|
On January 26 2017 13:46 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2017 06:00 opisska wrote:On January 26 2017 02:32 LegalLord wrote:On January 25 2017 06:48 Yuljan wrote:On January 25 2017 03:20 Morfildur wrote:On January 25 2017 00:49 OtherWorld wrote:On January 25 2017 00:00 LegalLord wrote:
Germany, of all European countries, seems least likely to have a populist revolution of sorts. But as someone said way upthread, history will not be as kind to Merkel and her leadership as the German electorate is right now. Why ? Germany is still, economically, the strongest European country (by far, even), doubtlessly has the potential to become the strongest military in Europe if they want to, and is also the key holding the EU together. If we look at economic indicators, the unemployment rate was at more than 10% when she took office, in 2005, and is today nearing 4% ; meanwhile, the GDP went up by roughly 30%, average wages went up, etc. By comparison, in France during the same timespan, under 3 different Presidents and 5 different Prime Ministers, unemployment rate went from 8.5% to 10%, and the GDP went up by only 10%. (source : www.tradingeconomics.com) People outside Germany only see the immigrant controversy and don't understand that most Germans are actually fine with refugees and immigrants, so they think Merkel is the root of all evil. Germany took more refugees than any other country and came out stronger while their own countries took the opportunity to blame everything on refugees to avoid actually improving things, e.g. "Oh, unemployment is high, sorry, we can't do anything with all the refugees streaming in. Blame Merkel." And where to you get your inside few that most Germans are fine with it? Having grown up in a multicultural city and worked there until last year when I finally got the chance to say goodbye to Germany, none of the people from my workplace or friends support the immigration policies. Most of the former immigrants too. They are not quite at the level were theyd vote for a right wing party but most of them told me they are planning to leave Germany as well. How did Germany come out stronger from taking in the refugees? Crime rates have surged and most of the refugees will never contribute anything to the country. They are a drain on the whole society and the full impact will only become visible in 10 years. I like how some Germans often portray the world as crazy even though every other country saw the problems this shortsighted and idiotic immigration policy will have. Now they slowly admit to positiones that were labelled right wing/nazi only 1 year ago. To be honest I think the refugees was a major contributor to the rise of populist and right wing parties in the world given that people realized how deluded and shortsighted to current "democratic" (i.e. party oligarchies in the west) governments have become. It definitely was the deciding factor for Brexit. One and a half years ago they said you were crazy if you mentioned theyd be terrorist in the refugees (i.e. the guys fleeing from the syrian army advances - mainly supporters of al-nusra, ISIS and other islamist calling themself the free syrian army). Now we have daily raids on terrorist supporters and I dont even want to count the number of attacks perpetrated by people that came in as refugees. One year ago they said cologne was committed by these bad north africans who just pretend to be refugees. This year a mob of the same men came again and after police controlled them it turned out most of them are syrians. I could go on and on about this topic but I dont blame you for your ignorance. You live in a different world and I truly hope that my fears wont become true and Germany keeps on going as always. I personally have drawn my conclusion having lived in a muslim dominated neighbourhood and also studied in a muslim country for half a year. While I called many of them my friends, I would never want my children to grow up with these people. Islam is the most hateful doctrine in the world and bringing in a mass of young, uneducated islamic men is a recipe for disaster of disproportional impact for the future of my former homeland. A state that does not control its border is not state at all so for me the German government has failed in every possible aspect. While a rebellion in Germany seems unlikely, I wouldnt consider it unjustified. User was temp banned for this post. This one makes me a bit sad. I could instantly see that it was going to get a ban but it was a genuinely insightful post into the frustrations of certain people with troubling developments. No need to beat around the bush: this is a stupid ban and the mod in question should feel ashamed of himself. This ohmygodhecalledislamhatefulwhatanazi mentality may turn out to be the key component in the rise of the fourth reich. At least my jew-related prediction above would then come to reality sooner, even if for a completely different reason. I now we should be cheerful here, but this is alarmingly unfunny. The saddest part is that the people causing the most harm are deeply convinced of doing good. Ironically, the other side that they are nurturing will be convinced of the same when time comes. I'm not sure if you are trying to be sarcastic so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. If you have problems with the ban, feel free to take it to website feedback. Only thing I'll say here is that while I empathize with his situation, TL is not the place for these types of hateful posts. No one will stop him if he rants all pf this to his inner circle of close friends but TL has rules and his mod history doesn't paint his recent posts in good light either. Not much else to say.
So the guy writes a long, touching story detailing his issues and the only thing you see is a "hateful post". I am sorry, but this is getting stupid. Another topic on which TL has declared the one true acceptable opinion - so why is it even discussed here? Why are the moderators working so hard to maintain the echo chamber?
But this time, the problem is way bigger than TL. This is a huge issue of the society in many European countries nowadays - people like BigFan, who see people Yuljan as "hateful" and refuse to listen to them and give them any space. Why do you people so fiercely refuse to see how dire the situation is? The fear of Islam is no longer a fringe problem of a couple of mislead uneducated idiots, it's a fully mainstream view - in Czech Republic it is surely held by the majority of population. Yet the BigFans of Europe (sorry man, your name will just be used as a label, if I were speaking Czech, we have some pretty clear terms for both sides of this divide, but in English, I am lost) are consistently trying to deny them any voice and keep on insisting that this is some kind of deranged minority. This attitude of whack-a-mole silencing would actually make sense, if it was a minority (it works in many cases), but it's completely idiotic when dealing with a majority.
Surely, a ban on TL is not a very far-reaching act. But it is a symptom. A symptom of shortsightedness and self-centrism of the "smart people". Any such instance of repression only nurtures the "hate". And not only large scale state repressions count. Every time you unfriend a guy on facebook because he posts about the terrors of islam too much, you are just making another dig to the trench. I constantly see some people believing that the trench is good, because it keeps the bad guys away, but that's total bullshit. The trench is around YOU, it keeps you away, because you are totally outnumbered.
I honestly think this is by far the biggest issue of the western civilization at the moment. There is real danger that within a couple of years, after a series of elections across Europe, we will suddenly find out that the majority has democratically elected what is basically the new nazis, out of the sheer frustration with immigration and the utter refusal of the current political elites to even talk about it. Then it is gonna be far too late to start the dialogue, so I urge people to take their time now to do it. Find your local islamophobe and talk to him - but in an open-minded manner, not as a lecture from your position of natural intellectual superiority.
The least TL can do to save the world would be to not ban such people on sight.
|
this is a starcraft site. for whatever reason, the people who own and operate the site have opened it up to non-starcraft related discussions. however, they want it to remain a friendly and welcoming place (for better or worse), and keep what most consider to be hate speech out of it. if you dont like it, move along to a site that welcomes your views. this isnt a podium for every view on earth.
i know you want to have some pseudo-intellectual discussion about why every view should be allowed to be expressed and people should get thicker skin, but when it comes down to it, you are a guest on tl.net and they dont give a shit about what you want when it comes to hate speech.
|
Agreed with OP.
Too often you get labelled a racist on this forum for attempting to voice a discomfort with the current immigration situation in Europe. It's pretty frustrating.
I first thought this ban was completely overkill, the fact that the account had been banned twice prior is somewhat of an explanation, I wonder what would've happened if a 'clean' account had made that post.
|
On January 26 2017 17:07 dAPhREAk wrote:
this is a starcraft site. for whatever reason, the people who own and operate the site have opened it up to non-starcraft related discussions. however, they want it to remain a friendly and welcoming place (for better or worse), and keep what most consider to be hate speech out of it. if you dont like it, move along to a site that welcomes your views. this isnt a podium for every view on earth.
i know you want to have some pseudo-intellectual discussion about why every view should be allowed to be expressed and people should get thicker skin, but when it comes down to it, you are a guest on tl.net and they dont give a shit about what you want when it comes to hate speech.
