Censorship? There is no censorship!

[Nas92]

All this GamerGate bs is causing sooo much grief and it's completely and utterly meaningless. Any change whichever side achieved or will achieve will be instantly reverted when the sensationalism dies down, I'd bet money on that.

 

[PlanHex]

But how does the lightsaber connect to nazism? I don't get it.

It connects to lots of stuff because it's a very handy tool to have and it takes many forms.

Spoiler

 

[SnapSlav]

Using one questionable post as an excuse to vat an entire thread that had a very prominent secondary strain on the discussion about the lack of discussion and the extreme polarization in today's politicized issues...

I guess I'm a politically naive pessimist but how exactly do modern people decide on what is the right approach to solving an issue (not the simple, black&white morality, what is right and what is wrong declaration but the real work to fix the reasons behind the symptoms.) if they won't ever look at what the other side says, wants and their reasons?

"Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it's mistakes" is probably the most appropriate phrase that fits my feelings at the moment...

Don't forget MASSIVE strawmanning while doing the vatting!

But I really don't understand all the accusations of that final post, and I hadn't taken a look at the topic before it got vatted, so I never even got the chance to say anything about it. Then again, the vatting came so quickly, NO ONE did! To me, there was nothing questionable about it. Misguided? Misleading? Misunderstood? Misused? Most likely one (or several) of those. That graph, if anything, just made perfect sense, and you had to be pretty stupid to look at it and think "this is misogynist!" I mean, seriously, do you think it's belittling and insulting to state that the average IQ of [sex doesn't matter] in, say, a bottom-tier retail job being lower than the average IQ of a [sex doesn't matter] in, say, astronomy? No! THAT'S TRUE! Are there geniuses who find themselves in shit jobs because of very unique circumstances? Sure. But averages don't represent that. By far, the average IQ has a tendency to match the field. What does that say? That just says that smarter people gravitate towards fields that require higher intelligence, and less-smart people don't proceed too far beyond certain fields. If you were to take my "[sex doesn't matter]" and fill in the blank, would that make it sexist, suddenly? The answer is very simple: no.

The straw man accusations that preceded the jumping-of-the-gun vatting were just pathetic. I've seen ACTUAL trolls on NMA granted far more patience and leeway than that guy.

The grandiose claims of censorship are unwarranted, really. What got vatted was a derelict of a thread, rapidly deteriorating into a completely unsalvageable mess.

Because active EVERY day and being posted in every 10 minutes is "derelict"? That's some incredible denial, right there. It's certainly true that 2 admins not taking any personal action and banning anybody despite being REPEATEDLY told, in many colors of "not politely", that they're just plain wrong, not listening, assholes, etc, is a huge point in the favor of "not censorship". But that doesn't change the fact that, yes, the thread was vatted in order to hide the inability to address ONE user. An act of generosity does not undo an act of thievery; prior instances of restraint do not undo an eventual act of censorship.

I even offered them the olive branch of peace. . .

Yeah, I seriously don't know why you did that. Anyone with maturity could tell the difference between a flaming douchebaggy twat and a respectful person offering polite dissent. That post of yours was unnecessary.

If anything, it seemed like it was brown nosing. A couple users like to rise up and object "it's not about winning" whenever someone asserts their point, and I have to remind them... yes it is! It's not THAT you won, though, it's that you were on the right side. Ideally speaking, anyway. You should WANT to be on the side that's right. Even if you're wrong, you should have some conviction that you're right. That's not to say you shouldn't have the open mindedness to accept dissenting opinions and admit to being wrong. The two things can completely overlap within any rational, balanced individual. But that offering of peace? That objection towards "wanting to win"? Those are all just cowardice. You don't need to make a peace offering when the very nature of civil discourse is heated debate. Anyone with any amount of brains and some self-respect will understand that being disagreed with comes with the territory, that it's not a matter of "war" and that there is no need for "peace offerings". Those are really childish concepts. The fact that you needed to make that attempt can be quite telling of the recipients, your opinion or them, or you, depending on how you look at it.

