NationStates

Birchland and the NAF wrote:

Victorious Decepticons wrote:It's flamebaiting and/or trolling because any Central American with a shred of self-esteem would be raging at your description. You need to refrain from posting stuff that will insult entire groups of people, or even single posters. Instead, aim attacks at their arguments, behaviors, and stuff like that. Basically things that aren't fundamental to the person/people themselves.

ETA: And, be careful how you do it. No saying certain people act like [insert animal here] because those people are [race/ethnicity/nationality].

Nobody with a shred of self-esteem rages over a forum post. I don’t even take myself too seriously, I’m a pretty easy-going fellow, let alone somebody else.

As a Central American, I'm not going to say I was raging, but that post was offensive to me, basically an insult. Obviously it sparked anger within me.

The Rich Port wrote:It's almost like racist ideas are themselves inherently contradictory or something.

Mind explaining how so?

Birchland and the NAF wrote:

Badassistanian wrote:The problem here is that some ideologies and opinions have what I can only describe as "hate and disgust of the other" as integral parts. Thes ideologies, though not banned in of themselves, will always break rules regarding flamebaiting or trolling due to their nature.

That’s a good way of putting it. A backdoor ban so to speak.

Which I see as a beneficial thing, I would love an outright ban but this is the next best thing

Badassistanian wrote:

Birchland and the NAF wrote:That’s a good way of putting it. A backdoor ban so to speak.

Which I see as a beneficial thing, I would love an outright ban but this is the next best thing

How come you want to ban ideologies you dislike? There are many ideologies I dislike, very likely yours, but I’m fine with having them about and am happy to talk to adherents of them.

Birchland and the NAF wrote:

Badassistanian wrote:Which I see as a beneficial thing, I would love an outright ban but this is the next best thing

How come you want to ban ideologies you dislike? There are many ideologies I dislike, very likely yours, but I’m fine with having them about and am happy to talk to adherents of them.

You ever notice that it's the "tolerant" lefties that are all for banning things they dislike, whilst the right is usually much more accepting of other ideologies?

I'm never going to get over the fact that the guy everyone was saying was gonna legalize weed is now trying to illegalize Menthol cigarettes and blunt wraps.

Birchland and the NAF wrote:

The Rich Port wrote:It's almost like racist ideas are themselves inherently contradictory or something.

Mind explaining how so?

Um, you cut out the part of my post that explains it. The irony.

Your post, which you were rightly punished for, is contradictory and trolling. Not all Central Americans are the way you describe them, not to mention your selective acceptance for what "acceptable white people" are. I think most white folk on here would agree you're the less acceptable specimen of "white", considering you don't even realize basic contradictions.

And that's of course, not assuming you're a fascist, so you don't even believe in the right of others to free speech.

It's an inherently incorrect statement that requires a lot of revision to make even marginally acceptable to post, both on a subjective and objective standard.

New Vedan wrote:

Birchland and the NAF wrote:How come you want to ban ideologies you dislike? There are many ideologies I dislike, very likely yours, but I’m fine with having them about and am happy to talk to adherents of them.

You ever notice that it's the "tolerant" lefties that are all for banning things they dislike, whilst the right is usually much more accepting of other ideologies?

I'm never going to get over the fact that the guy everyone was saying was gonna legalize weed is now trying to illegalize Menthol cigarettes and blunt wraps.

The right being accepting of other ideologies, that's rich. They're not even accepting of other skin colors, as Birchland is testament of.

Explain to me why we should be tolerant of people who would be intolerant if we allowed them in power.

The Rich Port wrote:

Birchland and the NAF wrote:Mind explaining how so?

Um, you cut out the part of my post that explains it. The irony.

Your post, which you were rightly punished for, is contradictory and trolling. Not all Central Americans are the way you describe them, not to mention your selective acceptance for what "acceptable white people" are. I think most white folk on here would agree you're the less acceptable specimen of "white", considering you don't even realize basic contradictions.

And that's of course, not assuming you're a fascist, so you don't even believe in the right of others to free speech.

