Support NeoGAF

[Snowybreak]

Is sexism a political opinion? Since when?

Everything is a political opinion at this point.

Hatred of Muslims? Political opinion.

Homophobia? Political opinion.

A misunderstanding of how science works? Political opinion.

The right have blown their load all over being anti-PC, only to be so politically correct with what they say that it has looped around.

 

[Yukinari]

Ironically you're probably going to get banned (i.e. suppressed) for expressing that opinion, thus proving your point. I disagree with your opinion on this issue, but I agree that you should have the right to express it and engage in respectful discussion.

Neogaf is an interesting place - when discussion on the matter comes up many people on one side (and only one side) of the debate are banned thus creating a self selected population of people and group think that is heavily (and arguably non-representatively) skewed to the progressive side. Anyone who does have a dissenting opinion is either banned, or is so afraid of being banned/dogpiled on that they do not express it. In contrast those on the other side of the issue are allowed to act with impunity, slinging unfounded accusations at the other side, calling people "sexist shit heads" etc - arguably behaviour that should result in a ban.

I think there can be an argument made that there is an issue in the tact that some in the progressive movement have chosen to take in what is an admirable goal. Equality is certainly where the world should be IMO, and something we all aspire towards. That doesn't mean that any and all tactics towards that goal are positive and helpful though - hence the term "SJW".

For example, often instead of trying to change hearts and minds of those we disagree with some of us progressives simply attack them, and demonise them. Arguably this does more to hurt our cause, and society as a whole, as it results in an "us against them" mentality from both sides, galvanising both sides and ultimately resulting in narrow mindedness from both sides.

In many ways, it could be argued that those kind of tactics helped give the presidency to trump as he united those who have felt (sometimes correctly) to be under attack over the past 4-8 years by the left. He successfully unified the right mostly because of the tactics used by some within the left.

The problem is that on this issue it seems that battle lines have been drawn by both sides, when really those of us seeking to change the world should be reaching out to those we want to change. Alienating and attacking people people we want to change isn't going to change them. If one were to be cynical about it one would suspect that is because many within our movement enjoy the feeling of righteous superiority rather than wanting to change others. As a progressive very much in favour of a more inclusive and diverse society, I equally very much dislike that little voice within me that says "you're better you're not sexist/racist/etc" - that voice is hubris, it is pride, it is self-righteousness. And it is not helpful in making the world a more inclusive place. It also makes my actions and opinions on the matter all the less altruistic and noble.

Personally I very much side with the progressive movement on this issue. However I am not so blinded by my own bias as to excuse the intolerable and unhelpful behaviour of many on my side, nor turn a blind eye to the "self selection" and bias within the Neogaf groupthink. Anyone who debates that "SJWs" exist, or believes that everything done to support their agenda is positive, is blinded by their own bias.

TLR You catch more bees with honey than with vinegar. If we really want to make the world a better and more inclusive place we should be using honey, not vinegar. Fewer ban hammers and less name calling, more engagement and hope.

Gonna just flat out say i agree with this post even if he is now banned

 

[Akronis]

So, you ignore rules because your rights are threatened?

When the rules are specifically made to stack the deck against you, yes. Because that's how change happens.

 

[Messofanego]

Twitter brings out the worst in people

Nope, people put out their worst thoughts on Twitter.

 

[guek]

This is probably because I'm a guy (bad excuse), but I don't really think there is anything wrong with what he said. Not saying I agree, but at the same point, I don't totally disagree, and I don't know how anything he said is actually sexist.

He did take his comments a bit too far, likely out of immense frustration, but I don't know that his overall point is that bad. But I generally agree that women (just like men) should never be blindly supported without context, and that some of the womens march movement (mostly the extremist) have taken things way too far.