Sure, for people who value their comfort over their social responsibility, this is a completely valid point of view. However, the people who own and operate the site have repeatedly declared that they are opened to criticism of their ways, they have even said that to me personally on many occasions, so I do that.
I feel this direction of discussion honestly tiring. I have repeatedly expressed that the I fully accept that the TL powers to be are in full right in deciding about what is posted on their site, you do not need to convince me about that. You are really arguing against something I have never said. My essential point is that the fact that their action are rightful doesn't absolve them from being judged on whether they aren't stupid.
|
On January 26 2017 17:16 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2017 17:07 dAPhREAk wrote:
this is a starcraft site. for whatever reason, the people who own and operate the site have opened it up to non-starcraft related discussions. however, they want it to remain a friendly and welcoming place (for better or worse), and keep what most consider to be hate speech out of it. if you dont like it, move along to a site that welcomes your views. this isnt a podium for every view on earth.
i know you want to have some pseudo-intellectual discussion about why every view should be allowed to be expressed and people should get thicker skin, but when it comes down to it, you are a guest on tl.net and they dont give a shit about what you want when it comes to hate speech. Sure, for people who value their comfort over their social responsibility, this is a completely valid point of view. However, the people who own and operate the site have repeatedly declared that they are opened to criticism of their ways, they have even said that to me personally on many occasions, so I do that. I feel this direction of discussion honestly tiring. I have repeatedly expressed that the I fully accept that the TL powers to be are in full right in deciding about what is posted on their site, you do not need to convince me about that. You are really arguing against something I have never said. My essential point is that the fact that their action are rightful doesn't absolve them from being judged on whether they aren't stupid.
please explain to me why allowing hate speech increases social responsibility. the stupid thing about this discussion is that you can discuss these kinds of things, just leave out the stereotyping and hate. you can say immigration policies are wrong without grouping all muslims into categories and making generic statements.
i honestly think tl.net is too light on some of these things (specifically, the failure to crackdown on anti-religion), but whatever.
|
On January 26 2017 17:22 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2017 17:16 opisska wrote:On January 26 2017 17:07 dAPhREAk wrote:
this is a starcraft site. for whatever reason, the people who own and operate the site have opened it up to non-starcraft related discussions. however, they want it to remain a friendly and welcoming place (for better or worse), and keep what most consider to be hate speech out of it. if you dont like it, move along to a site that welcomes your views. this isnt a podium for every view on earth.
i know you want to have some pseudo-intellectual discussion about why every view should be allowed to be expressed and people should get thicker skin, but when it comes down to it, you are a guest on tl.net and they dont give a shit about what you want when it comes to hate speech. Sure, for people who value their comfort over their social responsibility, this is a completely valid point of view. However, the people who own and operate the site have repeatedly declared that they are opened to criticism of their ways, they have even said that to me personally on many occasions, so I do that. I feel this direction of discussion honestly tiring. I have repeatedly expressed that the I fully accept that the TL powers to be are in full right in deciding about what is posted on their site, you do not need to convince me about that. You are really arguing against something I have never said. My essential point is that the fact that their action are rightful doesn't absolve them from being judged on whether they aren't stupid. please explain to me why allowing hate speech increases social responsibility. the stupid thing about this discussion is that you can discuss these kinds of things, just leave out the stereotyping and hate. you can say immigration policies are wrong without grouping all muslims into categories and making generic statements. i honestly think tl.net is too light on some of these things (specifically, the failure to crackdown on anti-religion), but whatever.
Labeling opinions held by millions of people as "hate speech" is simply not a solution. Hiding in a shrinking bubble while the whole continent is being taking over by rampant xenofobia is the exact opposite of social responsibility. I really do not see how I can explain it further. I understand the idea of suppressing hateful speech and isolating those who perpetuate it in the hope that it will not spread, but this ship has sailed. I am not saying that you have to agree with their simplified view of Islam, but I would propose trying to argue with them, instead of just forcing them away, into their own bubbles, where their view will only become reinforced. The communication between the "tolerant" and the "islamophobic" camps is painfully needed at the moment, otherwise it just becomes a blind battle of simplifications.
This really is my main point here - and I want to get it across independently of my actual opinion on Islam and religion in general. I am aware that those opinions might be known to some of you, thus possible devaluating my point because it can be taken as "kicking for my team", but I am sincerely asking people to not do that.
|
I dont understand hating immigrants. Can somebody explain to me how it makes sense to not want immigration?
I dont see a difference between people born in my country and people born outside. They are all humans. Borders are drawn arbitrarily. What exactly makes immigrants worse than natives in your opinion? What is the difference between these two groups other than what is written on a piece of paper?
Its an honest question.
|
|
|
As the person who reported this post, I have to say about it :
(1) That I reported it because of the "Islam is most hateful doctrine in the world" line. I would have done the same had he put any other religion instead. Saying your opinion is one thing. Branding your opinion as a fact that no one can discuss is another, and is such a usual tactic of extremists (be them from the left or the right) that it's really, really tiring.
(2) I fail to see how you find it "touching", though. Yes, it's typical of miserable people who, because they feel they're failures, feel the need to blame their - very real, don't get me wrong - issues on others, in some kind of persecutory delusion that is becoming more and more mainstream. You can see all the symptoms : un-sourced assesments about crime rates and who commit them ; narrative of foreigners as parasites, people who "will never contribute anything" (oh hey, another opinion presented as a fact), who are a "drain", but whose full impact will only be seen in 10 years (classical "cancer narrative" right there !) ; blame of the "party oligarchy", of the (fake) "democracy" in which the real opinion of the people (whatever that even means) isn't considered, even though the very fact that populist parties are rising proves that wrong ; calling people who disagree with his vision of the world ignorant people ; border-control fetishism that disregards basic history lessons about borders (yeah, we all know there was absolutely no illegal immigration before Schengen, right ? Borders were all 10-meter tall walls and not at all virtual lines over a field, right ?) ; heavy emphasis on his own experience with these people, as if his experience was of course completely unbiased and objective (never forget Hitler based his view of the "World Jewry" not on statistics or facts, but on his own experience in Vienna !) ; and the good old "I don't want my children to grow up with these barbarous people !" argument (well, guess what, I don't my children to grow up in a society filled with hate speech, yet I'll have no choice. Sucks, right ?).
(3) The very fact that we had, both in the European Politics thread and here, several posters expressing support for his views (as well as the fact that we have a fair share of far-right posters in both Politics threads), disprove your view that this is "another topic on which TL has declared the one true acceptable opinion". In fact, TL allows plenty of anti-refugee/anti-EU/anti-establishment/anti-PC/anti-whatever speech (more in the US Politics thread than in the European one, though), as long as it stays decently polite and does not go on to such stupid generalization as "Islam is the most hateful doctrine in the world". Come on, had the guy replaced this sentence with something like "I don't think we can say, looking at the world right now, that Islam is a religion of peace", I'm fairly certain he wouldn't have been banned, even though his post still reeked of carefully disguised hate speech.
