NationStates

Posted: **Tue May 04, 2021 6:35 pm**

Badassistanian wrote:
Birchland and the NAF wrote: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

When has banning individuals from speaking not backfired in the face of the suppressor?

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.

I’d like you to appreciate that everything I post has already been carefully self-moderated.

Posted: **Tue May 04, 2021 6:42 pm**

Birchland and the NAF wrote:
Badassistanian wrote:Not frightened they are right, frightened by the fact that their end goal is putting people I love in the grave

When has banning individuals from speaking not backfired in the face of the suppressor?

Because this website is owned by an individual and you have no rights here? *shurgs*

Posted: **Tue May 04, 2021 6:43 pm**

Birchland and the NAF wrote:
Badassistanian wrote:Not frightened they are right, frightened by the fact that their end goal is putting people I love in the grave

When has banning individuals from speaking not backfired in the face of the suppressor?

You aren't being targeted for your views. Of course, in your case, they are especially hard to express without trolling. Still, we have some users like Saiwana, a neo-nazi, who's been here for ten years. You just gotta tone down your posting style. Saiwana expresses his views in a clear way without trolling.

Posted: **Tue May 04, 2021 6:47 pm**

Conservative Republic Of Huang wrote:
Birchland and the NAF wrote:When has banning individuals from speaking not backfired in the face of the suppressor?

You aren't being targeted for your views. Of course, in your case, they are especially hard to express without trolling. Still, we have some users like Saiwana, a neo-nazi, who's been here for ten years. You just gotta tone down your posting style. Saiwana expresses his views in a clear way without trolling.

He’s currently banned from posting as of now, so clearly no matter how careful you are, you’ll get something pinned on you sooner or later. But yeah, I am more hotheaded and less conservative in the way I express myself.

Posted: **Tue May 04, 2021 6:53 pm**

Birchland and the NAF wrote:
Badassistanian wrote:Not frightened they are right, frightened by the fact that their end goal is putting people I love in the grave

When has banning individuals from speaking not backfired in the face of the suppressor?

Something messed up in quoting the above sentence is from birchland ^^^

Fascism tends to onyl be successful when its actively platformed... I mean the German government under Hindenburg straight up put Hitler into power. The Italian king directly placed Benito Mussolini in the position of Prime Minister after demanding the previous PM step down and in the early years he ruled semi democratically. In recent memory, The Golden Dawn in Greece gained massive power by engaging in political violence (a result of police corruption and refusal to crack down on the party) and allying themselves with the major Greek conservative parties. The recent crackdown and destruction of the party by the Greek legal system has been relatively successful in quelling much of the organized fascist elements in Greece. Time and time again, Fascism rises only when it is tolerated. It fails to take any root when it is actively rejected, ignored, and activley combated.

Posted: **Tue May 04, 2021 6:55 pm**

This idea that engaging the people that want you dead only leads to them becoming stronger is an absolute myth dreamt up by Nazis to scare you away from calling them out on their bullshit

Posted: **Tue May 04, 2021 6:59 pm**

Birchland and the NAF wrote: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.

Explain how fascism "might be right". Last time someone tried to implement it, 70 - 85 million people perished.

Posted: **Tue May 04, 2021 7:05 pm**

Picairn wrote:
Birchland and the NAF wrote: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.

Explain how fascism "might be right". Last time someone tried to implement it, 70 - 85 million people perished.

I believe I already said that I am not a fascist.

Posted: **Tue May 04, 2021 7:07 pm**

Birchland and the NAF wrote:This is how the rules define trolling:

“Trolling is defined as posts that are made with the aim of angering people. (like 'ALL JEWS ARE [insert vile comment here]' for example). Someone disagreeing with you does not equate to trolling. Intent is incredibly important and will be judged by the moderators to the best of their abilities. Honest belief does not excuse trolling.”

I was deleted for supposedly trolling the other day after I stated opinions on race, urbanites and environmentalism, however I did not intend these posts as mischief or irritation, rather I just wanted to lay out my opinions and debate them. As far as I’m concerned, “trolling” is 100% based on intent, and if you go by the first sentence of the rules’ definition, I was deleted for something that I didn’t do. The part that makes this nonsensical is the last sentence; “Honest belief does not excuse trolling.” So if stating an honest opinion with no intention of angering or upsetting people is trolling, then the entire rule becomes one massive grey area. At this point, one could only imagine that “trolling” is defined as saying something that is subjectivity offensive, and indeed, some would and did find my posts offensive, but then for every possible viewpoint, there will be somebody who is offended by it, thus, saying anything is trolling? Sure can feel like it. But what do I know, perhaps I’m missing something entirely, in which case I would like somebody to point it out to me.

