Censorship? There is no censorship!

cronicler

cronicler

Lurksalot
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...
 
well you have to be fair, when they changed the name the topic kinda gained a lot more attention.

By the way, who's saying we cant continue here where the old topic stoped. So, I still think that Coke is better than Pepsi!
 
In any case, there couldn't be any discussion there, most of it was just on side completely declining to even acknowledge anything the other said while demanding entire attention to what they said. The title change was just the cheery on top.
 
I even offered them the olive branch of peace. . .

sad-batman.gif
 
well, the better response would be to post up links debunking the info-graphic, or else straight up vatting that post.

the vatting and renaming the thread yet again just makes me think they didnt even try to debunk it because they have no links.

but in a round-about way this just points out another issue.

should science/research be done to look for non-politically correct results? should non-politically correct science/research be allowed?

it reminds me of that old logical fallacy "appeal to academia" where the credentials of the author of a piece/statement is called into question. what makes it a fallacy is because what was said/written is not being called into question but rather the person. the argument must stand up to scrutiny much more so than the person. you do not need a physics or electrical engineering PHD to know that if you push a metal fork into a hot wall socket, you will get shocked. you also do not need a physics or minerals/materials engineer PHD to know that when you run a current through a stove/oven element and it turns red that it is hot and touching it could lead to very severe injuries or even death.

the only time where an "appeal to academia" is not a logical fallacy but required is when the argument is based on theory or unverifiable conclusions.

now, that info-graphic is the result of statistical analysis. that is not theory, nor is it unverifiable. you look at the methodology and data sources and vet that. if it passes muster, then it should be eminently verifiable by other people.

i am not saying that info-graphic is "true" or fake or flawed. what we DO need is for people to vet the methodology and data sources. if they are sound, then vet the results. just because we do not like the results is very irrelevant, and in fact could lead to problems of causation/correlation if you ignore it.
 
cronicler said:
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...
Click to expand...

Feel free to continue the discussion thread in this topic. 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.

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?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I suspect no one has read anything linked to by me or Sander. Hard to discuss anything in such an environment.

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

The grandiose claims of censorship are unwarranted, really. What got vatted was a derelict of a thread, rapidly deteriorating into a completely unsalvageable mess.
 
There is no cencorship on this forum, the fact that the vated topic was going for more then 70 pages should tell you enough. If this was about cencorship, then it would have dissapeared much sooner, not to mention you had 2 admins in there discussing, not throwing out any banns nor warnings to people. You can say about Tagz or Sander what ever you want, but I have yet to a see a situation where they exploited their rights as mods/admins.

The general rule is simple, dont post bullshit, and the topic is save from the vats. This forum is very open to discussions, even hot topics, and you can have your opinion and even your attitude too, but as soon as things start to go in a certain direction, then it simply makes no sense to discuss it and keeping the topic open. The forum has a zero tolerance policy regarding some stuff, like Nazis, as good example, or posting NSFW material.
 
Wait. . because the Empire are Nazi's?

Anyway, censorship would be the removal of discussion, this is merely butthurt.
 
Last edited:
Don't overthink a stupid jab at the new stupid lightsaber thingie.
 
I hope you all die in a fucking gas fire.

Yeah that's right.

Let it sink.

And VAT this thread too.

And VAT all other related retarded threads.

If you want to act like retards, why don't you buy your own web-space?

The old days wouldn't allow you little shits running around acting like idiots.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
in the days of rosh i would predict 1 of 3 situations

pro-GG:
tearing apart of the anti-GG position, including studies showing women in tech/it make more than men, demanding proof/evidence of the accusations of gamergate causing the harassment and when none surfaces, telling them to stfu. would even vat pro-GG people posts like that info-graphic and give them a strike until they provide the source so its methodology can be evaluated.

neutral-GG:
because he is/was a game dev ( allegedly ) he would probably be neutral or not say anything so as to not damage his possibilities with dev houses/publishers. abstain from argument. or maybe provide stories from both sides of the fence of gaming media breaking ethics and of observed sexism/harassment from female and male co-workers.

anti-GG:
more amorphous claims of sexism/misogyny as a systemic issue linking to social and cultural studies and analysis showing sexism that sander and tagz like to link.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top