(4) As for the rest of your post, the part about people not listening to these frustrated people, I think once again, facts disprove this : populist parties are rising, and potentially will be elected ; medias are increasingly covering these frustrated people, thus giving them a voice ; and non-populist parties have radically changed their discourse to cater to these frustrated people. See for example the Parti Socialiste in France, who, after having been elected on the promise - among others - of giving to foreigners living in France the right to vote in local elections, and after having historically been the main voice opposing the broad generalizations made on Islam by the right to far-right sphere, has not only never realized that promise, but also has tried to put into law proposals from the far-right (!) about dual citizens losing their French citizenship in case of being sentenced by a court, and has adopted a narrative based on Sécurité, Laïcité, Uniformité rather than Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité. In fact, the issue is that people are listening to these people, but are not discussing with them - and in this I agree with you : open-mindedly discussing with your local Islamophobe is something everyone should do. But, in my experience, I've found that they themselves fail to be open-minded, and most of the time it's them who try to lecture you, persuaded that because they're "anti-mainstream" and they "don't believe the shit medias tell us", they have a natural intellectual superiority over you, poor blind sheep unable to think by yourself (you can see this in Yuljan post, btw : "I don't blame you for your ignorance. You live in a truly different world"). You need common ground to discuss with people. How can you find a common ground with someone to whom your reality is a lie, while for yourself his reality is a fantasy ?
edit : well, I strongly disagree with the un-ban. I hoped TL would hold itself to higher standards than you usually see on the Internet.
|
On January 26 2017 18:36 KadaverBB wrote:I've reversed the ban because I don't think the opinion expressed in the post is completely outlandish or controversial. It could have been worded more carefully in some parts to sound less harsh though. I also want to say that moderating is extremely difficult and mistakes happen from time to time. I've made plenty myself. You also should avoid statements like"TL has declared the one true acceptable opinion" , we are actually trying very hard to not intervene in these discussions. We could be way, way harder on some stuff, but we choose not to. Some posts are just worded way too aggressively or unmannered to be acceptable, something very common in political topics. We are also not a fan of hateful generalizations. Politics are hard, maybe for the moderation team especially, so please don't turn every ban in a politics thread into an outrage (You are very good at this opisska  ) 
Thank you.
On January 26 2017 18:32 RoomOfMush wrote:
I dont understand hating immigrants. Can somebody explain to me how it makes sense to not want immigration?
I dont see a difference between people born in my country and people born outside. They are all humans. Borders are drawn arbitrarily. What exactly makes immigrants worse than natives in your opinion? What is the difference between these two groups other than what is written on a piece of paper?
Its an honest question.
There's a difference between "hating immigrants" and "believing immigration has a negative effect for my country". I don't think anyone in this discussion has claimed the former.
Yuljan attempted to explain the latter, his post is in the quote in OP.
|
I just popped in to say that I agree with OtherWorld. It *should* not be okay to call "Islam the most hateful ideology". The rest of Yuljan's post was mostly hyperbolic nonsense, but within the bounds of acceptable conversation.
I can't believe I also agree with DaPhreak, but I do. Opisska's crusade against moderation here is well known, but no, not all opinions are equal, and some should simply be kept to yourself. Examples of such opinions (well documented to not be allowed to be voiced on TL):
- Holocaust never happened.
- Holocaust did happen, and it was awesome. We should do it again asap.
- Black people were born to be slaves, and are generally inferior to whites.
- Muslims are bad people.
- Christians are bad people.
- If your woman is outside of the kitchen, the chain is too long.
- You, *specific person* and/or TL leadership, are *expletive*
It is simply not okay to voice your opinion like this: some are simply vulgar/rude, and others are gross misrepresentations/hyperbolic/racist. And I for one am glad that we try to keep this type of stuff away from TL. Lets never change that.
|
There's a difference between hate speech and just plain speech of hate. To be fair, the post is full of hatred and unsubstantiated crap and entirely unpleasant to read, but that in itself should not be a bannable, unless it is in the thread rules.
"Islam is the most hateful doctrine in the world" is pretty close to the line though, but if that is bannable then I do not regard it as crossing the invisible line on the slippery slope. Others may regard that invisible line elsewhere though. It's not abusive, nor is it calling for violence, though I suppose that the argument could be called that it is likely to stir up racial hatred. In the end, the difference is that he said Islam, not muslims. If he said "muslims is the most hateful people in the world" then that would be bannable.
|
KBB the great unbanner/unwarner... well you see something new every day.
Glad that ban got reversed and/or commuted.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
Opisska: I'm sorry but what? Did you even read that small post of mine that you quoted from ABL? I say it right in the second part that I empathize with his situation. So, tell me, what do you expect me to do? Change his immigration laws? Fly over to where he's living and have a heart to heart conversation? The guy clearly made up his mind from his "extensive" experience. I mean, having "lived in a muslim dominated neighbourhood and also studied in a muslim country for half a year" clearly makes you an expert on the religion, Islam, right? After all, all muslims are perfect practitioners of Islam as well, aren't they? That's why all muslims see eye to eye on everything, right? Give me a fucking break. If he wanted to have an actual conversation, he would've phrased his whole post differently.
The guy clearly knew what he was posting because he's posted similar inflammatory posts in the past and got actioned for them by two separate mods (see posts below). He is free to disagree with Islam's principles and state that he doesn't believe it works with western values and that would've been fine, but, let's be real, his post had clearly hateful components and should've at least been warned but got banned precisely due to his mod history (Laurens).
On December 21 2015 02:34 Yuljan wrote:
The thing is you use poverty and unemployment to explain why muslims are overrepresented in crime in all European countries but the thing is they are overrepresented no matter the circumstances. Poverty is not the explanation. A backward 1000 year old culture combined with the fact that they dont seem to put any importance in education and you have our wonderful societies.
User was temp banned for this post.
On January 06 2016 07:22 Yuljan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2016 04:14 Tien wrote:
Germany is too afraid to just publicly say this unlimited refugee PR stunt was a massive mistake. Germany is also too afraid to mention that a large part of all violent crime is done by one particular group of immigrants and their descendants. But hey the German media is like the tl mods and you get banned/publicly exorcised if you ever mention that. The ting in cologne has happened for years but I guess they can't ignore it if a thousand get together and hide the aggressors. Also helps that our judicial enforcement is a joke and there is zero chance of any significant punishment. If you want to import millions of people from middle age so cities you should at least have the foresight to import their medieval punishment since violence is the only thing they seem to understand. User was temp banned for this post.
These posts were written about a month ago. I don't need to tell you what's wrong with either one, should be pretty obvious to anyone. So, what does he decide to do? Well, why not test TL mods again and have more direct bashing. I'm sorry but no. Part of his post was clear hate speech, cut and dry. There's no way around it. TL shouldn't be condoning such statements either. Otherworld's post explains his post in great detail so I would recommend reading it before commenting further.
As has been mentioned by some posters, this is a primarily starcraft site. Just because there is a general forum where other topics are discussed doesn't mean you can start bashing every thing you hate and think you should get a pass. If the guy is frustrated with how things are going, as mentioned in my earlier post, talk with close friends about it. Don't air your dirty laundry on TL!
While I typically don't disagree with Kadaver's actions because I think he's a great mod overall, this reversal isn't a great idea imo. These types of posts should not exist on TL. By reversing this, you essentially opened the floodgate for all similar comments bashing other religions and I don't think you realize the extent of it either. As Acrofales stated, there are clear lines that shouldn't be crossed on TL and it should've been left that way. I've seen way too forums become filled with racism once a mod decided to give leeway to a poster.
I'll respect the decision but suffice to say, I'm extremely disappointed that his post is allowed to stay with no repercussions. Like Otherworld, I would've also thought TL standards were the highest having spent so much of my time volunteering for the site so I hope this decision is reviewed.
|
I'll be honest, I don't see either of those two posts as banworthy either (second one maybe for martyring but not for content). "Having a history" isn't particularly meaningful if said history comes from a set of bans that weren't worth giving.
He says what he says somewhat aggressively but there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying "X group has shown itself disproportionately predisposed to violence and crime" in a manner that can barely be called aggressive, much less hateful.
|
On January 26 2017 23:02 LegalLord wrote:
I'll be honest, I don't see either of those two posts as banworthy either (second one maybe for martyring but not for content). "Having a history" isn't particularly meaningful if said history comes from a set of bans that weren't worth giving.
