous no matter what, they don't want to stop the threads, they're not worried about the threads, they want the website gone, and then Google just don't give a damn, you either comply or you're out... the problem is that the community will start to corrode as soon as GAF users start getting banned for non compliance, the users will claim freedom of speech, you'll do what's necessary to keep the livelihood of the website going, users will get mad... bans, people abandoning... I've seen this happen twice, the exact same thing, same vibe, same traps... I really don't want this happening here...

If I can ask, what would happen if you completely removed the Politics sub-forum? Would it drag the views and clicks down too much? Maybe cutting their excuse put you down could work, but who knows... it's just a though, it's hard to predict the consequences... it's seems like a lose lose situation one way or the other.
I don't think evillore is saying no right wing views are allowed, he's just saying don't post shit that could put the whole site in jeapordy.

The political environment has clearly shifted in the last 48 hours in regards to not just what we as forum members feel is ok to post but what the incoming federal government AND the infrastructure companies that keep GAF humming will think is acceptable discourse. In a very real way the Overton window shifted and not in its normal imperceptible way -- this time it was yanked hard left.

Many of you are aware of my views. Regardless of what I feel, this is a gaming site first and foremost and no way can the rest of the site be put at any risk for the politics section.
 
Last edited:
Mar 3, 2014
2,834
797
580
Crazy should stay at 4chan or others unless there is a plan to add conspiracy subforum.

4chan IS the conspiracy subforum of the internet already :messenger_tears_of_joy: no need to make another one.

honestly, GAF had and will still be a gaming forum. there is already an OT for the fun, silly and occasional crazy stuff. politics on it's own is fine, but there will always be some line drawn no matter what. the flip side of that "slippery slope" coin is that uncheck conspiracy talk will lead to violence and I think we can all agree that's bad. if one REALLY have those strong opinions, there should be other places out there with political focus as their main purpose for one to express them. this is, after all, EL's site and he can set the rules as he see fit.

changes can be upsetting, but sometimes it's unavoidable. if, let's say, the whole world is moving towards one direction, and you don't want to. then it's your right to not change. but it's also other's right to leave you behind. it sucks I know. things from fashion, music, food, to politics all have that issue. we just have to accept that changes happens and maybe, just maybe, we can try and at least learn to see why so many others think these changes are good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BaneIsPain

GAMETA

Member
Jun 3, 2014
2,616
3,669
885
I don't think evillore is saying no right wing views are allowed, he's just saying don't post shit that could put the whole site in jeapordy.

The political environment has clearly shifted in the last 48 hours in regards to not just what we as forum members feel is ok to post but what the incoming federal government AND the infrastructure companies that keep GAF humming will think is acceptable discourse. In a very real way the Overton window shifted and not in its normal imperceptible way -- it was yanked hard left.

Many of you are aware of my views. Regardless of what I feel, this is a gaming site first and foremost and no way can the rest of the site be put at any risk for the politics section.

Then maybe EviLore EviLore should close the politics section. It's a better solution than being banned for "wrongthink".

The worst thing any user can experience is to be punished for having an opinion, especially when most users here defended the right of other users to have other views and think differently.


I've seen the same discussion before, I've seen the same situation... users that made GAF what it is today will pay the ultimate price if people are not allowed to answer back. If one side will be limited in what can be politically discussed, then maybe politics shouldn't be discussed at all.
 
Last edited:

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
3,616
3,449
515
4chan IS the conspiracy subforum of the internet already :messenger_tears_of_joy: no need to make another one.

honestly, GAF had and will still be a gaming forum. there is already an OT for the fun, silly and occasional crazy stuff. politics on it's own is fine, but there will always be some line drawn no matter what. the flip side of that "slippery slope" coin is that uncheck conspiracy talk will lead to violence and I think we can all agree that's bad. if one REALLY have those strong opinions, there should be other places out there with political focus as their main purpose for one to express them. this is, after all, EL's site and he can set the rules as he see fit.

changes can be upsetting, but sometimes it's unavoidable. if, let's say, the whole world is moving towards one direction, and you don't want to. then it's your right to not change. but it's also other's right to leave you behind. it sucks I know. things from fashion, music, food, to politics all have that issue. we just have to accept that changes happens and maybe, just maybe, we can try and at least learn to see why so many others think these changes are good.

The conspiracy sites are like throwing shit at the wall. A lot of fake news and crazyness. But that doesn't mean that there aren't some rare instances when some of the shit does stick and they provide an actual real fact.

For example the idea the polls were wrong or manipulated during 2016 was originally considered conspiratorial nonsense. The idea that Big Tech was only testing the water with Alex Jones, was scoffed at, now see where we are.
 

OSC

Member
Jun 16, 2018
3,616
3,449
515
BTW I've seen leftists go from telling me that Big tech censorship is a conspiracy just a few months ago, to now celebrating censorship of Trump, his lawyers, parler, etc. Unfazed by the actual evidence that censorship of the right is real.
 

JordanN

Banned
Apr 21, 2012
23,204
18,258
1,245
Brampton, Ontario
We don't want this forum to end up like Parler but I think it's pretty obvious that free speech on the internet is dead.
Free Speech is dying now that VISA & Mastercard wield disproportionate amounts of power over which websites can be hosted.

This would not actually be a problem if the hammer went both ways. I.e Left-wing and right-wing views were equally wiped off the internet.

Yet, look at my infographic I posted in another thread. There's clearly a left-wing bias among multibillion corporations that does support extremism but only mildly right-wing ideas are told to leave the internet.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.