It's an inherently incorrect statement that requires a lot of revision to make even marginally acceptable to post, both on a subjective and objective standard.

New Vedan wrote:

You ever notice that it's the "tolerant" lefties that are all for banning things they dislike, whilst the right is usually much more accepting of other ideologies?

I'm never going to get over the fact that the guy everyone was saying was gonna legalize weed is now trying to illegalize Menthol cigarettes and blunt wraps.

The right being accepting of other ideologies, that's rich. They're not even accepting of other skin colors, as Birchland is testament of.

Explain to me why we should be tolerant of people who would be intolerant if we allowed them in power.

Because if you are intolerant of any belief it only makes the suppressed belief seem superior. And practically guaranteed that your ideology will be suppressed in turn should you ever lose power. The only way for a democracy to thrive is to be tolerant of all belief systems no matter what it is they are proposing or how abhorrent it is viewed by the majority. As long as they do not become violent of course, like Antifa and BLM have recently. And even then you must make sure to only punish those who have committed violence, and not those that have never harmed anyone despite sharing similar beliefs to those that have.

New Vedan wrote:

The Rich Port wrote:
Um, you cut out the part of my post that explains it. The irony.

Your post, which you were rightly punished for, is contradictory and trolling. Not all Central Americans are the way you describe them, not to mention your selective acceptance for what "acceptable white people" are. I think most white folk on here would agree you're the less acceptable specimen of "white", considering you don't even realize basic contradictions.

And that's of course, not assuming you're a fascist, so you don't even believe in the right of others to free speech.

It's an inherently incorrect statement that requires a lot of revision to make even marginally acceptable to post, both on a subjective and objective standard.



The right being accepting of other ideologies, that's rich. They're not even accepting of other skin colors, as Birchland is testament of.

Explain to me why we should be tolerant of people who would be intolerant if we allowed them in power.

Because if you are intolerant of any belief it only makes the suppressed belief seem superior. And practically guaranteed that your ideology will be suppressed in turn should you ever lose power. The only way for a democracy to thrive is to be tolerant of all belief systems no matter what it is they are proposing or how abhorrent it is viewed by the majority. As long as they do not become violent of course, like Antifa and BLM have recently. And even then you must make sure to only punish those who have committed violence, and not those that have never harmed anyone despite sharing similar beliefs to those that have.

Suuuuuuuuuuuure. And this is a completely unbiased observation on your part?

And yeah, no, we have no obligation to platform hate speech or outright lies. De-platforming Nazis in fact makes it harder for their messages to spread and for them to recruit.

The Rich Port wrote:

Birchland and the NAF wrote:Mind explaining how so?

Um, you cut out the part of my post that explains it. The irony.

Your post, which you were rightly punished for, is contradictory and trolling. Not all Central Americans are the way you describe them, not to mention your selective acceptance for what "acceptable white people" are. I think most white folk on here would agree you're the less acceptable specimen of "white", considering you don't even realize basic contradictions.

And that's of course, not assuming you're a fascist, so you don't even believe in the right of others to free speech.

It's an inherently incorrect statement that requires a lot of revision to make even marginally acceptable to post, both on a subjective and objective standard.

New Vedan wrote:

You ever notice that it's the "tolerant" lefties that are all for banning things they dislike, whilst the right is usually much more accepting of other ideologies?

I'm never going to get over the fact that the guy everyone was saying was gonna legalize weed is now trying to illegalize Menthol cigarettes and blunt wraps.

The right being accepting of other ideologies, that's rich. They're not even accepting of other skin colors, as Birchland is testament of.

Explain to me why we should be tolerant of people who would be intolerant if we allowed them in power.

I’m not actually a fascist. I loathe big government and ordered societies. I 100% believe in the right of people I disagree with to speak, given that nothing useful can be gained by any side by speaking.

Birchland and the NAF wrote:

The Rich Port wrote:
Um, you cut out the part of my post that explains it. The irony.

