Please link to some examples of clear LGBT discrimination on this forum that went unchecked by moderators to support your claims. Otherwise, it can safely be assumed that what you're trying to do here is slant the moderation in your preferred direction whenever this comes up as part of a valid discussion topic. Example: the Pillars of Eternity thread from months ago. Disagreeing with people on an issue gets heated at times, but in no way should it be classified as "hate" or "discrimination" by default just because someone claims it makes them feel "unsafe". A public internet forum isn't a safe space where you should be able to silence dissenting views like that.LifeCharacter said:
I felt the need to bring it up because safety is a word that was specifically used in the CoC. It's a misnomer when you stretch its definition to include anything that can make person feel uncomfortable, such as an internet argument. It evokes a sense of serious physical danger when none is present, and the potential for psychological trauma that's also used to justify it has been overblown time and time again as a means to give special snowflakes more rights than regular snowflakes.LifeCharacter said:
It's public in that anyone can anonymously join this forum and participate in the discussion regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation or nationality. Venues where one need only to adhere to the rules of common decency aren't at all exclusive "safe spaces" in the traditional definition of the term. If the Escapist amends the CoC to include ridiculous things like "claims of reverse racism/sexism will not be considered", then we would have a proper safe space.LifeCharacter said:
If we go by your definition, every town square is also a safe space because certain forums of speech classified by law as hate speech or incitement to violence are disallowed. If every place is then a safe space, as you seem to be arguing, what possible relevance does the term even carry? I'll be honest, I really don't like the term for the reasons mentioned in the previous post concerning its practical application. It's a neon sign with the message HERE, SOME PEOPLE ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS printed on it.LifeCharacter said:
No problem. Just make sure to include cisphobic and heterophobic on that list, OK? You've neglected to mention it so far, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was an oversight.LifeCharacter said:
I'm going to have to say something here, because we're reaching silly proportions. Cisphobia is not a real thing, neither is heterophobia, there might be people who could be legitimately classified as such, but they're few and far between and they have no real power. Certainly not the power to actively discriminate against cisgender and straight people in any meaningful way. Virtually anything that's called cisphobic, or heterophobic is either an expression of extreme frustration, or turning actual hate around as a parody.StreamerDarkly said:
Sweet biscuit cakes, what's going on there? O3oIceForce said:
Except this doesn't hold universally when one considers other privately owned businesses. For example, there have been some recent, high-profile examples of restaurants denying service based on the race / religious views of the customer. As far as I'm aware, this sort of discrimination has been found to be illegal. It gets a bit more ambiguous when you consider dress codes, gender exclusivity, and seemingly arbitrary age restrictions enforced by some establishments. My point is that you aren't entirely free to set any restrictions you want just because you're privately owned. More to the point, by your definition every internet site becomes a safe space just by virtue of enforcing their own unique CoC, and again I feel like this is a distortion of the term as it's commonly understood.LifeCharacter said:
Ahhh yes, the old privilege + power argument. Hating on the majority doesn't matter. Actually, it seems that hating on cis-whitey has become quite a trendy thing these days. Your argument is that trans people shouldn't be held accountable for it because they've been the recipients of worse discrimination. If you really believed it's the right thing to "leave people to their own persecution complexes" instead of formally granting them special rules, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.LifeCharacter said:
What's going on is, despite making thousands of snippy one-liner posts that contributed nothing to the discussion back when The Escapist actually had a low content rule, IceForce somehow managed to get himself exonerated through the appeals process. This isn't the case to hang your hat on when attempting to make the argument for moderator fallibility.Elvis Starburst said:
Rule 0 is there to fill in the gaps from any potential loopholes that may arise. This isn't a democracy. If you want to view it as a dictatorship, that's your prerogative. I prefer to see it as an admin of a forum stating that it's their interpretation of the rules that goes, not the other way around. As that's what it really is. It's an internet forum, there must be someone that has the final say about an issue that crops up. Almost all of the time, it will be my moderator team that handles these issues. They know the forums and are generally familiar with the folks that post in each forum. Rule 0, for that, means that if you get into an argument and a moderator says stop. You stop. If you are at odds about something that was said that may or may not be against the code of conduct, it's the moderators choice that is "correct". It's the same with the staff who do appeals. The same rules apply there as they do here.Politrukk said:
This is an effort to denigrate and belittle the effects of homophobia and transphobia. That's really all this is. There is no genuine concern here; only an absurd false parallel, one which even StreamerDarkly knows lacks any sense of perspective.StreamerDarkly said:
This is a non-discriminatory website. I could care less if you're white, black, hispanic, LGBTQ+ or any other preference, shape or color of any kind. It simply doesn't matter to me who you are, only that you show everyone else around you a bit of respect.
Except that people who cry about anti-white racism, cisphobia, and heterophobia never actually experienced any actual discrimination. Also it's not really that there's hate against cisgender heterosexual white men, but there sure are a lot of those same cisgender heterosexual white men fighting against equality rules. Especially when LGBTQ+ folk, racial, and religious minorities are specifically targeted with hate and discrimination, even official legal hate and discrimination. That's why the special protections absolutely need to exist, because some people can't just leave other's be, they have to go out of their way to make other people's lives hell just because the other person is different.StreamerDarkly said:
n0e said:
Well that's the thing, isn't it. 'Passive-aggressiveness' is so deeply engrained in this forum's psyche, it's going to take a while to eliminate.shrekfan246 said:
