Is this against the rules?

[Fascist State]

If I were to say "I believe ideally [group] would be exterminated in the society I'd prefer."

As opposed to just saying "I want to exterminate [group]" which would be a direct threat or whatever.

[Manisdog]

If I were to say "I believe ideally [group] would be exterminated in the society I'd prefer."

As opposed to just saying "I want to exterminate [group]" which would be a direct threat or whatever.

As an expert on the rules by now lol but notamod
I can tell you using the word exterminate would not be allowed

You can however say that I would not wish to stay with xyz group

[Dakran]

It's definitely against the rules I imagine, but if you worded it more like, "I believe group X shouldn't exist because reasons Y and/or Z" it might not be. Don't quote me on that though.

[Dewhurst-Narculis]

It's definitely against the rules I imagine, but if you worded it more like, "I believe group X shouldn't exist because reasons Y and/or Z" it might not be. Don't quote me on that though.

That might be skirting to close

"I believe group X wouldn't exist because if reasons/events Y and/or Z occurred"

is a safer bet

[Toronina]

If I were to say "I believe ideally [group] would be exterminated in the society I'd prefer."

As opposed to just saying "I want to exterminate [group]" which would be a direct threat or whatever.

Not a mod but I think it would be better to say the group would not exist in your society, so long as it's not a group of people. I would recommend placing: [Discussion] in the title.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

I think it's best we avoid those sorts of comments entirely. The only safe-ish comment of that nature might be 'In my ideal society there would only be $_people'. It eliminates the 'need to off all these sorts' angle, and even though it paints you firmly as a racist or whatever, that's your choice for going there.

[The Batorys]

I think it's best we avoid those sorts of comments entirely. The only safe-ish comment of that nature might be 'In my ideal society there would only be $_people'. It eliminates the 'need to off all these sorts' angle, and even though it paints you firmly as a racist or whatever, that's your choice for going there.

Except that it really doesn't, due to it still having that same implication. It's just a more polite, less direct way of saying the same thing.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

I think it's best we avoid those sorts of comments entirely. The only safe-ish comment of that nature might be 'In my ideal society there would only be $_people'. It eliminates the 'need to off all these sorts' angle, and even though it paints you firmly as a racist or whatever, that's your choice for going there.

Except that it really doesn't, due to it still having that same implication. It's just a more polite, less direct way of saying the same thing.

How you say a thing is something we have to take to task on a regular basis. No, it isn't nice. And the more polite, less direct way of saying things is kinda the point. One is outright trolling. The other is an unfortunate opinion that one, for whatever reason, feels is worth expressing. One is immediately actionable. The other can be argued down.

Some might think its all semantics, but that's part and parcel of supporting an open forum of discussion. Ya get ideas ya don't like. All we have left in those circumstances is that thin veneer of civility that makes the difference between a warning and an opening for others to discuss, disprove, and otherwise argue away an opinion.

[Grenartia]

I think it's best we avoid those sorts of comments entirely. The only safe-ish comment of that nature might be 'In my ideal society there would only be $_people'. It eliminates the 'need to off all these sorts' angle, and even though it paints you firmly as a racist or whatever, that's your choice for going there.

Seems to me like you just gave advice on how to successfully troll and slip by.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

I think it's best we avoid those sorts of comments entirely. The only safe-ish comment of that nature might be 'In my ideal society there would only be $_people'. It eliminates the 'need to off all these sorts' angle, and even though it paints you firmly as a racist or whatever, that's your choice for going there.

Seems to me like you just gave advice on how to successfully troll and slip by.

Seems to me that we keep records enough that we both take note of, and eventually sort out those borderline trolls. Your opinion is noted, but really, it's advice to those actually interested in discussion, opposing views or not.

The other sort tends to get reported, seen a lot, and generally out themselves. I'd rather work towards a more civil forum and weed out the exceptions than act like some sort of draconic dictator and stifle everything in any case.

[The Batorys]

Except that it really doesn't, due to it still having that same implication. It's just a more polite, less direct way of saying the same thing.

How you say a thing is something we have to take to task on a regular basis. No, it isn't nice. And the more polite, less direct way of saying things is kinda the point. One is outright trolling. The other is an unfortunate opinion that one, for whatever reason, feels is worth expressing. One is immediately actionable. The other can be argued down.