This is before I get into the fact I don't thing the womens march was even needed until our dear president actually does something that literally impacts women on the whole, versus just their strong disagreement with his loose morality and treatment of women throughout his life. Letting him (and his supporters) know you don't like him really doesn't change reality. Protest and march all you want, but he hasn't negatively impacted women specifically yet, nor may he ever do so. We can't know what the future holds. Worried about the right to abortion? He hasn't change any laws, and he may never do so. He's arguably got a lot more important issues to worry about that abortion, while a hot button topic nationaly, is probably pretty low on the totem pole for him to even address. His next 4 years will mostly be spent trying to dismantle and assemble something else besides Obamacare.

I'm all for equal rights for all, women getting treated just as well as men do - both in the work place and society on the whole. Having the same rights men do, getting piad the same wages for the same work, not being judged for their gender on job applications etc.

There is a lot of things I want to see happen and change, things I don't think the Women's March really impacts (nor will it impact anything, unfortunately), and with Jontron in specific, it's clearly that he reached a boiling over point probably with the extremists - which I mean... don't we all hit that point at times? I know I do. The extremist always paint the worst pictures and end up shaping more people's opinions than the core of any movement does.

Take the protests when Trump went into office. A lot of it was peaceful, but there was some of it that wasn't, and now we're sitting here these days debating if there is a right to protest, and that if violent protests are allowed, property damaging protests, when it was done via the Boston Tea Party (as if that is even a comparable situation). And I see this all the time. It's incredible frustrating and I don't even like trump. I just think there is a better way.

Jontron went too far, but dunno, I think him going over the top is causing a bigger ruckos than what I am reading. I must not be getting it.

No one else gonna touch this? Bah! Oh well, I was going to procrastinate anyway

He did take his comments a bit too far, likely out of immense frustration, but I don't know that his overall point is that bad. But I generally agree that women (just like men) should never be blindly supported without context, and that some of the womens march movement (mostly the extremist) have taken things way too far.

The women's march was NOT about blindly supporting women or excusing them of any potential wrongdoing. I know you're not intending to do so but treating women or any disenfranchised group as a monolith only when it suits you disparages those oppressed groups. There was a TON of context for the women's march, it wasn't just sprung up for the hell of it. What you and JonTron are saying have no basis in reality. The march was not about elevating the female gender onto a pedestal, it was about recognizing that basic human rights are often denied to women and minorities and that systemic prejudice against those groups is a real tangible problem that Trump and his supporters are increasingly vocal about denying while simultaneously reinforcing those toxic precedents.

This is before I get into the fact I don't thing the womens march was even needed until our dear president actually does something that literally impacts women on the whole, versus just their strong disagreement with his loose morality and treatment of women throughout his life. Letting him (and his supporters) know you don't like him really doesn't change reality. Protest and march all you want, but he hasn't negatively impacted women specifically yet, nor may he ever do so.

But he has done things that impact women and minorities already. Hate crimes are up significantly since his election, why do you think that is? They've openly started to talk about defunding Planned Parenthood. They've given the alt-right and white supremacists a national platform. His cabinet picks are among the most corrupt and unqualified appointments in the history of the nation. I understand the "wait and see" approach you're advocating but we've already seen Trump's true colors.

We can't know what the future holds. Worried about the right to abortion? He hasn't change any laws, and he may never do so. He's arguably got a lot more important issues to worry about that abortion, while a hot button topic nationaly, is probably pretty low on the totem pole for him to even address. His next 4 years will mostly be spent trying to dismantle and assemble something else besides Obamacare.

You're again missing the forest for the trees. The protest was a show of solidarity and opposition to the Republican party platform on which he ran. You're acting like we have no idea what he's going to do. That's not true at all. Trump has been abundantly clear about what he wants to do, and while some stuff like "lock her up" turned out to be campaign hot air, it's already clear that he's serious about dumb shit like the wall, increasing nationalism, increasing military spending, stripping reproductive rights, stripping access to health care, corporate welfare, etc.