He says what he says somewhat aggressively but there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying "X group has shown itself disproportionately predisposed to violence and crime" in a manner that can barely be called aggressive, much less hateful.
Really?! Here are what I feel is perfectly banworthy (the rest is merely despiccable)
A backward 1000 year old culture combined with the fact that they dont seem to put any importance in education and you have our wonderful societies.
and from the second one:
If you want to import millions of people from middle age so cities you should at least have the foresight to import their medieval punishment since violence is the only thing they seem to understand.
How are these sentences in any way okay?
|
OtherWorld, honestly, this post should (maybe with less annoyed aggresivity) have been essentially your reply to that guy, instead of the report (to be fair, I did not read the whole context, so I don't know if you haven't done so). There are some logical inconsistencies though, such as claiming that that populist parties are listening to the is a counterpoint to what I said - it isn't that's those people just listening to themselves, but that is not really the point.
I'd like to apologize to the mods for saying the things KBB is calling me out for - my only hope is that people who know me a little do essentially ignore all these attacking parts of what I write, because they know I talk like that to everyone, so it doesn't really mean much 
At any rate I am slightly glad I wrote all of that, because it got shit done.
|
On January 26 2017 23:05 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2017 23:02 LegalLord wrote:
I'll be honest, I don't see either of those two posts as banworthy either (second one maybe for martyring but not for content). "Having a history" isn't particularly meaningful if said history comes from a set of bans that weren't worth giving.
He says what he says somewhat aggressively but there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying "X group has shown itself disproportionately predisposed to violence and crime" in a manner that can barely be called aggressive, much less hateful. Really?! Here are what I feel is perfectly banworthy (the rest is merely despiccable) Show nested quote + A backward 1000 year old culture combined with the fact that they dont seem to put any importance in education and you have our wonderful societies. and from the second one: Show nested quote +If you want to import millions of people from middle age so cities you should at least have the foresight to import their medieval punishment since violence is the only thing they seem to understand. How are these sentences in any way okay?
What's wrong with saying that certain cultures are ass-backwards? People feel perfectly justified in saying the same about certain European countries whenever they do something that is looked upon unfavorably by the "EU" so why is this different?
|
Germany25657 Posts
Just because you attack everybody doesn't mean its the right thing to do, that is a very poor excuse, just saying.
Since there is still internal discussion about this issue, we will take another look.
I'd appreciate if you guys could avoid turning this into Politics 3.0 since we already have 2.0 in Website feedback and one of those is enough.
|
I think it would be good to, as the topic of this thread may imply, to clarify what is and isn't a "hateful post" since that topic comes up time and time again and continues to be a contentious issue.
The problem of perceived partisanship of moderation in the politics thread is not at all a new one.
|
On January 26 2017 23:30 LegalLord wrote:What's wrong with saying that certain cultures are ass-backwards? People feel perfectly justified in saying the same about certain European countries whenever they do something that is looked upon unfavorably by the "EU" so why is this different? What are you even on about? You have been on an anti-EU crusade for a while now, implying all sorts, but you never substantial your claims. When someone calls you out on it, you just deflect and talk about something else.
|
On January 26 2017 18:47 Laurens wrote:
There's a difference between "hating immigrants" and "believing immigration has a negative effect for my country". I don't think anyone in this discussion has claimed the former.
Yuljan attempted to explain the latter, his post is in the quote in OP.
How does an immigrant have a negative effect on your country? What is the difference between having one more immigrant or one more native?
|
On January 26 2017 23:30 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2017 23:05 Acrofales wrote:On January 26 2017 23:02 LegalLord wrote:
I'll be honest, I don't see either of those two posts as banworthy either (second one maybe for martyring but not for content). "Having a history" isn't particularly meaningful if said history comes from a set of bans that weren't worth giving.
He says what he says somewhat aggressively but there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying "X group has shown itself disproportionately predisposed to violence and crime" in a manner that can barely be called aggressive, much less hateful. Really?! Here are what I feel is perfectly banworthy (the rest is merely despiccable) A backward 1000 year old culture combined with the fact that they dont seem to put any importance in education and you have our wonderful societies. and from the second one: If you want to import millions of people from middle age so cities you should at least have the foresight to import their medieval punishment since violence is the only thing they seem to understand. How are these sentences in any way okay? What's wrong with saying that certain cultures are ass-backwards? People feel perfectly justified in saying the same about certain European countries whenever they do something that is looked upon unfavorably by the "EU" so why is this different?
This is TeamLiquid website feedback, so lets go. Please show me 1 post from these forums that wasn't actioned against that calls a "certain European country": a backward 1000 year old culture or something equivalent.
Put up, boyo.
|
Germany25657 Posts
|
this doesn't sound US politics related to me, but eu thread related.
I don't see this post being fro the US politics thread; and while you might call it ruined, I'd say it's serving its purpose well; and I'd like to keep it on topic, and not get into problems unrelated to that thread.
|
On January 27 2017 01:08 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2017 23:30 LegalLord wrote:On January 26 2017 23:05 Acrofales wrote:On January 26 2017 23:02 LegalLord wrote:
I'll be honest, I don't see either of those two posts as banworthy either (second one maybe for martyring but not for content). "Having a history" isn't particularly meaningful if said history comes from a set of bans that weren't worth giving.
He says what he says somewhat aggressively but there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying "X group has shown itself disproportionately predisposed to violence and crime" in a manner that can barely be called aggressive, much less hateful. Really?! Here are what I feel is perfectly banworthy (the rest is merely despiccable) A backward 1000 year old culture combined with the fact that they dont seem to put any importance in education and you have our wonderful societies. and from the second one: If you want to import millions of people from middle age so cities you should at least have the foresight to import their medieval punishment since violence is the only thing they seem to understand. How are these sentences in any way okay? What's wrong with saying that certain cultures are ass-backwards? People feel perfectly justified in saying the same about certain European countries whenever they do something that is looked upon unfavorably by the "EU" so why is this different? This is TeamLiquid website feedback, so lets go. Please show me 1 post from these forums that wasn't actioned against that calls a "certain European country": a backward 1000 year old culture or something equivalent. Put up, boyo.
I could perhaps search for it later (when I am on a computer with reasonable search capabilities) but I would say any form of "this country is fascist/authoritarian/stupid because they don't support some policy X" is about morally equivalent here. That's about equivalent to saying a certain culture or other is ass-backwards. The only difference is that here, it's perceived as racist, but the implications are the same since being racist against cultures delineated by nation rather than skin color isn't a thing.
This is a Europe thread matter, but if KBB so desires we can move it to US Politics from here on out.
|
On January 26 2017 23:12 opisska wrote:I talk like that to everyone, so it doesn't really mean much
Actually I find your posts easier to read than most, mostly because you just go straight to the point, and you seem to simply mean what you write (and vice-versa), regardless of the topic and who you are talking to.
|
On January 27 2017 02:38 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 01:08 Acrofales wrote:On January 26 2017 23:30 LegalLord wrote:On January 26 2017 23:05 Acrofales wrote:On January 26 2017 23:02 LegalLord wrote:
I'll be honest, I don't see either of those two posts as banworthy either (second one maybe for martyring but not for content). "Having a history" isn't particularly meaningful if said history comes from a set of bans that weren't worth giving.