Some might think its all semantics, but that's part and parcel of supporting an open forum of discussion. Ya get ideas ya don't like. All we have left in those circumstances is that thin veneer of civility that makes the difference between a warning and an opening for others to discuss, disprove, and otherwise argue away an opinion.

I think there's a bit of a difference between "ideas you don't like" and "idea that implies genocide."

The problem with someone posting "we should kill all the niggers/wetbacks/kikes/trannies/fags" isn't just the racist slur. It's the fact that allowing that kind of opinion makes the forum a much less welcoming place to a fuckload of people because the person who posts that opinion is declaring, to someone who happens to fit the description of whichever group the initial poster does not like, that on this forum it is seen as a legitimate opinion that their life has no value.

That doesn't change if "we should kill all the niggers" is instead written as "it would be better if there were only white people." It's still the same devaluing opinion. It still says "hey black person, your life is worthless and I'd like it if you were dead," essentially.

I would posit that some opinions have no truly polite, respectful way of being phrased. The specific words aren't really just what makes something beyond the pale, but the whole sentence's/post's actual meaning.

And I think that's why to some extent there's been some backlash against being told to "argue it down." Because in some cases, the meaning of a comment makes clear that to "argue it down," someone would have to argue for his/her own life having value, which is a ridiculous, dehumanizing thing to do to someone.

[Nazi Flower Power]

How you say a thing is something we have to take to task on a regular basis. No, it isn't nice. And the more polite, less direct way of saying things is kinda the point. One is outright trolling. The other is an unfortunate opinion that one, for whatever reason, feels is worth expressing. One is immediately actionable. The other can be argued down.

Some might think its all semantics, but that's part and parcel of supporting an open forum of discussion. Ya get ideas ya don't like. All we have left in those circumstances is that thin veneer of civility that makes the difference between a warning and an opening for others to discuss, disprove, and otherwise argue away an opinion.

I think there's a bit of a difference between "ideas you don't like" and "idea that implies genocide."

The problem with someone posting "we should kill all the niggers/wetbacks/kikes/trannies/fags" isn't just the racist slur. It's the fact that allowing that kind of opinion makes the forum a much less welcoming place to a fuckload of people because the person who posts that opinion is declaring, to someone who happens to fit the description of whichever group the initial poster does not like, that on this forum it is seen as a legitimate opinion that their life has no value.

That doesn't change if "we should kill all the niggers" is instead written as "it would be better if there were only white people." It's still the same devaluing opinion. It still says "hey black person, your life is worthless and I'd like it if you were dead," essentially.

I would posit that some opinions have no truly polite, respectful way of being phrased. The specific words aren't really just what makes something beyond the pale, but the whole sentence's/post's actual meaning.

And I think that's why to some extent there's been some backlash against being told to "argue it down." Because in some cases, the meaning of a comment makes clear that to "argue it down," someone would have to argue for his/her own life having value, which is a ridiculous, dehumanizing thing to do to someone.

If I say, "In my ideal society there would be only pure Aryan ubermenschen who live in Vermont and eat pie for breakfast," that isn't specifying that I want anybody to die. Maybe all the black people are supposed to live happily ever after in Tennessee, Tajikistan, and Tanzania.

[Dalcaria]

Just wanted to point this out, but has anyone else noticed the poster just made his account yesterday? I don't want to toot too much of a horn here, but usually people who are a day old and are already posting things like this don't typically fair well in our forums. Okay, so instead of beating around the bush here, I'm pretty much 90% sure this guy will be a troll. The 10% says I'm wrong and he might actually be a long term user who manages to maintain some civility, but I strongly question that. Also worthy of note, since I just realized it, he wasn't even a day old when he posted this, so lends more to the point that he might be someone mods want to keep an eye on. I don't want to start a "witch hunt" or anything, but I think there's sufficient reason to keep our eyes on him. But, I leave that to the more capable folks here, the mods.

[Alyakia]

Just wanted to point this out, but has anyone else noticed the poster just made his account yesterday? I don't want to toot too much of a horn here, but usually people who are a day old and are already posting things like this don't typically fair well in our forums. Okay, so instead of beating around the bush here, I'm pretty much 90% sure this guy will be a troll. The 10% says I'm wrong and he might actually be a long term user who manages to maintain some civility, but I strongly question that. Also worthy of note, since I just realized it, he wasn't even a day old when he posted this, so lends more to the point that he might be someone mods want to keep an eye on. I don't want to start a "witch hunt" or anything, but I think there's sufficient reason to keep our eyes on him. But, I leave that to the more capable folks here, the mods.

he blatantly wants to say he wants to get rid of all the jews and lefties but knows he probably won't get away with it and is trying to get guidance on how to get it through without getting tagged over it. not that moderation discusses hypotheticals. luckily once he figures it out we will be able to argue it down in a civil debate. :-)

[Grenartia]

I think there's a bit of a difference between "ideas you don't like" and "idea that implies genocide."

The problem with someone posting "we should kill all the niggers/wetbacks/kikes/trannies/fags" isn't just the racist slur. It's the fact that allowing that kind of opinion makes the forum a much less welcoming place to a fuckload of people because the person who posts that opinion is declaring, to someone who happens to fit the description of whichever group the initial poster does not like, that on this forum it is seen as a legitimate opinion that their life has no value.

That doesn't change if "we should kill all the niggers" is instead written as "it would be better if there were only white people." It's still the same devaluing opinion. It still says "hey black person, your life is worthless and I'd like it if you were dead," essentially.

I would posit that some opinions have no truly polite, respectful way of being phrased. The specific words aren't really just what makes something beyond the pale, but the whole sentence's/post's actual meaning.

And I think that's why to some extent there's been some backlash against being told to "argue it down." Because in some cases, the meaning of a comment makes clear that to "argue it down," someone would have to argue for his/her own life having value, which is a ridiculous, dehumanizing thing to do to someone.

If I say, "In my ideal society there would be only pure Aryan ubermenschen who live in Vermont and eat pie for breakfast," that isn't specifying that I want anybody to die. Maybe all the black people are supposed to live happily ever after in Tennessee, Tajikistan, and Tanzania.

Doesn't really change the validity of the point. Forced relocations (which are pretty much inherent to the idea of only X group being allowed to live in a given location) are still classified as genocide just as much as exterminations.

Its still pretty dehumanizing to have to argue that you have a right to live wherever you want without fear of people trying to kick you out for some harmless trait.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

And if we hadn't been directed to allow some of those beliefs to be posted in order to be argued down, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

This is not an off-the-cuff moderator decision. It comes down from on high, knowing full well how capable NSG is at playing Whack The Troll or Bomb the Bias. Look at it as a matter of faith in your overall discussion and debating skills. We'll take care of the truly egregious posts, and leave the not-so actionable ones to be batted about by you like a kitten with a catnip toy. They'll stand about as much chance, neh?

[Nazi Flower Power]

If I say, "In my ideal society there would be only pure Aryan ubermenschen who live in Vermont and eat pie for breakfast," that isn't specifying that I want anybody to die. Maybe all the black people are supposed to live happily ever after in Tennessee, Tajikistan, and Tanzania.

Doesn't really change the validity of the point. Forced relocations (which are pretty much inherent to the idea of only X group being allowed to live in a given location) are still classified as genocide just as much as exterminations.

Its still pretty dehumanizing to have to argue that you have a right to live wherever you want without fear of people trying to kick you out for some harmless trait.

Forced relocations and exterminations are nowhere near the same level of wrong. Whether you classify them as "genocide" is just semantics. Attaching the word "genocide" doesn't automatically make it the most evil possible thing in the world and remove all gradations of wrongness any more than my identifying as "Nazi" automatically makes me responsible for the Holocaust. "I'd prefer you didn't live in Vermont," is in no way equivalent to, "You deserve to die."

The fact is that many people have problematic beliefs, and you aren't going to change their minds by having the mods whack them with a banhammer every time they post. If they're talking about how they want a bunch of people out of Vermont, it's possible they honestly don't wish to harm anyone and they just haven't thought through the practical problems with their idea. That's a situation where discussion is useful. If they're talking about exterminating the Jews, that's not just naivete or a failure to understand logistics; that's clearly malicious. If they start out talking about how they'd like a bunch of people out of Vermont, but then as they elaborate on their ideas they start advocating violent methods of removing them, there may be a point that it crosses the line into trolling, but that's something the mods should address when it actually crosses the line, not preemptively at the first sign of a bigoted ideology.

