Banned Escapists To Be Granted Amnesty On New Forums.

[Signa]

Perhaps your inability to see someone's bigotry is not MY problem? Your bottom paragraph tells me that maybe the problem here is your own perception of things.

No one thinks their own perception of the world is warped. But it takes a stronger person to always question their perspective, acknowledging the possibility always exists that they could be wrong.

People do not need to prove they are NOT a Nazi, until they do or say racist things...

Ok, glad we're clear on that.

...that Nazis tend to do.

And here's where you've dropped the ball again. How come are you the primary arbiter of what Nazis will and won't say? Oh, I know you've never claimed to be, but you're the only one going off about it all the time. I've seen you conflate the entire Republican party with racists before. How am I supposed to trust that you actually saw Lunatic be a full blown Nazi?

If I find some white hooded robes in someone's closet, I would get suspicious. I actually give far more benefit of the doubt than you know. Unfortunately, it tends to fall through.

First off, I'm wondering why you're snooping in someone's closet, and second, did you take the time to make sure they weren't choir robes? Things can look like things without being the other thing, you know. If you paid any attention, people like actual Nazis and KKK members don't shut up about how much hate they are filled with. You don't need to look in someone's closet and have that lead to a misunderstanding. They are wearing them constantly.

As Red Sentinel said, The Lunatic is unquestionably racist, and if you cannot see that from his banned post, thats your failing, not mine.

I'll grant you this one, purely because I'm too lazy to look up what this final post was. I'm not willing to judge someone entirely on one poorly phrased post, if they have a pattern of behavior that's contrary/acceptable otherwise. People are capable of saying stupid things and not really meaning them. But the real assholes are the people that will never forgive someone for those mistakes.

Oh look, bonus reply:

Seriously though, thanks for justifying my views of your group. When you and others who oppose me say stuff like this, it just reassures me I am right as well as swells my ego. I often wonder if I have any impact on the world. Clearly I do. Thanks

It was never about justifying anything. It was about giving you the most accurate insight I can, since you don't have any curiosity to find out for yourself. I'm not happy a person was reduced to a meme, but you earned it.

 

[Saelune]

Perhaps your inability to see someone's bigotry is not MY problem? Your bottom paragraph tells me that maybe the problem here is your own perception of things.

No one thinks their own perception of the world is warped. But it takes a stronger person to always question their perspective, acknowledging the possibility always exists that they could be wrong.

People do not need to prove they are NOT a Nazi, until they do or say racist things...

Ok, glad we're clear on that.

...that Nazis tend to do.

And here's where you've dropped the ball again. How come are you the primary arbiter of what Nazis will and won't say? Oh, I know you've never claimed to be, but you're the only one going off about it all the time. I've seen you conflate the entire Republican party with racists before. How am I supposed to trust that you actually saw Lunatic be a full blown Nazi?

If I find some white hooded robes in someone's closet, I would get suspicious. I actually give far more benefit of the doubt than you know. Unfortunately, it tends to fall through.

First off, I'm wondering why you're snooping in someone's closet, and second, did you take the time to make sure they weren't choir robes? Things can look like things without being the other thing, you know. If you paid any attention, people like actual Nazis and KKK members don't shut up about how much hate they are filled with. You don't need to look in someone's closet and have that lead to a misunderstanding. They are wearing them constantly.

As Red Sentinel said, The Lunatic is unquestionably racist, and if you cannot see that from his banned post, thats your failing, not mine.

I'll grant you this one, purely because I'm too lazy to look up what this final post was. I'm not willing to judge someone entirely on one poorly phrased post, if they have a pattern of behavior that's contrary/acceptable otherwise. People are capable of saying stupid things and not really meaning them. But the real assholes are the people that will never forgive someone for those mistakes.

Oh look, bonus reply:

Seriously though, thanks for justifying my views of your group. When you and others who oppose me say stuff like this, it just reassures me I am right as well as swells my ego. I often wonder if I have any impact on the world. Clearly I do. Thanks

It was never about justifying anything. It was about giving you the most accurate insight I can, since you don't have any curiosity to find out for yourself. I'm not happy a person was reduced to a meme, but you earned it.

If you want to know who the bigots are, condemn bigotry and see who gets mad. Has worked for me for years.

 

[Signa]

If you want to know who the bigots are, condemn bigotry and see who gets mad. Has worked for me for years.