He says what he says somewhat aggressively but there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying "X group has shown itself disproportionately predisposed to violence and crime" in a manner that can barely be called aggressive, much less hateful. Really?! Here are what I feel is perfectly banworthy (the rest is merely despiccable) A backward 1000 year old culture combined with the fact that they dont seem to put any importance in education and you have our wonderful societies. and from the second one: If you want to import millions of people from middle age so cities you should at least have the foresight to import their medieval punishment since violence is the only thing they seem to understand. How are these sentences in any way okay? What's wrong with saying that certain cultures are ass-backwards? People feel perfectly justified in saying the same about certain European countries whenever they do something that is looked upon unfavorably by the "EU" so why is this different? This is TeamLiquid website feedback, so lets go. Please show me 1 post from these forums that wasn't actioned against that calls a "certain European country": a backward 1000 year old culture or something equivalent. Put up, boyo. I could perhaps search for it later (when I am on a computer with reasonable search capabilities) but I would say any form of "this country is fascist/authoritarian/stupid because they don't support some policy X" is about morally equivalent here. That's about equivalent to saying a certain culture or other is ass-backwards. The only difference is that here, it's perceived as racist, but the implications are the same since being racist against cultures delineated by nation rather than skin color isn't a thing. This is a Europe thread matter, but if KBB so desires we can move it to US Politics from here on out.
Just scan the EU or UK politics thread for comments about Orban or Hungary. "Backwards" isn't even close to the stuff said about him.
But like you said, no one minds if the insults are directed at an EU country.
|
|
|
On January 27 2017 02:38 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 01:08 Acrofales wrote:On January 26 2017 23:30 LegalLord wrote:On January 26 2017 23:05 Acrofales wrote:On January 26 2017 23:02 LegalLord wrote:
I'll be honest, I don't see either of those two posts as banworthy either (second one maybe for martyring but not for content). "Having a history" isn't particularly meaningful if said history comes from a set of bans that weren't worth giving.
He says what he says somewhat aggressively but there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying "X group has shown itself disproportionately predisposed to violence and crime" in a manner that can barely be called aggressive, much less hateful. Really?! Here are what I feel is perfectly banworthy (the rest is merely despiccable) A backward 1000 year old culture combined with the fact that they dont seem to put any importance in education and you have our wonderful societies. and from the second one: If you want to import millions of people from middle age so cities you should at least have the foresight to import their medieval punishment since violence is the only thing they seem to understand. How are these sentences in any way okay? What's wrong with saying that certain cultures are ass-backwards? People feel perfectly justified in saying the same about certain European countries whenever they do something that is looked upon unfavorably by the "EU" so why is this different? This is TeamLiquid website feedback, so lets go. Please show me 1 post from these forums that wasn't actioned against that calls a "certain European country": a backward 1000 year old culture or something equivalent. Put up, boyo. I could perhaps search for it later (when I am on a computer with reasonable search capabilities) but I would say any form of "this country is fascist/authoritarian/stupid because they don't support some policy X" is about morally equivalent here. That's about equivalent to saying a certain culture or other is ass-backwards. The only difference is that here, it's perceived as racist, but the implications are the same since being racist against cultures delineated by nation rather than skin color isn't a thing. This is a Europe thread matter, but if KBB so desires we can move it to US Politics from here on out.
Typical unsubstantiated crap from legalord.
No, it's not equivalent. Don't even argue that it is, like you do in other threads. Black is not white. I'll happily say that it that UK is currently on a course to leave the EU is stupid because they don't support policy X. That is not equivalent to sayuing British culture is ass-backwards. It's not rascist to say so, the implications are not the same, and nations are not delineated by culture.
If you think it's off topic, as you are the one who started this offtopic, you can kindly refrain from posting here, instead of asking mods to hide the sheer unadulterated crap you just posted.
On January 27 2017 02:53 Laurens wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 02:38 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 01:08 Acrofales wrote:On January 26 2017 23:30 LegalLord wrote:On January 26 2017 23:05 Acrofales wrote:On January 26 2017 23:02 LegalLord wrote:
I'll be honest, I don't see either of those two posts as banworthy either (second one maybe for martyring but not for content). "Having a history" isn't particularly meaningful if said history comes from a set of bans that weren't worth giving.
He says what he says somewhat aggressively but there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying "X group has shown itself disproportionately predisposed to violence and crime" in a manner that can barely be called aggressive, much less hateful. Really?! Here are what I feel is perfectly banworthy (the rest is merely despiccable) A backward 1000 year old culture combined with the fact that they dont seem to put any importance in education and you have our wonderful societies. and from the second one: If you want to import millions of people from middle age so cities you should at least have the foresight to import their medieval punishment since violence is the only thing they seem to understand. How are these sentences in any way okay? What's wrong with saying that certain cultures are ass-backwards? People feel perfectly justified in saying the same about certain European countries whenever they do something that is looked upon unfavorably by the "EU" so why is this different? This is TeamLiquid website feedback, so lets go. Please show me 1 post from these forums that wasn't actioned against that calls a "certain European country": a backward 1000 year old culture or something equivalent. Put up, boyo. I could perhaps search for it later (when I am on a computer with reasonable search capabilities) but I would say any form of "this country is fascist/authoritarian/stupid because they don't support some policy X" is about morally equivalent here. That's about equivalent to saying a certain culture or other is ass-backwards. The only difference is that here, it's perceived as racist, but the implications are the same since being racist against cultures delineated by nation rather than skin color isn't a thing. This is a Europe thread matter, but if KBB so desires we can move it to US Politics from here on out. Just scan the EU or UK politics thread for comments about Orban or Hungary. "Backwards" isn't even close to the stuff said about him. But like you said, no one minds if the insults are directed at an EU country.
I frequent both the EU and UK politics thread. Neither has said anything of the sort as far as I can recall. Not even close.
|
On January 27 2017 02:53 Laurens wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 02:38 LegalLord wrote:On January 27 2017 01:08 Acrofales wrote:On January 26 2017 23:30 LegalLord wrote:On January 26 2017 23:05 Acrofales wrote:On January 26 2017 23:02 LegalLord wrote:
I'll be honest, I don't see either of those two posts as banworthy either (second one maybe for martyring but not for content). "Having a history" isn't particularly meaningful if said history comes from a set of bans that weren't worth giving.
He says what he says somewhat aggressively but there is absolutely nothing wrong with saying "X group has shown itself disproportionately predisposed to violence and crime" in a manner that can barely be called aggressive, much less hateful. Really?! Here are what I feel is perfectly banworthy (the rest is merely despiccable) A backward 1000 year old culture combined with the fact that they dont seem to put any importance in education and you have our wonderful societies. and from the second one: If you want to import millions of people from middle age so cities you should at least have the foresight to import their medieval punishment since violence is the only thing they seem to understand. How are these sentences in any way okay? What's wrong with saying that certain cultures are ass-backwards? People feel perfectly justified in saying the same about certain European countries whenever they do something that is looked upon unfavorably by the "EU" so why is this different? This is TeamLiquid website feedback, so lets go. Please show me 1 post from these forums that wasn't actioned against that calls a "certain European country": a backward 1000 year old culture or something equivalent. Put up, boyo. I could perhaps search for it later (when I am on a computer with reasonable search capabilities) but I would say any form of "this country is fascist/authoritarian/stupid because they don't support some policy X" is about morally equivalent here. That's about equivalent to saying a certain culture or other is ass-backwards. The only difference is that here, it's perceived as racist, but the implications are the same since being racist against cultures delineated by nation rather than skin color isn't a thing. This is a Europe thread matter, but if KBB so desires we can move it to US Politics from here on out. Just scan the EU or UK politics thread for comments about Orban or Hungary. "Backwards" isn't even close to the stuff said about him. But like you said, no one minds if the insults are directed at an EU country.
This might be straying too far into actual EU politics rather than website feedback, but do you see the difference between calling Orban an asshat dictator, and calling all refugees medieval?