Take the protests when Trump went into office. A lot of it was peaceful, but there was some of it that wasn't, and now we're sitting here these days debating if there is a right to protest, and that if violent protests are allowed, property damaging protests, when it was done via the Boston Tea Party (as if that is even a comparable situation). And I see this all the time. It's incredible frustrating and I don't even like trump. I just think there is a better way.

The overwhelming amount of inauguration day protests were peaceful, the handful acts of violence and rioting don't suddenly invalidate protesting for everyone. It's never been that way and it never will be. The continued false equivalency between rioters and protesters is a silencing technique that people in power have tried to push centuries. If you want to criticize rioters, criticize rioters. Furthermore, the inauguration day protests and the women's march are NOT interchangeable even if they're tangentially related.

Jontron went too far, but dunno, I think him going over the top is causing a bigger ruckos than what I am reading. I must not be getting it.

I think it's safe to say that you don't get it. If you really think he went too far, you don't need to write a huge post defending him

 

[Lutherian]

Don't follow him on anything but YouTube. Not really missing out I see. Don't really intend on not following his videos though.

Not a lot to see since a few months, sponsorised videos, movie reviews that tons of dudes already did (and better in my opinion). I used to love his humor ;(

 

[SomedayTheFire]

This is a self-fulfilling prophecy, isn't it?
I'm not religious, but isn't this the whole point behind "turning the other cheek"?

Why not just make yourself heard, without insults?

Because they don't listen. They don't want to hear us. They don't want to acknowledge our existence. We have to make them hear us.

 

[freeofgreed]

Oh wow, didn't know any of this. Pretty disappointing but fuck him. Time to unsub.

 

[JeremyEtcetera]

it's not ironic at all.

people on neogaf are very rarely banned for having right wing opinions. they are banned for breaking the tos:

which a lot of far right opinions tend to include.

Look up the Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball 3 threads and tell me with a straight face that some of those people (who supported the game) deserved their bans or name-calling/trolling against them. I'm not vouching for either side or party here as I'm a neutral one but I even had to point out to a mod in one of those threads that some name-calling and trolling was being done against supporters of that game and they were legitimately getting away with it for months. If I hadn't have done that I don't know if the mod would have banned those few.

People break TOS on both sides but for a while there was a time where one side was being targeted more clearly than the other and it was pretty obvious.

Edit: And before people go reaching and think I like or support Jon, I don't. However there should be a better way of handling this than mudslinging and treating a person like dirt. The man seems ignorant of a lot of things and would probably benefit from a peaceful sit down/talk with people who disagree but can create a constructive argument.

 

[Aroll]

What? It most certainly does when your job is to literally direct the entire government of our nation. By that logic, Hitler would also be a viable candidate for president. Hell, the HRC email bullshit would also have been meaningless if that was the case.

Role of the president of the united states:

"The President is both the head of state and head of government of the United States of America, and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. Under Article II of the Constitution, the President is responsible for the execution and enforcement of the laws created by Congress."

From whitehouse.gov

IE, his role is to uphold the laws created. Obviously he has sway over what those laws are, and can propose his own - but he doesn't literally run the government, but is merely the figure head of it. So he signed that order - if that order doesn't pass, if the right to abortion is upheld, he as the president must ensure that law is enforced so long as it stands, even if he personally is opposed to it.

Comparing it to Hitler, who was a dictator and got to literally enact anything he wanted basically without question, is silly. The two governments are not setup the same. For trump to truly do anything impactful, it goes through congress. This is why I say his morality really doesn't matter at the governing level for the whole of law making perse, because for that to matter we have to then presume that a majority of the congress itself also holds to those immoral beliefs and would vote because of it - and we already know a large chunk of republican congressmen and women do not share Trumps beliefs.

Likewise - Obama could ahve wanted Obamacare his whole time, but if the affordable care act never passes congress, it's not a thing. So Trump can be a racist, sexist, pig - but fortunately, any laws that play into that is something that has to pass by many others that are not.

The only key cog in this is the abortion stuff, as that is a long held republican ideal that it's wrong, and thus something in regards to the right to abortion is likely to change, though I don't see it ever getting outright banned, but possibly going back to the way it use to be - IE, up to the individual states, as I see too many states that would overall oppose a literal strict nation wide ban on it.

And that sucks for those that really strongly believe in it as a right. It does. But no march is changing that. For President Trump, thankfully there is already a lot of stuff in place that actually limits what he can do, so as racist and such that he is - he does not have anywhere close to hitler like power over America. Heck even the launch codes has to go through several other approval processes before Trump himself can give the final okay to fire. A lot of failsafes are in place to ensure a president like Trump can't go extremely radical unless the whole of government agrees with him.

EDIT IN: As I said before (this is to someone else who replied to me), There are always many facets I don't get. But I also think my beliefs perfectly encapsulate what another gaffer said and a little about what I am saying. It's that I feel the focus should be on educating society and people, rather than Trump himself. He's already there. We can't do anything about it for 4 years.

I am probably too uneducated on the march and everything going into it, but I only know what the media portrays. Right or wrong, that's what a lot of the country sees. They don't see the peaceful stuff, they see the headlines.

I just think there is a way to go about this that educates america, rather than trying to make headlines in the news.

 

[Inuhanyou]

I've gotten banned multiple times(lol all of them in political threads) for 'saying the wrong thing' that the mods pick up on, usually cause i get dogpiled.

In general GAF is a place where they can make their own rules. Sure in everyday life a free society is best, but the mods have the discretion who to ban and for what reason, and yeah maybe sometimes that reason reveals their own biases, but that's not something to actively complain about when the TOS are easily accessible

 

[A Link to the Past]

Ditto.

If you're incapable of disassociating someone's personal opinions with their work/content, it shows an even greater weakness on your own part. Even if it was overtly present in their content, if you're looking towards YouTubers to guide you in your voting or value decisions then that's pretty sad.

And for the record, I don't watch JonTron anymore, not because of his personal beliefs but because his content turned to shit over the past few years. If he were to start making great content again I'd resubscribe to his channel. I can think for myself, so don't worry about me.

Or you simply do not want to support someone whose views you find untenable. Why should I give him my views when I can unsub and support someone with good content and not awful views?

 

[Fantastapotamus]

TLR You catch more bees with honey than with vinegar. If we really want to make the world a better and more inclusive place we should be using honey, not vinegar. Fewer ban hammers and less name calling, more engagement and hope.

1. It's easy to say "Just be nice to each other" when you (not literally you, I don't know about you or your life) have never been the target of racism, sexism or whatever it is. That's something I had to learn. I'm white, male and straight. Nobody has ever attacked me for being that. Of course it is easy for me to look at somebody and think "Man, what an overreaction". Because I literally have no idea how their life get's influence by this shit.
I don't life in a world where people think I'm a lesser human being for reasons completely out of my control. It's super easy for me to stay calm and collected because nothing directly affects me.

2.There aren't two "equal" sides in this discussion, and that's why they don't get treated equally. That's why you would probably get banned when insulting somebody arguing pro abortion but not when you insult somebody arguing against it. Cause those aren't two equally valid ideas.

3. I remember a thread about some woman attacking an Uber driver over a voodoo-doll in his car, something like that. If you look at this thread you would see that a lot of people here didn't agree with that woman, because they felt she overreacted. Not necessarily in her reasoning, but in her behavior. I don't remember anybody who got banned for saying that. People here are very aware that there are some "SJW" as you call them exist that take it too far. They know that those people "hurt" the cause. But why would it be necessary to bring that up in a discussion where none of those people are involved? What do "SJWs" have to do in this particular discussion?

 

[TyphoonStruggle]

So you're of a mind that if we patiently respond to JonTron in a civil fashion and eat his abuse without any retribution, that he will eventually realize that he is being an asshole?

Im of the mind that transparency and not opaqueness will reveal that a lot of conservative ideals fall apart.

The objective isn't to win battles it's to win the war.

 

[joe2187]

This is a self-fulfilling prophecy, isn't it?
I'm not religious, but isn't this the whole point behind "turning the other cheek"?

Why not just make yourself heard, without insults?

The civil rights movement was successful because they refused to let people "Turn the other cheek"

You cant be deaf and blind forever.

 

[BajiBoxer]

I fully agree. I wish everyone could read this.

I'm on the far, far left - socially and economically. And I don't distance myself from people who don't share my radical ideology; if I did, I would have no friends. Politics and ideologies aren't about locking your opponent out of the debate chamber - it's about bringing everyone together, criticising everyone's ideas (including your own), finding what works best, and then repeating that process until everyone agrees. People with opposite ideologies never switch through insults, dogpiling, namecalling and censoring - they switch by being convinced.

That's not to say that everyone deserves a platform or that everyone's opinion is equally valid. Neonazis like Steve Bannon do not deserve a platform because they posess an ideology that is inherently violent; similarly, the 0.01% of feminists who actually deserve the "anti-man" label, shouldn't be given attention because they're almost as bad as the anti-women men.

JonTron has shown some despicable behaviour. He supports some people with truly horrifying ideologies. Does this mean he's "over"? No. Does this mean he's literally worse than Hitler? No. But what happens to those who defend him? I don't think his actions can be defended, but why shouldn't we allow it to happen?

This isn't just about JonTron - NeoGaf is widely ridiculed for its echo chamber aspects. This is almost entirely the fault of the moderators, who, if they really believe in fairness, ought to stop creating such an echo chamber. Either ban political discussion or let it flourish, but don't just ban users who respectfully make points that you happen to disagree with. Sometimes, I see banned people in old threads and check out their post history to see why they were banned. More often than not, their last post was simply a polite disagreement.

I understand why the moderators are so trigger-happy. NeoGaf is huge, and it's a forum clearly meant to be completely free of trolls and arguments. However, it would be better for everyone - left wingers, right wingers, moderates and radicals, to not be put into an echo chamber. The western world is polarised, and even the smallest changes can help undo the damage that has been done. Banning someone just because they disagree with our progressive ideas only makes them further entrench themselves in their beliefs, and robs us of the chance to be exposed to much-needed criticism of our ideas, which is how we improve them and make sure they work.

I have a hard time believing this. Generally, there is some form of hate speech or trolling involved. I get your point though about this being a bit an echo chamber, though that tends to be the case any time hate speech and bigotry is a bannable offense. It's one of the problems with political debate in 2016 in the U.S. The bigotry, sexism, and hate speech is pretty much all the right has. There really isn't a way to both ban hate speech and bigotry AND have a forum equaly representative of both sides of the political spectrum. It's just one site though on the internet. For the most part, there is no shortage of places to promote the right's awful ideas.

 

[Yokai]

Because they don't listen. They don't want to hear us. They don't want to acknowledge our existence. We have to make them hear us.

No, it is important to remain moderate even in the sights of extremism. The horseshoe theory is in full effect, an alt-right is as bad as an alt-left.

 

[Prithee Be Careful]

So you're of a mind that if we patiently respond to JonTron in a civil fashion and eat his abuse without any retribution, that he will eventually realize that he is being an asshole?

Maybe - maybe not. I dare say it wouldn't do any harm though. I'm happy to hear other options, I just don't think the mud-slinging gets much done. More often, it just galvanizes people, deepens the divides, reinforces the 'us' and 'them' rhetoric that they thrive on.

 

[Already Torn]

Maybe - maybe not. I dare say it wouldn't do any harm though. I'm happy to hear other options, I just don't think the mud-slinging gets much done. More often, it just galvanizes people, deepens the divides, reinforces the 'us' and 'them' rhetoric that they thrive on.

It would do harm in the sense that it wouldn't do any good, allowing Jon Tron to still do harm.

What you're saying sometimes works in personal conversation, but never on the internet to complete strangers.