Edit: I would also like to point out that I am willing to respect the rules, however this one in particular appears to me as ill-defined, subjective and very easy to break without actually meaning to or even being aware of doing so. As a bearer of unorthodox views, this makes it feel as if engaging in genuine debate is not an option.

But i really thought that trolling was like random words in moderation reports, and i often post my thoughts in there. Tho, i did see some suspicious threads, before going to the "P*rn in white supremacy discussion thread" such as the "New BTS song post by Corporate Korealand. Might as well stay away from the forums, but the problem is that threads like these are too tempting for me.

But after seeing this thread, i never thought that trolling has a more dark and sinister connotation, rather than people randomly saying "yOu SuCk" or other racial slurs.

Posted: **Tue May 04, 2021 7:12 pm**

Cereskia wrote:
Birchland and the NAF wrote:This is how the rules define trolling:

“Trolling is defined as posts that are made with the aim of angering people. (like 'ALL JEWS ARE [insert vile comment here]' for example). Someone disagreeing with you does not equate to trolling. Intent is incredibly important and will be judged by the moderators to the best of their abilities. Honest belief does not excuse trolling.”

I was deleted for supposedly trolling the other day after I stated opinions on race, urbanites and environmentalism, however I did not intend these posts as mischief or irritation, rather I just wanted to lay out my opinions and debate them. As far as I’m concerned, “trolling” is 100% based on intent, and if you go by the first sentence of the rules’ definition, I was deleted for something that I didn’t do. The part that makes this nonsensical is the last sentence; “Honest belief does not excuse trolling.” So if stating an honest opinion with no intention of angering or upsetting people is trolling, then the entire rule becomes one massive grey area. At this point, one could only imagine that “trolling” is defined as saying something that is subjectivity offensive, and indeed, some would and did find my posts offensive, but then for every possible viewpoint, there will be somebody who is offended by it, thus, saying anything is trolling? Sure can feel like it. But what do I know, perhaps I’m missing something entirely, in which case I would like somebody to point it out to me.

Edit: I would also like to point out that I am willing to respect the rules, however this one in particular appears to me as ill-defined, subjective and very easy to break without actually meaning to or even being aware of doing so. As a bearer of unorthodox views, this makes it feel as if engaging in genuine debate is not an option.

But i really thought that trolling was like random words in moderation reports, and i often post my thoughts in there. Tho, i did see some suspicious threads, before going to the "P*rn in white supremacy discussion thread" such as the "New BTS song post by Corporate Korealand. Might as well stay away from the forums, but the problem is that threads like these are too tempting for me.

But after seeing this thread, i never thought that trolling has a more dark and sinister connotation, rather than people randomly saying "yOu SuCk" or other racial slurs.

I think you’re thinking of spam, which is basically making irrelevant or space-wasting posts. Trolling generally means posting with the sole purpose of getting a negative reaction as a form of mischief.

Posted: **Tue May 04, 2021 7:17 pm**

Seeing as how this thread has gotten derailed from the original purpose and is no longer even talking about the definition of trolling as it exists in the rules, iLock.

Posted: **Tue May 04, 2021 7:20 pm**

Just to add to Lamoni's comment:
As noted in the FAQ, which the One Stop Rules Shop is ultimately derived from:

>It's free speech, so I can post whatever I like here, right?

Ahahahaha! Hahaha! Free speech! No, it's not. I run this web site, see, so you have to play by my rules. It's like my own Father Knows Best state.

"It's my sincere belief!", "I was just kidding!", "But my free speech!" are not a Get Out of Trolling Warnings Free card. It's not what your belief is but how you phrase it. Ultimately, you could condense the entire OSRS down to a single sentence: "Don't be a dick." The vast, overwhelming majority of players manage this with no difficulty.

In theory, you can argue just about any position in a rule-abiding manner. In practice, the more extreme that position is, the more difficult (bordering on impossible) it is to actually do so. For example, Nazis, religious extremists, and such tend to have a very short shelf life here because there is no rule-abiding way to argue "I believe that X group of people should be exterminated/has no right to live/are subhuman/etc."

NationStates

Trolling definition makes no sense