Your post, which you were rightly punished for, is contradictory and trolling. Not all Central Americans are the way you describe them, not to mention your selective acceptance for what "acceptable white people" are. I think most white folk on here would agree you're the less acceptable specimen of "white", considering you don't even realize basic contradictions.

And that's of course, not assuming you're a fascist, so you don't even believe in the right of others to free speech.

It's an inherently incorrect statement that requires a lot of revision to make even marginally acceptable to post, both on a subjective and objective standard.



The right being accepting of other ideologies, that's rich. They're not even accepting of other skin colors, as Birchland is testament of.

Explain to me why we should be tolerant of people who would be intolerant if we allowed them in power.

I’m not actually a fascist. I loathe big government and ordered societies.

Yeah you're just a racist that's way better. Oy vey.

You know what I'ma have to admit you guys do have a point. It's better for y'all to be here than to be on Stormfront or something.

But y'all do need to understand that here we don't just accept any lie or nonsense, whether it's other members or the moderators.

It might not feel like a lie, nor does it seem to be trolling, buuuuuut.

You're gonna need more proof and evidence about your beliefs and your statement not being trolling beyond "It's not trolling because I'm sincerely a racist".

The Rich Port wrote:

New Vedan wrote:

Because if you are intolerant of any belief it only makes the suppressed belief seem superior. And practically guaranteed that your ideology will be suppressed in turn should you ever lose power. The only way for a democracy to thrive is to be tolerant of all belief systems no matter what it is they are proposing or how abhorrent it is viewed by the majority. As long as they do not become violent of course, like Antifa and BLM have recently. And even then you must make sure to only punish those who have committed violence, and not those that have never harmed anyone despite sharing similar beliefs to those that have.

Suuuuuuuuuuuure. And this is a completely unbiased observation on your part?

And yeah, no, we have no obligation to platform hate speech or outright lies. De-platforming Nazis in fact makes it harder for their messages to spread and for them to recruit.

And then they create there own platforms. And then migrate to those platforms when the current platforms piss them off. Then it leads to the situation we have now of people largely staying in echo chambers for there side when online, rarely interacting with and demonizing there political opponent's. This results in increased radicalization of both sides of the spectrum until it gets to the point where they refuse to find common ground with one another and begin killing each other.

In short if you attempt to suppress dissenters, it will eventually backfire on you.

You k ow I had a idea. What if we dedicated one section of the forums to being pure unmoderated hellhole. A place where you can say or do whatever you want and it wont get your nation banned, as long as you keep it in that space. It wouldn't require any work from the moderators aside from setting it up. And would in fact probably help them with containing undesirable content on the rest of the site by walling it up in one space.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:OP does actually have a point, at least under a plain reading the trolling definition does seem to be self-contradictory. If a belief is earnestly held and expressed not to anger people but to simply offer a differing point of view (even if that view is abhorrent to most people) then it cannot be trolling, that's not what the word has ever meant. But the definition used here explicitly says honest belief doesn't matter, at that point it's not a rule about trolling and more just a means of controlling conversation and kicking out certain ideological beliefs.

It’s all in the delivery and the response. Sure a person can think it’s right. Unless they are surprised by the response; it’s trolling. Especially if they respond with the usual snowflake comments.

New Vedan wrote:You k ow I had a idea. What if we dedicated one section of the forums to being pure unmoderated hellhole. A place where you can say or do whatever you want and it wont get your nation banned, as long as you keep it in that space. It wouldn't require any work from the moderators aside from setting it up. And would in fact probably help them with containing undesirable content on the rest of the site by walling it up in one space.

Sir, this isnt 8 chan

Birchland and the NAF wrote:

Badassistanian wrote:Which I see as a beneficial thing, I would love an outright ban but this is the next best thing

How come you want to ban ideologies you dislike? There are many ideologies I dislike, very likely yours, but I’m fine with having them about and am happy to talk to adherents of them.

Ideologies of hate deserve to have the soap boxes kicked out from under their feet... I dont care about the moral or philosophical arguments about free speech.