And I don't think people have said much nasty stuff about Hungarians without being warned/banned. I know that the few people who had a hand to say nasty shit about Polish people (particularly some specific western Europeans have that tendency) got warned/banned for it.
I'm going to address LegalLord's post as well here, so as to keep it concise. You two seem to agree in any case.
I disagree completely that "medieval" is in the same category as "fascist" or "authoritarian". It is in the same category as stupid. If you can find a post that categorically says that Hungarians (or some other group) are stupid, without that being actioned I'd be quite surprised. Also, context is important. "God, Hungarians are stupid, because they voted in Orban" is clearly not the same as saying "God, these refugees' culture is medieval". In the latter, you are clearly using the adjective to announce your frustration at the Hungarians' action. If they hadn't voted for Orban, you wouldn't be calling them stupid. Ergo, the action of voting for Orban is the stupid thing, not Hungarians in general (moreover, Orban required at least a majority of Hungarians to vote for him, which will be important in a few sentences). Whereas in the latter, you are categorizing refugees' culture as being medieval: there is no specific action that they could have done differently. Yuljan is not saying "those refugees who assaulted the girls in Dusseldorf are medieval assholes", he's using that tiny minority (the actual medieval assholes) as a representation of the whole group (refugees).
As for authoritarian/fascist: these are underdefined terms, but they are political terms with a political meaning, and have a place in a political debate. If people start slinging "Hungarians are fascists" around, they deserve the same warning/ban as someone saying "refugees are medieval", because the intent is clearly not to discuss the fascist policies of Hungary, but rather to make a derogatory remark and end the debate.
|
Anyways, to bring this back on topic, before Legalord decides to derail with more newspeak. I was reading this post:On January 26 2017 22:55 BigFan wrote:Opisska: I'm sorry but what? Did you even read that small post of mine that you quoted from ABL? I say it right in the second part that I empathize with his situation. So, tell me, what do you expect me to do? Change his immigration laws? Fly over to where he's living and have a heart to heart conversation? The guy clearly made up his mind from his "extensive" experience. I mean, having "lived in a muslim dominated neighbourhood and also studied in a muslim country for half a year" clearly makes you an expert on the religion, Islam, right? After all, all muslims are perfect practitioners of Islam as well, aren't they? That's why all muslims see eye to eye on everything, right? Give me a fucking break. If he wanted to have an actual conversation, he would've phrased his whole post differently. The guy clearly knew what he was posting because he's posted similar inflammatory posts in the past and got actioned for them by two separate mods (see posts below). He is free to disagree with Islam's principles and state that he doesn't believe it works with western values and that would've been fine, but, let's be real, his post had clearly hateful components and should've at least been warned but got banned precisely due to his mod history (Laurens). Show nested quote +On December 21 2015 02:34 Yuljan wrote:
The thing is you use poverty and unemployment to explain why muslims are overrepresented in crime in all European countries but the thing is they are overrepresented no matter the circumstances. Poverty is not the explanation. A backward 1000 year old culture combined with the fact that they dont seem to put any importance in education and you have our wonderful societies.
User was temp banned for this post. Show nested quote +On January 06 2016 07:22 Yuljan wrote:On January 06 2016 04:14 Tien wrote:
Germany is too afraid to just publicly say this unlimited refugee PR stunt was a massive mistake. Germany is also too afraid to mention that a large part of all violent crime is done by one particular group of immigrants and their descendants. But hey the German media is like the tl mods and you get banned/publicly exorcised if you ever mention that. The ting in cologne has happened for years but I guess they can't ignore it if a thousand get together and hide the aggressors. Also helps that our judicial enforcement is a joke and there is zero chance of any significant punishment. If you want to import millions of people from middle age so cities you should at least have the foresight to import their medieval punishment since violence is the only thing they seem to understand. User was temp banned for this post. These posts were written about a month ago. I don't need to tell you what's wrong with either one, should be pretty obvious to anyone. So, what does he decide to do? Well, why not test TL mods again and have more direct bashing. I'm sorry but no. Part of his post was clear hate speech, cut and dry. There's no way around it. TL shouldn't be condoning such statements either. Otherworld's post explains his post in great detail so I would recommend reading it before commenting further. As has been mentioned by some posters, this is a primarily starcraft site. Just because there is a general forum where other topics are discussed doesn't mean you can start bashing every thing you hate and think you should get a pass. If the guy is frustrated with how things are going, as mentioned in my earlier post, talk with close friends about it. Don't air your dirty laundry on TL! While I typically don't disagree with Kadaver's actions because I think he's a great mod overall, this reversal isn't a great idea imo. These types of posts should not exist on TL. By reversing this, you essentially opened the floodgate for all similar comments bashing other religions and I don't think you realize the extent of it either. As Acrofales stated, there are clear lines that shouldn't be crossed on TL and it should've been left that way. I've seen way too forums become filled with racism once a mod decided to give leeway to a poster. I'll respect the decision but suffice to say, I'm extremely disappointed that his post is allowed to stay with no repercussions. Like Otherworld, I would've also thought TL standards were the highest having spent so much of my time volunteering for the site so I hope this decision is reviewed.
I broadly agree with what was written here; in particular this part:While I typically don't disagree with Kadaver's actions because I think he's a great mod overall, this reversal isn't a great idea imo. These types of posts should not exist on TL. By reversing this, you essentially opened the floodgate for all similar comments bashing other religions and I don't think you realize the extent of it either. As Acrofales stated, there are clear lines that shouldn't be crossed on TL and it should've been left that way. I've seen way too forums become filled with racism once a mod decided to give leeway to a poster.
The problem is one of consistency and a lack of clear guidelines. With a lack of clear guidelines, in effect warnings and bans are the methods used to create the ruleset, as in law by way of precedent. Unfortunately, as clear leniency has been given to individuals who were otherwise writers or were accomplished in bw or forum veterans; and from therein lies the problem. Due to such lack of action given to those individuals, has the floodgates for such posts been opened.
So there remains three possible outcomes:
1) To remain at the current system of a lack of clear guidelines, where certain people can descend closely into hatespeech and not get warned and banned, and so encourage other posters to do the same. Borderline cases will get banned with people arguing for and against the ban.
2) To accept that hateful speech is acceptable in the forum.
3) To have clear guidelines, or consistency and make sure that all hateful speech is warned/banned. Improve the standards of posting, no matter who it is that is posting. Multiple false facts, written in such a way that is not constructive? Make it bannable. Make it clear that it is not acceptable.
|
On January 26 2017 17:47 opisska wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2017 17:22 dAPhREAk wrote:On January 26 2017 17:16 opisska wrote:On January 26 2017 17:07 dAPhREAk wrote:
this is a starcraft site. for whatever reason, the people who own and operate the site have opened it up to non-starcraft related discussions. however, they want it to remain a friendly and welcoming place (for better or worse), and keep what most consider to be hate speech out of it. if you dont like it, move along to a site that welcomes your views. this isnt a podium for every view on earth.