 

[Professor Renegade]

Wow this is really disappointing to see, kinda glad that he left Game Grumps now.

 

[nkarafo]

Gonna just flat out say i agree with this post even if he is now banned

Wow.. when did he got banned?

This thread is going too fast.

 

[Yado]

this

doesn't

work

the republicans just swept house with inarguably the most hostile and least inclusive political campaign run in recent years.


stop telling the left to reach around the aisle when the right is unwilling to compromise. republicans blocked every single thing obama tried to do for the past 6 years and are now doing everything they can to fuck over anyone who didn't vote for them (women, pocs, lgbt+ individuals).

B-b-but do you want to become what you're fighting against??? Don't you want to be better? (never mind the fact that the need to feel like you're "better"/morally superior is what caused the left to lose this election) You should save that moral superiority for when its truly necessary, like coddling and "understanding" bigots that don't care about you. When they go low we go high!

 

[NoFaceNico]

Or you simply do not want to support someone whose views you find untenable. Why should I give him my views when I can unsub and support someone with good content and not awful views?

Of course. Please do that.

But while you have your set of values so do I and one of those values is being able to think for myself. So I don't care what his beliefs are, watching content wouldn't override my own.

 

[JeremyEtcetera]

So you're of a mind that if we patiently respond to JonTron in a civil fashion and eat his abuse without any retribution, that he will eventually realize that he is being an asshole?

The key here being people responding to him in person/talking with him rather than using Twitter. Twitter is a cesspool of misunderstood messaging, dogpiling, and trolling. It is literally one very slight step above 4chan's /b/.

 

[KoopaTheCasual]

this

doesn't

work

the republicans just swept house with inarguably the most hostile and least inclusive political campaign run in recent years.


stop telling the left to reach around the aisle when the right is unwilling to compromise. republicans blocked every single thing obama tried to do for the past 6 years and are now doing everything they can to fuck over anyone who didn't vote for them (women, pocs, lgbt+ individuals).

Yea, I'm tired of this kumbaya nonsense that has very little practical application. Most people who use this colorful ideology and language that I've encountered are speaking about these issues from a point of abstraction.

And there are people IN THIS THREAD, expressing moderate/right-leaning view points and they're not banned, because they understand how to articulate themselves in a civilized manner.

This isn't a conservative witch hunt. This is Neogaf'a TOS and moderation team doing its job.

 

[rtrbad]

YouTube celebrities are popular because of their personalities not their work and therefore kiddy fans will still follow him on Twitter and see it

His work is his youtube personality...

 

[Already Torn]

The key here being people responding to him in person/talking with him rather than using Twitter. Twitter is a cesspool of misunderstood messaging, dogpiling, and trolling. It is literally one very slight step above 4chan's /b/.

True, but then again in order to talk to him in person I'd have to smell him.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Of course. Please do that.

But while you have your set of values so do I and one of those values is being able to think for myself. So I don't care what his beliefs are, watching content wouldn't override my own.

But in this thread, no one is talking about how people shouldn't watch JonTron, but on the other hand, plenty of people are saying things like, for example, "If you're incapable of disassociating someone's personal opinions with their work/content, it shows an even greater weakness on your own part."

 

[SomedayTheFire]

No, it is important to remain moderate even in the sights of extremism. The horseshoe theory is in full effect, an alt-right is as bad as an alt-left.

Idealistic but naive. Every revolution and rights movement has ended with the sword and not the pen.

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

I really have reached the point where trying to engage with people on a respectful level has failed. The name calling I can deal with, but the implications behind it? Nah, we let these people away with too much and now they think they own the internet and can bully those who don't agree. Time to stop being nice. Time to stop trying to reason. Just call them out for what they are. If they don't like it, call them it again.

 

[ModBot]

Thread has near-totally derailed around whether or not people agree with NeoGAF's position on moderation (and complaining about their own past bans) and talking about a banned user. We don't normally comment about user bans, but the user banned in this thread was for banned for being an alternate account of a previously banned user.