You can't go around provoking people and expecting them to not get mad. Not every innocent person will handle being called a racist the same way. Some will take it poorly. That doesn't make them a racist.

I remember a time in my life where a quick way to get under my skin was to call me a girl. I'm not a girl, I'm not secretly trans, I'm provably not female. Getting mad about it was still my reaction, not the detached feelings I have on the matter now. If making false accusations against someone shouldn't aggravate them, then no schoolyard bully would ever have success misgendering someone. So by your own logic, trans folk getting mad about misgendering is their problem and not a societal one.

As for the video, I don't know how far you wanted me to watch. What I did see was Trevor making some very, very broad, but agreeable statements that our actions speak louder than our words. My question is though, what is the definition of racism, because it has a clear definition in my mind, but I've heard completely different definitions thrown around in the past. How do you define it?

Also, do you mind if we take this to private messaging? This dirty laundry isn't meant for this thread.

 

[09philj]

I definitely sat out while Kyle was CM, because the guy seemed completely unhinged to me. There was a comment floated to me where he stated that the word "globalism" was an antisemitic slur because one blog somewhere said so, and he was willing to inflict punishment on the users here for uttering it.

There were a few words like that. Words that apparently had secret hidden meanings that I'd never even heard of. And we were supposed to just 'know' these words and meanings, to make sure we didn't use them.

It was crazy times.

While that one took me by surprise, looking into it "globalism" actually is commonly used by white supremacists and the like to refer to some Jewish conspiracy or other. It seems it's a pretty new thing, though.

It's a textbook example of a dogwhistle; an otherwise innocuous term which is understood in a different way by a particular group. This means that means in practice you can't just ban mentioning all the things that are dogwhistles because they are words which normal people use in other contexts. Statements have to be judged on a case by case basis to identify whether someone is, say, criticising globalisation because of the exploitation of workers in foreign countries or the loss of jobs in their own country, or because it's a Jewish conspiracy to disempower the aryan master race or some other stupid shit like that.

 

[tippy2k2]

EDIT: OOPSY! Wrong thread

 

[Marik2]

No one actually wants to have a conversation anymore, and would rather "win" the discussion.

That's the internet and real life in general. Decent discussion can only happen when you have about 2 to 3 capable people.

 

[Saelune]

If you want to know who the bigots are, condemn bigotry and see who gets mad. Has worked for me for years.

You can't go around provoking people and expecting them to not get mad. Not every innocent person will handle being called a racist the same way. Some will take it poorly. That doesn't make them a racist.

I remember a time in my life where a quick way to get under my skin was to call me a girl. I'm not a girl, I'm not secretly trans, I'm provably not female. Getting mad about it was still my reaction, not the detached feelings I have on the matter now. If making false accusations against someone shouldn't aggravate them, then no schoolyard bully would ever have success misgendering someone. So by your own logic, trans folk getting mad about misgendering is their problem and not a societal one.

As for the video, I don't know how far you wanted me to watch. What I did see was Trevor making some very, very broad, but agreeable statements that our actions speak louder than our words. My question is though, what is the definition of racism, because it has a clear definition in my mind, but I've heard completely different definitions thrown around in the past. How do you define it?

Also, do you mind if we take this to private messaging? This dirty laundry isn't meant for this thread.

I like that I make bigots mad. It means I am doing something right. It is not a coincidence the people who argue with me the most tend to all agree with eachother, and tend to get banned for racism.

Racism is the oppression and desire for oppression of others for their skin color/ethnicity. You're the one hanging dirty laundry for everyone to see. I prefer people see what I have to deal with constantly so there is no mistake or misconceptions. I for one am not part of any echo chamber discords that apparently resent me so much they have turned me into a meme for their own ignorances.

 

[Signa]

I like that I make bigots mad. It means I am doing something right.

What makes you so sure that's the only possibility of what's happening here. I just offered an alternative. You're getting your jollies off by saying "It's OK I pissed them off, they were bigots!" But you don't know that. You just made that assumption. People are capable of disagreements without being bigots. Unless you're staunchly going by the literal definition of bigot, which means we both are bigots for disagreeing and not budging on our positions.

Racism is the oppression and desire for oppression of others for their skin color/ethnicity.