i know you want to have some pseudo-intellectual discussion about why every view should be allowed to be expressed and people should get thicker skin, but when it comes down to it, you are a guest on tl.net and they dont give a shit about what you want when it comes to hate speech. Sure, for people who value their comfort over their social responsibility, this is a completely valid point of view. However, the people who own and operate the site have repeatedly declared that they are opened to criticism of their ways, they have even said that to me personally on many occasions, so I do that. I feel this direction of discussion honestly tiring. I have repeatedly expressed that the I fully accept that the TL powers to be are in full right in deciding about what is posted on their site, you do not need to convince me about that. You are really arguing against something I have never said. My essential point is that the fact that their action are rightful doesn't absolve them from being judged on whether they aren't stupid. please explain to me why allowing hate speech increases social responsibility. the stupid thing about this discussion is that you can discuss these kinds of things, just leave out the stereotyping and hate. you can say immigration policies are wrong without grouping all muslims into categories and making generic statements. i honestly think tl.net is too light on some of these things (specifically, the failure to crackdown on anti-religion), but whatever. Labeling opinions held by millions of people as "hate speech" is simply not a solution. Hiding in a shrinking bubble while the whole continent is being taking over by rampant xenofobia is the exact opposite of social responsibility. I really do not see how I can explain it further. I understand the idea of suppressing hateful speech and isolating those who perpetuate it in the hope that it will not spread, but this ship has sailed. I am not saying that you have to agree with their simplified view of Islam, but I would propose trying to argue with them, instead of just forcing them away, into their own bubbles, where their view will only become reinforced. The communication between the "tolerant" and the "islamophobic" camps is painfully needed at the moment, otherwise it just becomes a blind battle of simplifications. This really is my main point here - and I want to get it across independently of my actual opinion on Islam and religion in general. I am aware that those opinions might be known to some of you, thus possible devaluating my point because it can be taken as "kicking for my team", but I am sincerely asking people to not do that.
well this thread went to shit since i went to sleep.
labeling it hate speech and moderating it is perfectly fine when the purpose of this site is not political/racial/whatever discussion. its starcraft. they have expanded it beyond that out of their good graces, but have never indicated that it was intended to avoid the main purpose of this site: a welcoming place for people all over the world to gather to discuss starcraft.
i see your point that it should be addressed head on (probably by calling them ignorant and being done with it), but again, thats not the purpose of this site. you also really havent addressed the issue of if you allow it on tl, it will spread all over and people will think its justified since its no longer against the rules. then we get people using disparaging words in every thread that the ignorant people decide they want to take a piss on. thats not a workable solution.
i guess you could have a "i am an ignoramus and like to hate on groups" thread, and let them go rampant in there. i personally think its not worth my time to speak with them, but other people can feel free to "communicate" with them. also, it will take less than three pages before the thread will get shut down because its a cesspool and there will be no real communication, but i have been wrong before--maybe tl will become the first place on earth where ignorant people see the errors in their ways.
|
On January 27 2017 03:23 Acrofales wrote:
I disagree completely that "medieval" is in the same category as "fascist" or "authoritarian". It is in the same category as stupid. If you can find a post that categorically says that Hungarians (or some other group) are stupid, without that being actioned I'd be quite surprised. Also, context is important. "God, Hungarians are stupid, because they voted in Orban" is clearly not the same as saying "God, these refugees' culture is medieval". In the latter, you are clearly using the adjective to announce your frustration at the Hungarians' action. If they hadn't voted for Orban, you wouldn't be calling them stupid. Ergo, the action of voting for Orban is the stupid thing, not Hungarians in general (moreover, Orban required at least a majority of Hungarians to vote for him, which will be important in a few sentences). Whereas in the latter, you are categorizing refugees' culture as being medieval: there is no specific action that they could have done differently. Yuljan is not saying "those refugees who assaulted the girls in Dusseldorf are medieval assholes", he's using that tiny minority (the actual medieval assholes) as a representation of the whole group (refugees).
I don't see the distinction "Hungarians are stupid cuz Orban" from "Islam is mediæval, look at these assaults to see it" as significant. Both are contentious statements requiring more clarification but in my eyes neither should be banworthy. I certainly don't see it as some ugly form of "hate speech" that shouldn't be tolerated.
|
On January 27 2017 03:54 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2017 03:23 Acrofales wrote:
I disagree completely that "medieval" is in the same category as "fascist" or "authoritarian". It is in the same category as stupid. If you can find a post that categorically says that Hungarians (or some other group) are stupid, without that being actioned I'd be quite surprised. Also, context is important. "God, Hungarians are stupid, because they voted in Orban" is clearly not the same as saying "God, these refugees' culture is medieval". In the latter, you are clearly using the adjective to announce your frustration at the Hungarians' action. If they hadn't voted for Orban, you wouldn't be calling them stupid. Ergo, the action of voting for Orban is the stupid thing, not Hungarians in general (moreover, Orban required at least a majority of Hungarians to vote for him, which will be important in a few sentences). Whereas in the latter, you are categorizing refugees' culture as being medieval: there is no specific action that they could have done differently. Yuljan is not saying "those refugees who assaulted the girls in Dusseldorf are medieval assholes", he's using that tiny minority (the actual medieval assholes) as a representation of the whole group (refugees). I don't see the distinction "Hungarians are stupid cuz Orban" from "Islam is mediæval, look at these assaults to see it" as significant. Both are contentious statements requiring more clarification but in my eyes neither should be banworthy. I certainly don't see it as some ugly form of "hate speech" that shouldn't be tolerated. Legalord, quotes, but cannot even quote properly.
"God, Hungarians are stupid, because they voted in Orban" /= "Hungarians are stupid cuz Orban".
"God, these refugees' culture is medieval" /= "Islam is mediæval, look at these assaults to see it".
In any case "Hungarians are stupid cuz Orban" would entirely deserve a ban so why legalord is arguing it isn't is quite beyond me.
In your own words, put up or shut up, dude. When has anybody said that certain cultures are ass-backwards? Which people feel perfectly justified in saying the same about certain European countries whenever they do something that is looked upon unfavorably by the "EU". Or are you just going to continuously deflect and misquote?
|
On January 27 2017 03:48 dAPhREAk wrote:
i guess you could have a "i am an ignoramus and like to hate on groups" thread, and let them go rampant in there. i personally think its not worth my time to speak with them, but other people can feel free to "communicate" with them.
Those threads exist, they are called US, UK and EU politics
They are Fun to read, but the noise-to-signal and bigot-to-... Well, non-bigot ratios are the worst I've observed since the invention oft IRC
|
It's not that bad. I read several informative posts on French Politics.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
Me and Kadaver discussed the issue at length yesterday. The decision to revert the 30 day ban was reasonably straight forward.
- This was not a 30-day ban actionable offence. While Yuljan does have a mod history concerning the subject, the last ban/warning along these lines was over a year ago - not within a month like initially thought. Moreover one of those actions is specifically for taking pot shots at the mod team as opposed to other post content.
- Whether or not the post in question deserved some action is something that is open to interpretation. The phrase in contention is
I personally have drawn my conclusion having lived in a muslim dominated neighbourhood and also studied in a muslim country for half a year. While I called many of them my friends, I would never want my children to grow up with these people. Islam is the most hateful doctrine in the world and bringing in a mass of young, uneducated islamic men is a recipe for disaster of disproportional impact for the future of my former homeland. While I completely disagree with his opinion, the premise for having concerns about the refugee crisis and resulting immigration is that Islamic values are incompatible with Western values and from that premise we conclude that this will ultimately lead to violence/degradation of society. Because the very premise of chain of logic is contingent on the assertion about the hatefulness of Islam we have a bit of a problem from a moderation standpoint. 1) If you think that assertion that Islam cannot be integrated into Western culture is racist and hence has no place on TL then anyone who wants to discuss the refugee crisis cannot argue against accepting refugees without being a racist/banned. 2) The issue is something that is being widely discussed right now and hence is something that lots of people want to discuss here, so do we permit some tolerance of racist views for the sake of that discussion?
It's probable that the phrase is warnable, hence the reversal without apology (I say probable without consulting others at length about what action they think is appropriate). This doesn't set a precedent or kind of slippery slope like some have suggested. This is an isolated incident (for now) and we'll treat each incident on a case by case basis just like we've always done.