Come on. You're better than that.

Don't be so sure.

 

[Sander]

But that doesn't change the fact that, yes, the thread was vatted in order to hide the inability to address ONE user.

Addressing that point would be trivial. It would also be a waste of time. That gargantuan monster of a thread was outliving its usefulness. You can continue here. No one is being 'censored' (outside of the usual limitations on this forum).

 

[Akratus]

Yeah, I seriously don't know why you did that. Anyone with maturity could tell the difference between a flaming douchebaggy twat and a respectful person offering polite dissent. That post of yours was unnecessary.

If anything, it seemed like it was brown nosing. A couple users like to rise up and object "it's not about winning" whenever someone asserts their point, and I have to remind them... yes it is! It's not THAT you won, though, it's that you were on the right side. Ideally speaking, anyway. You should WANT to be on the side that's right. Even if you're wrong, you should have some conviction that you're right. That's not to say you shouldn't have the open mindedness to accept dissenting opinions and admit to being wrong. The two things can completely overlap within any rational, balanced individual. But that offering of peace? That objection towards "wanting to win"? Those are all just cowardice. You don't need to make a peace offering when the very nature of civil discourse is heated debate. Anyone with any amount of brains and some self-respect will understand that being disagreed with comes with the territory, that it's not a matter of "war" and that there is no need for "peace offerings". Those are really childish concepts. The fact that you needed to make that attempt can be quite telling of the recipients, your opinion or them, or you, depending on how you look at it.

I know it can be difficult to assess the meaning or intent behind my posts and in how far they are meant to be comedic but I was entirely serious in wanting to end the hostile nature of the back and forth that went on, through a gesture of good will.

 

[Gnarles Bronson]

The vatted thread has ran its course and when a user starts posting inflammatory bullshit about how women are stupider than men because a random diagram says so (biotruthism at its finest) and other trolling.

The grandiose claims of censorship are unwarranted, really. What got vatted was a derelict of a thread, rapidly deteriorating into a completely unsalvageable mess.

I don't see how changing the names of threads, or deleting threads isn't censorship.

 

[Sander]

Are you being prevented from expressing your opinion? Nope. So: not censorship.

 

[SnapSlav]

Because vatting the entire thread isn't preventing us from contributing to it? Just because someone started a new thread doesn't mean the deletion didn't happen. In fact, it underlines that it took place.

I know it can be difficult to assess the meaning or intent behind my posts and in how far they are meant to be comedic but I was entirely serious in wanting to end the hostile nature of the back and forth that went on, through a gesture of good will.

Like I said, I felt it was totally unnecessary. All it takes is a healthy outlook on oneself to not fear being disagreed with, and as a consequence possess the mental fortitude to be told "no, you're wrong". People who MUST react to that with hostility aren't worth the extended open palm of concession or the offering of peace. As I said to you regarding "others", the best response to certain kinds of personalities is to simply disregard them and ignore them. It can be infuriating to watch them rant and rave unchecked, but the more people who do that and just don't pay those types any heed, the sooner they burn and fizzle out and vanish. When you feel like it helps to extend to them the peace flag, it may be very commendable of you, but misguided.

 

[PlanHex]

All it takes is a healthy outlook on oneself to not fear being disagreed with, and as a consequence possess the mental fortitude to be told "no, you're wrong". People who MUST react to that with hostility aren't worth the extended open palm of concession or the offering of peace.

Holy shit man, it's not even been a week since you threw a huge hissy fit over being told you were wrong about some details of CD manufacturing.
Oh god my sidessssssss

 

[SnapSlav]

All it takes is a healthy outlook on oneself to not fear being disagreed with, and as a consequence possess the mental fortitude to be told "no, you're wrong". People who MUST react to that with hostility aren't worth the extended open palm of concession or the offering of peace.

Holy shit man, it's not even been a week since you threw a huge hissyfit over being told you were wrong about some details of CD manufacturing.
Oh god my sidessssssss

I figured someone would mistakenly draw parallels between the two things. Didn't think they'd do it here, though. Doesn't change the fact that it's a mistake. How you people perceive me to be speaking or what you think my tone is when I write my posts is entirely a figment of your imagination, because if you think I threw a hissy fit, that's just wrong.