This is good, we're getting somewhere. So, in order to be racist, you have to take the action of oppressing someone, or advocate for it, by your definition. Excellent. So, let's define oppression then. Just like racism, I have an idea in my head what oppression is. Will you be willing to expand your definition of it for me? We have to be clear when we're using these terms.

It is not a coincidence the people who argue with me the most tend to all agree with eachother, and tend to get banned for racism.

I quoted this out of order because it wouldn't read right otherwise. So, the people you argue with and get banned are taking actions or advocating for the oppression of groups of people, based on their skin color, or other such circumstances of birth? I ask, because I haven't seen someone be openly racist (by either of our definitions) on here, even back when there were more daily users.

You're the one hanging dirty laundry for everyone to see. I prefer people see what I have to deal with constantly so there is no mistake or misconceptions. I for one am not part of any echo chamber discords that apparently resent me so much they have turned me into a meme for their own ignorances.

We can do the he-said/she-said-something-to-the-other-first dance, but derailing this thread isn't my intent. I prefer things to be out in the open too, but unless you want to make a whole new thread for us to tango in, PMs seem like a better way to hold a one-on-one conversation. The ball is in your court now.

 

[Signa]

No one actually wants to have a conversation anymore, and would rather "win" the discussion.

That's the internet and real life in general. Decent discussion can only happen when you have about 2 to 3 capable people.

I guess I'm the weirdo then. Put me next to 2-3 capable people talking, and I'll just shut up and listen.

 

[Anti-American Eagle]

I've been gone for awhile so I figured I'd ask. What's the news on the new forum? Any idea on when it's going live?

 

[SupahEwok]

I've been gone for awhile so I figured I'd ask. What's the news on the new forum? Any idea on when it's going live?

It is live. There's a couple threads around with links to it.
Edit: https://forums.escapistmagazine.com/

 

[Saelune]

I like that I make bigots mad. It means I am doing something right.

What makes you so sure that's the only possibility of what's happening here. I just offered an alternative. You're getting your jollies off by saying "It's OK I pissed them off, they were bigots!" But you don't know that. You just made that assumption. People are capable of disagreements without being bigots. Unless you're staunchly going by the literal definition of bigot, which means we both are bigots for disagreeing and not budging on our positions.

Racism is the oppression and desire for oppression of others for their skin color/ethnicity.

This is good, we're getting somewhere. So, in order to be racist, you have to take the action of oppressing someone, or advocate for it, by your definition. Excellent. So, let's define oppression then. Just like racism, I have an idea in my head what oppression is. Will you be willing to expand your definition of it for me? We have to be clear when we're using these terms.

It is not a coincidence the people who argue with me the most tend to all agree with eachother, and tend to get banned for racism.

I quoted this out of order because it wouldn't read right otherwise. So, the people you argue with and get banned are taking actions or advocating for the oppression of groups of people, based on their skin color, or other such circumstances of birth? I ask, because I haven't seen someone be openly racist (by either of our definitions) on here, even back when there were more daily users.

You're the one hanging dirty laundry for everyone to see. I prefer people see what I have to deal with constantly so there is no mistake or misconceptions. I for one am not part of any echo chamber discords that apparently resent me so much they have turned me into a meme for their own ignorances.

We can do the he-said/she-said-something-to-the-other-first dance, but derailing this thread isn't my intent. I prefer things to be out in the open too, but unless you want to make a whole new thread for us to tango in, PMs seem like a better way to hold a one-on-one conversation. The ball is in your court now.

If someone eats meat, it is safe to assume they are not a vegan.

Stop pretending like I have not spent years talking and arguing with these people. My 'assumptions' are not out of nowhere, it is because these people keep doing and saying and supporting racist things that I have come to the logical conclusion they are racist.

That video I showed, he says it clearly. 'It is hard to say someone is not racist when they do all the racist things'.

https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.1057085-Politics-Nazis-Attack-LGBT-Pride-Parade?page=2#24306795

The Lunatic also liked to argue I was wrong about everything and my accusations against them were wrong. I was not wrong.

 

[SckizoBoy]

I guess I'm the weirdo then. Put me next to 2-3 capable people talking, and I'll just shut up and listen.

I'll join you there. I typically have strongly-felt positions, but damn I can't argue for shit.