EDIT:
Come on, had the guy replaced this sentence with something like "I don't think we can say, looking at the world right now, that Islam is a religion of peace", I'm fairly certain he wouldn't have been banned, even though his post still reeked of carefully disguised hate speech. Reflect on this sentiment -- Yuljan was banned because he didn't hide his hate well enough in his post. This comes back to my point that anti-immigration views almost invariably reduce to a hate/discomfort with a race/religion and causes the aforementioned problems.
Finally, anyone expecting TL to hold a higher standard, know that we still act against hate wherever that action is reasonable. In particular, outside of the politics threads this kind of posting would never be acceptable. The only reason action is questionable in this context is because (to some extent) they might be necessary for users to discuss (very real) issues facing the world right now. This special status, is of course, unique to the politics threads. And, of course, we might change our minds about that at some point in the future and if that happens you'll all be made aware of that.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On January 27 2017 11:22 Plexa wrote:
[list][*]This was not a 30-day ban actionable offence. While Yuljan does have a mod history concerning the subject, the last ban/warning along these lines was over a year ago - not within a month like initially thought. Moreover one of those actions is specifically for taking pot shots at the mod team as opposed to other post content.
oops, yes, you're right. I completely misread the ban dates as Dec 2016 and Jan 2017 hence the longer 30 day ban instead of a smaller action such as warning had I noticed my reading error. My post was written based on this erroneous piece of information so unfortunately, I can't say much else other than agreeing that moderating can be quite difficult at times, keeping TL standards is of utmost importance and that case by case basis is best used for each report considering the current state of our world.
|
Tldr: nice read, bad call
Nice read: yes it is good to have/see moderators reflect upon their actions, especially/specifically on real hard life subject matter and question themselves publicly (after doing it privately).
Bad call: i personally disagree with the fact that "hiding your hate well" is any better than "not hiding it well enough" and would cast my "vote" for there being a clear cost to posting such things ("islam is the most blablabla" "jew should do blabla").
We see this "hide your hate better" from heads of states every time they attempt to "communicate" to their own people about these vital issues (immigration/emigration/religious cultural differences/ historical remembrance etc) while still trying to get elected and between heads of states themselves while only wanting to get something out of each other which is arguably bad for the citizens themselves. How can we not rise above that on a kiddies forum?
Yes!!!!! we must discuss these things, to not is suicidal! i agree there with oppiska's stance that banning them and not saying why is clearly a bad move. Citing the exact problematic part of the post and making it clear to all who read it AND to the poster why action was taken is primordial. Also adding every time that this platform (tl but internet as a whole) is aimed at discussion but does not accept people who cross THEIR line to continue unscathed ..even less so if done repeatedly, is important/vital.
Yes discussion is vital but however, the way you do discuss these things is as vital and therefore the moderating/admin team's role in this is paramount and decisive (not to mention really hard AND ultimately doomed to fail many times).
For instance the tl usual "double standard" (tl veteran/tl mod/people that have contributed a lot/pro gamers etc that "could" get away with more) is clearly out of bounds on these issues (or it should be)! (i'm not saying it is happening, just that it shouldn't happen, i confess to not liking being a cop/snitch so i'm not out looking for any of those).
Most of the internet (i'll take apathetic unapologetic self centered streamers as a shinning appalling example of this dangerous trend) are saying that they don't allow any type of political/religious discussions and that is an admittance of failure from where i am sitting.
i am therefore glad that Team Liquid has DECIDED to not do that or more to the point that it has not gotten beaten out of them yet, but i would argue to death that it will happen if the line is not enforced.
Posting "2017 muslim countries are still mediaval" or "jews should stop reminding people about the holocaust" should not be allowed (again, with a clear message repeated EVERY time as to why action has been taken!).
Furthermore, i would argue that basing one's rational on how well posters hide their hate is already the slippery slope.
In fact, it is clear that these exchanges/discussions can happen without hate being present in posts.. you can simply state facts and that should be powerful enough, no?
You can say
"stonings are allowed by law in this X country"
"when accused, heads of states in this Y country are investigated by people that work for them"
on and on.. that will never get you banned/warned..
so i really fail to see how (in light of facts being more and more available) there is any reason to accept veiled hate?
Again, it is not about having "thicker skin".. it is about respect!
Respect for the people reading .. that means ALL the people reading
(particular impressionable kids, this is a kiddies forum! to discuss gaming)
and yes this "respect" is vital for those who want to give in to hate and not communicate anymore.. giving them a clear message that yes they have a voice and can use it.. BUT NOT for using it to spread hate, it is meant for exchanging and discussing facts.
Edit: i'm done editing my own vernacular, and yeah 1 hour + to edit is slow, sorry 
..just to end it on a positive note:
thank you for Team Liquid moderators/admins for believing in this as long as they have the strength to do so!
(i'm well aware of the toll it takes on people to do this and also that it takes many people believing in dialog to manage even a little bit of dialog to emerge from emotion driven communications)
thank you for your time 
|
Given the no censorship attached, it's not really a kiddy forum. Visit battle.net or EA forums: those are kiddy forums. This place has always seemed to cater for mature gamers, not kiddies.
I agree with the rest of what you said, I think (as always, I have to read your posts twice to understand what you're saying, but this one was clearer than most ).
|
By kiddies' forum i mean that kids are bound to come here, not that they are the norm or anything else. This is a forum dedicated to games and kids come on it for that and therefore are bound to go see the "other" types of content it houses.
Sorry if that point was unclear.
Yes, this is all personal for me  i admit it every time:
i would like my kid to one day soon go on forums and exchange about his gaming and yes i am frankly at a loss to allow him to go anywhere else than on tl...
i suppose my thoughts can always be summed up into one phrase: "having fun is a serious thing"
|
That previous post before this one was the most cogent post I have ever seen fluidrone made.
|
On January 27 2017 18:34 fluidrone wrote:
In fact, it is clear that these exchanges/discussions can happen without hate being present in posts.. you can simply state facts and that should be powerful enough, no?
I believe someone's stance on the immigration issue is partially formed by personal experiences and experiences from family and friends. Perhaps this is mostly true for those who are against immigration?
With that in mind it is pretty hard to have a sensible discussion about immigration with only facts. I think it would be pointless. To look at your example of "Stonings are allowed by law in country X", sure this is a fact that everyone can agree on. But the issue then is: "With this fact in mind, do you think it is possible for people raised in country X to fit in in country Y?", and this is where things get hairy. Discussing that question by simply stating facts isn't gonna work.
I fully agree with your first point though, even if the discussions consist entirely of opinions it can be done without hate.
Of course what some people qualify as hate speech is not hate speech for others, which is what started this entire thread in the first place...
|
^What's a point of a discussion without facts, based only on personal experience ? Like, the guy is going to say "You know, my sister got her bag stolen by an Arab in the street, and Arabs look at me with a weird look in the street, so obviously they're not good people", and I'm going to say "Well, you know, I never had bad experiences with Arabs, even though I once walked across an entire - visibly poor - Muslim neighborhood as a white man in visibly expensive clothes, however I got punched in the face by the son of a Portuguese immigrant because I insulted football players".
Weow, great, from here, how do we answer "Do you think it is possible for people raised in country X to fit in country Y ?" ? We can't. People need to accept that their experiences ain't worth shit when it comes to deciding nation-wide policies. But no, the same people who are mocking minorities for asking that their rights be respected, the same people who blame the "feminization" of society and the "special snowflakes", are also the ones who can't accept that their own narrow view of the world isn't the dominant one without whining and making up facts to back up their whining.
|
How did you make the jump from "it is pretty hard to have a discussion with only facts" to "a discussion without facts, based only on personal experience"? There is a fairly obvious middle ground there. I thought my post made that clear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