Laugh it up. I can assure you, your ignorance is more amusing to me. =)

 

[Gnarles Bronson]

So I'm new here, but vatting means you deleted it, or just hid it from public view? Expressing yourself involves another person, it's not like you can say "you can say whatever you want! just go into this empty room and express yourself to your hearts content."

And changing the thread name?

 

[Kilus]

Are you being prevented from expressing your opinion? Nope. So: not censorship.

But you are are practising silencing.

 

[Sander]

So I'm new here, but vatting means you deleted it, or just hid it from public view? Expressing yourself involves another person, it's not like you can say "you can say whatever you want! just go into this empty room and express yourself to your hearts content."

It means it's in the Vats subforum. Closed, but viewable for those who are logged in.

Which is where, incidentally, most of this sub-tangent will be going fairly soon, seeing as how this is going nowhere.

And changing the thread name?

Jokes be not censorship.

 

[Walpknut]

So, in the end who changed the name of the thread to paint people disagreeing with him in a negative light twice? I am curious.

Because really, that's not "censorship" but it's a very dishonest and childish way of arguing when the ones on the other side don't have the power to do that.

 

[Gnarles Bronson]

So you're saying people can no longer talk about gamer gate, changed the thread title to a disparaging remark, and that's not censorship.

 

[SnapSlav]

Jokes be not censorship.

But petty, childish, in poor taste, immature, among other things.

EDIT:

So I'm new here, but vatting means you deleted it, or just hid it from public view?

It's not deleting it, it's not removing it from public view, but it is moving it to a place where most don't frequent and it is locking it. The Vats is a board you can visit, and you can look up vatted threads, but unless you know what you're looking for (and it's recently added) then good luck finding it. So in a way, it is "removed from public eye", but only indirectly. It's still there, but it's out of the way. Yes, it's very seedy when abused.

 

[TorontoReign]

That thread was becoming a fucking joke. Sure the name change was basically throwing fuel on the fire, but by that time most people had made their points. Not to mention a debate that long starts to fall apart because you can't remember what everyone said.

 

[SnapSlav]

I'll never disagree that it was a joke. I said on several occasions and to several people that it was "a farce of a topic". But that doesn't mean vatting it by the proponents of half of its bile in response to "not wishing to aknowledge a post" should be considered anything other than censorship. Yes, there was no sense or pattern or understanding or trend or ANY ability to track the course of the "discussion". Yes, it was volatile. But removing it while simultaneously announcing "I accuse this one post of something it's totally not doing and as such condemn this entire thread" is still blatant censorship. Poorly handled, absolutely flubbed, and completely backfired, but that doesn't mean we should disregard it.

 

[Surf Solar]

There is no cencorship on this forum

Your brownnosing is as disgusting as is the vatting of posts that go against the agenda the SJW admins of this page here want to push through. Or the doublethink of the adminstration that forbids calling people names, enforcing political correct bullshit, yet calling out other people just like they want.

Since this site has been dead for months already anyway it is kinda ironic that it will go under as a den of raving lunatics belittling women wherevery they post by taking away their ability to defend themselves by the adminstration. Well done.

A fitting nail to the coffin

 

[Gnarles Bronson]

I'll never disagree that it was a joke. I said on several occasions and to several people that it was "a farce of a topic". But that doesn't mean vatting it by the proponents of half of its bile in response to "not wishing to aknowledge a post" should be considered anything other than censorship. Yes, there was no sense or pattern or understanding or trend or ANY ability to track the course of the "discussion". Yes, it was volatile. But removing it while simultaneously announcing "I accuse this one post of something it's totally not doing and as such condemn this entire thread" is still blatant censorship. Poorly handled, absolutely flubbed, and completely backfired, but that doesn't mean we should disregard it.

So stop posting in it or mute the annoying posters. I don't care, never visited the thread, but internet censorship annoys the hell out of me.