It sucks when people look down on you because of what demographic you belong to, but confronting them and standing up for your own rights is one of the most effective ways to change their minds. I read something the other day about gay rights activists who went door to door campaigning for marriage equality in California. There was a study to see if they were actually changing people's minds. Some houses were visited by straight allies, some were visited by gay people, and as a control group some were visited by canvassers who talked to them about issues other than gay marriage. They found that the households that were visited by gay people, and got to hear the gay people explain how same sex marriage affected them personally, were more likely to be swayed in favor of gay rights, and it was more likely to be a lasting change. The straight allies didn't have as much of a long-lasting effect. It might be emotionally difficult to argue for your own basic rights, but it's more effective if you do as much as possible yourself. The mods need to intervene a little to make sure this doesn't turn into Stormfront, to maintain a space where you can speak up without being drowned out by trolls, but it's not going to be as useful if the people whose minds you want to change are not allowed on the forums.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

You put that very well - thank you for such a thoughtful and accurate summation.

[Grenartia]

And if we hadn't been directed to allow some of those beliefs to be posted in order to be argued down, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

This is not an off-the-cuff moderator decision. It comes down from on high, knowing full well how capable NSG is at playing Whack The Troll or Bomb the Bias. Look at it as a matter of faith in your overall discussion and debating skills. We'll take care of the truly egregious posts, and leave the not-so actionable ones to be batted about by you like a kitten with a catnip toy. They'll stand about as much chance, neh?

The problem seems to be some disconnect regarding the meaning of "egregious" in this context.

Doesn't really change the validity of the point. Forced relocations (which are pretty much inherent to the idea of only X group being allowed to live in a given location) are still classified as genocide just as much as exterminations.

Its still pretty dehumanizing to have to argue that you have a right to live wherever you want without fear of people trying to kick you out for some harmless trait.

1. Forced relocations and exterminations are nowhere near the same level of wrong. Whether you classify them as "genocide" is just semantics. 2. Attaching the word "genocide" doesn't automatically make it the most evil possible thing in the world and remove all gradations of wrongness any more than my identifying as "Nazi" automatically makes me responsible for the Holocaust. 3. "I'd prefer you didn't live in Vermont," is in no way equivalent to, "You deserve to die."

4. The fact is that many people have problematic beliefs, and 5. you aren't going to change their minds by having the mods whack them with a banhammer every time they post. If they're talking about how they want a bunch of people out of Vermont, it's possible they honestly don't wish to harm anyone and they just haven't thought through the practical problems with their idea. That's a situation where discussion is useful. If they're talking about exterminating the Jews, that's not just naivete or a failure to understand logistics; that's clearly malicious. If they start out talking about how they'd like a bunch of people out of Vermont, but then as they elaborate on their ideas they start advocating violent methods of removing them, there may be a point that it crosses the line into trolling, but that's something the mods should address when it actually crosses the line, not preemptively at the first sign of a bigoted ideology.

It sucks when people look down on you because of what demographic you belong to, but confronting them and standing up for your own rights is one of the most effective ways to change their minds. I read something the other day about gay rights activists who went door to door campaigning for marriage equality in California. There was a study to see if they were actually changing people's minds. Some houses were visited by straight allies, some were visited by gay people, and as a control group some were visited by canvassers who talked to them about issues other than gay marriage. They found that the households that were visited by gay people, and got to hear the gay people explain how same sex marriage affected them personally, were more likely to be swayed in favor of gay rights, and it was more likely to be a lasting change. The straight allies didn't have as much of a long-lasting effect. It might be emotionally difficult to argue for your own basic rights, but it's more effective if you do as much as possible yourself. The mods need to intervene a little to make sure this doesn't turn into Stormfront, to maintain a space where you can speak up without being drowned out by trolls, but it's not going to be as useful if the people whose minds you want to change are not allowed on the forums.

1. Forced relocations = ethnic "cleansing" = genocide.

2. Actually, genocide kind of is the most evil thing that's ever happened so far in history. Also, even if it wasn't, its one of those things which doesn't have to be "the most evil thing in the world" in order to be banned from here.

3. Try telling that to the victims of the Trail of Tears. I doubt they'd see much difference between "I'd rather you live in Oklahoma" and "I'd rather you die". Especially given how many died preventable deaths by being moved to Oklahoma.