Birchland and the NAF wrote:

Badassistanian wrote:The problem here is that some ideologies and opinions have what I can only describe as "hate and disgust of the other" as integral parts. Thes ideologies, though not banned in of themselves, will always break rules regarding flamebaiting or trolling due to their nature.

That’s a good way of putting it. A backdoor ban so to speak.

And I agree with such a ban. I don't think Nazis should be allowed to scream "gas the kikes" on this site or anything like that.

The Reformed American Republic wrote:

Birchland and the NAF wrote:That’s a good way of putting it. A backdoor ban so to speak.

And I agree with such a ban. I don't think Nazis should be allowed to scream "gas the kikes" on this site or anything like that.

Agreed. Someone already said it. This isn't 4chan.

Langenia wrote:

The Reformed American Republic wrote:And I agree with such a ban. I don't think Nazis should be allowed to scream "gas the kikes" on this site or anything like that.

Agreed. Someone already said it. This isn't 4chan.

Indeed. If this was like 4chan, I wouldn't be here.

New Vedan wrote:You k ow I had a idea. What if we dedicated one section of the forums to being pure unmoderated hellhole. A place where you can say or do whatever you want and it wont get your nation banned, as long as you keep it in that space. It wouldn't require any work from the moderators aside from setting it up. And would in fact probably help them with containing undesirable content on the rest of the site by walling it up in one space.

How about.....


No.

New Vedan wrote:You k ow I had a idea. What if we dedicated one section of the forums to being pure unmoderated hellhole. A place where you can say or do whatever you want and it wont get your nation banned, as long as you keep it in that space. It wouldn't require any work from the moderators aside from setting it up. And would in fact probably help them with containing undesirable content on the rest of the site by walling it up in one space.

You know, have you ever wondered if maybe the rules aren't the problem but you are?

I think it says a lot about the both of you that 8chan and Stormfront would be more suitable for you.

Doesn't that give you pause? The fact that the only places where you would be accepted are some of the shittiest, most toxic shitholes on the Internet?

Doesn't it make you feel shame?

While what the OP said was definitely racist trolling, there is some merit to this post in that the mods have often been inconsistent in both their interpretation and enforcement of the rules. There should be more transparency in how they do things and people should be allowed to call them out when they are inconsistent without being shot down by the mods for "rules lawyering."

Coicantrost Terbi wrote:While what the OP said was definitely racist trolling, there is some merit to this post in that the mods have often been inconsistent in both their interpretation and enforcement of the rules. There should be more transparency in how they do things and people should be allowed to call them out when they are inconsistent without being shot down by the mods for "rules lawyering."

Do you have a good example?

Cuz yeah, this is a bad example, the racist trolling, the mods were consistent in this case.

Badassistanian wrote:

Birchland and the NAF wrote:How come you want to ban ideologies you dislike? There are many ideologies I dislike, very likely yours, but I’m fine with having them about and am happy to talk to adherents of them.

Ideologies of hate deserve to have the soap boxes kicked out from under their feet... I dont care about the moral or philosophical arguments about free speech.

I notice people only want to ban ideas when they’re frightened that they might be right. Somebody who’s confident in anything doesn’t throw or want to throw bans at everything they don’t like.

Birchland and the NAF wrote:

Badassistanian wrote:Ideologies of hate deserve to have the soap boxes kicked out from under their feet... I dont care about the moral or philosophical arguments about free speech.

I notice people only want to ban ideas when they’re frightened that they might be right. Somebody who’s confident in anything doesn’t throw or want to throw bans at everything they don’t like.

Not frightened they are right, frightened by the fact that their end goal is putting people I love in the grave

Coicantrost Terbi wrote:While what the OP said was definitely racist trolling, there is some merit to this post in that the mods have often been inconsistent in both their interpretation and enforcement of the rules. There should be more transparency in how they do things and people should be allowed to call them out when they are inconsistent without being shot down by the mods for "rules lawyering."

Surprised I haven’t been slapped with that one. Knock on wood.