Can't remember where I read it but I tend to stick to the old adage of: better to shut up and look like an idiot than open my gob and prove that I am. It's already easy enough for me to show people how much of a fucking retarded dipshit moron I am without making things worse, thanks.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I guess I'm the weirdo then. Put me next to 2-3 capable people talking, and I'll just shut up and listen.

I'll join you there. I typically have strongly-felt positions, but damn I can't argue for shit.

Can't remember where I read it but I tend to stick to the old adage of: better to shut up and look like an idiot than open my gob and prove that I am. It's already easy enough for me to show people how much of a fucking retarded dipshit moron I am without making things worse, thanks.

That's a Mark Twain quote.

 

[gsilver]

I'm not deeply into this board, so while I can't comment too much on some of the more infamous cases, I have occasionally clicked on users who got banned, and some of the posts didn't even seem that bad to me. Worth a delete and a warning via PM? Probably, but there seemed to be a lot of banned users around here, way more than other forums.

There was a time here when minor infractions didn't get removed after a set period. I have one feom a while ago and I dont know how and when or even if it's going to be removed

So a bunch of minor infractions over many years lead to bannings. Ezekiel was the most recent example

Ah. Yeah. Warnings.
I just checked my profile, and I still have one from three years ago, which somehow never expired, and for a reason that I utterly disagree with (but is technically in the rules, at least now, so I probably should have known better), but this is hardly the place to go into details on that.

 

[Batou667]

If someone eats meat, it is safe to assume they are not a vegan.

Umm, sweetie, did you just assume their preferred descriptor? What if they identify as a vegan?

 

[Agema]

I'd rather banned people stay banned so we didn't have this old crap dragged into the new forums.

I seriously doubt there's a battalion of aggrieved ex-users pining for their days on these forums and itching to return. Banned users will have overwhelmingly tend to have found pastures new, settled in, and will stay there.

 

[Agema]

It's a textbook example of a dogwhistle; an otherwise innocuous term which is understood in a different way by a particular group. This means that means in practice you can't just ban mentioning all the things that are dogwhistles because they are words which normal people use in other contexts. Statements have to be judged on a case by case basis to identify whether someone is, say, criticising globalisation because of the exploitation of workers in foreign countries or the loss of jobs in their own country, or because it's a Jewish conspiracy to disempower the aryan master race or some other stupid shit like that.

Yeah, "globalism" is a tricky one. It also has a fair history of use outside anti-Semitism but realistically has been replaced by globalisation, and a lot of people will use it innocently because they won't realise the difference between globalism and globalisation.

The other problem with "globalism" it is suggests an ideology being pushed by certain people (often as opposed to nationalism), hence it's attraction to conspiracy theory: this is also thought to be largely incorrect for why globalisation has occurred. Globalisation is more understood to be a process of increased global connections driven by technology, economics etc. rather than specific ideology.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

I don't know how long and how many chances you "gave" to Lunatic, but unless he was praising Hitler and saying that the Jews are a problem (something, I might add, he's never done behind our closed doors, even though the floor is open for him to do so), then there's nothing for him to prove.

You saw the post he got banned for, right? The 'evidence' isn't hard to find.

In the post he was banned, he was saying literal nazis brandishing weapons were merely "white people" who were simply practicing their "freedom of speech". He also tried to draw parallels between literal nazis and some of the activists in the Black Lives Matter movement.

If what you say is correct, and Lunatic is actually not like this in real life, then that doesn't let him off the hook. Because that means he was trolling, and so his ban is still legitimate. Because he shouldn't be trolling.

The Escapist forums I remember you would totally be allowed to say that in the politics forum without a ban as long as you didn't directly insult a person. Attack the ideas, not the person was the rules.




Oh and seperately in regard to dogwhistles: Heres a good example. Nazis used to use the dogwhistle '88'. Why 88? Because H is the eigth letter of the alphabet so 'Heil Hitler' or HH could be represented with '88'. Neo-Nazis love code like that and the internet has cranked that culture to eleven with the nazi memes creating endless new dogwhistles fast.

And why do they call it dogwhistles? Because only a dog hears a dogwhistle, not everybody else. Just like only the people in the know hear the political dog whistles the Nazis use.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Zontar, probably one of the longest standing controversial uses. It will be interesting to see him try and jump back into here besides no other reason than to see the fireworks.

Anyway I'm certainly mixed about this but it should be interesting to see how these people changed