4. I won't argue against that.

5. Thing is, its the trolls who need to be smacked down. Trolls aren't remotely interested in intellectually honest discussions (and yes, I will readily admit that there are people with problematic views who aren't trolling, but that doesn't change the fact that most trolls express problematic views). All they're interested in is offending as many people as possible. The only way to reign in the trolls is to crack down on the problematic views. Make the non-trolls state their views such that they can't be mistaken for trolls (while making it clear that 99% of the time, they can indeed state their views in an inherently non-trolling manner), and the trolls will have to do likewise in order to blend in (if they don't outright leave). Trolling problem solved.

[Manisdog]

We need to take this into considering what majority of nsg as this forum obviously has a little pro-western bias thinks are problematic aren't necessarily problematic, and what aren't problematic are considered problematic, I sometimes seriously wonder why does NSG think this is wrong, but the problem is that they do think this is wrong, but I cannot understand why and sometimes things are stated that would be wrong but they consider it right. I actually cannot differentiate between who is expressing real views and sometimes even think that the person is not expressing serious views, it is difficult to decipher.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

We need to take this into considering what majority of nsg as this forum obviously has a little pro-western bias thinks are problematic aren't necessarily problematic, and what aren't problematic are considered problematic, I sometimes seriously wonder why does NSG think this is wrong, but the problem is that they do think this is wrong, but I cannot understand why and sometimes things are stated that would be wrong but they consider it right. I actually cannot differentiate between who is expressing real views and sometimes even think that the person is not expressing serious views, it is difficult to decipher.

You could do with a great deal of your own advice yourself, as we've see.

Granted, everyone has a bias - but we do try to take all that into account, believe it or not. When dealing with other cultures and backgrounds, beliefs that may or may not be unfamiliar to us, it is considered. We do not live in boxes, we are more informed than you might think.

Best course is to try and do the best you can yourself in your responses, and if you have a question about someone elses, either ask for clarification, or if you think it breaks the rules, report it. Eventually you'll get a feel for it.

[Jumalariik]

Honestly, it should be against the rules. He's able to say way worse than anything that I've ever said, but I was almost DEATed for saying a group of people "has no life", the group is even commonly believe by most people I know to have no life. It would not be fair to not see him banned for saying such a thing if he said it.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

You do realize that each situation is looked at individually, and what you were warned for was more than just a simple 'get a life' sort of post, yes? This is not about your ban, thank you.

[Manisdog]

We need to take this into considering what majority of nsg as this forum obviously has a little pro-western bias thinks are problematic aren't necessarily problematic, and what aren't problematic are considered problematic, I sometimes seriously wonder why does NSG think this is wrong, but the problem is that they do think this is wrong, but I cannot understand why and sometimes things are stated that would be wrong but they consider it right. I actually cannot differentiate between who is expressing real views and sometimes even think that the person is not expressing serious views, it is difficult to decipher.

You could do with a great deal of your own advice yourself, as we've see.

Granted, everyone has a bias - but we do try to take all that into account, believe it or not. When dealing with other cultures and backgrounds, beliefs that may or may not be unfamiliar to us, it is considered. We do not live in boxes, we are more informed than you might think.

Best course is to try and do the best you can yourself in your responses, and if you have a question about someone elses, either ask for clarification, or if you think it breaks the rules, report it. Eventually you'll get a feel for it.

My post is rather self-critical in a way as I now recognize what the westerners are just seeing things differently, I think assuming good faith is a key here, sometimes It is really difficult to point out if somebody is trolling like the gentlemen who recently got banned, I could not make out, I only understood that if I reply to him than I could only do so in an inflammatory manner, so I did try to debate him for a while but I realized soon that if I don't stop things would go out of hand. I think the clear way to stop this is that if the posters self moderate themselves, if nothing can be said that will not flame than one should just express frustration at the impossibility of argument.

I just think that that the majority of the people in nsg are from western countries, this is could be said about the internet as many countries like India have only 5% of its population using internet, so the amount of users from xyz country are less. So obviously the views, ideas and events of those countries would be the enforced beliefs, there is nothing the moderators can do about this.

The problem however lies on my side is getting to know who is trolling, as somebody must be saying something really non-objectionable but to my ears it sounds outrageous

[Jumalariik]

You do realize that each situation is looked at individually, and what you were warned for was more than just a simple 'get a life' sort of post, yes? This is not about your ban, thank you.

Never said it was. I'm just saying that what he has said, and what he wants to say is far worse.