How Moderators stifle freedom of expression in Debates, the police state "forum" and on moderation election.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Isn't self regulation based on the idea that

 

a) People are willing to go 'That's a sheet post, don't do that'

b) The people who make the sheet posts are actually willing to listen and improve upon it

 

Like it relies of the section having an actual drive for self improvement say, or an ability to hold people accountable in a debate. But... without mods we can't hold them accountable, or make people give a sheet about improvement.

 

Compared to say if you are a constant troll in real life, where someone can just slap you for being a troll instead? What aspect of the idea or mistaken am I missing there?

1) but not 2)

 

Take Laz for example. He started getting so bellicose, people on the left started calling him out an shutting him down

 

#Politics has like an active population of 4, 3 of whom just are in there for the shits and giggles, there's a substantially larger population in Debates if the section picked up

[Night]

They have unilateral power to do just about anything they want under the guise of fixing "hate speech"

 

You caught us, we're just trying to force leftist ideals upon the unsuspecting ycm userbase.

 

It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that hate speech, and yes that is what it is, has no funking place on a yugioh forum. That's been commonplace for 8 years on this forum, and no amount of grandstanding or labeling be it "authoritative" or "leftist" is going to get me to actually allow you to get away with using racial slurs and demean people for literally no reason.

 

funk off with that sheet, there are a million places on the internet to spread unnecessarily hateful sheet, why the funk you chose a yugioh forum is absolutely beyond me.  

[Resident Fascist]

You caught us, we're just trying to force leftist ideals upon the unsuspecting ycm userbase.

 

It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that hate speech, and yes that is what it is, has no funking place on a yugioh forum. That's been commonplace for 8 years on this forum, and no amount of grandstanding or labeling be it "authoritative" or "leftist" is going to get me to actually allow you to get away with using racial slurs and demean people for literally no reason.

 

funk off with that sheet, there are a million places on the internet to spread unnecessarily hateful sheet, why the funk you chose a yugioh forum is absolutely beyond me.  

 

Excuse me? Please point to a example of what you'd deem as hate speech. If anything, you're making unwarranted aggressive statements here. Example, you have put words in my mouth that I only say things to offend, demean or similar. What can be deemed as hate speech? Is hate speech not in the opinion of the beholder? For instance, I'd identify myself as a Christian. If you come up to me and burn a copy of the Bible in front of my face, or demonise my religious beliefs, I would be offended. However, because I am a reasonable person, I would hold that as your personal opinion. Does it immediately become hate speech if, someone, for no reason, leaps in front of my face and declares it so? Why is your idea of what constitutes supposed hate speech gospel, yet my idea of what constitutes hate speech is irrelevant?

 

 In that instance, a pre-selected authoritarian position is telling another individual who has not been selected for the same position that their opinion is less relevant than the authority figure's. That's like, literal leftism. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

You caught us, we're just trying to force leftist ideals upon the unsuspecting ycm userbase.

 

It has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that hate speech, and yes that is what it is, has no funking place on a yugioh forum. That's been commonplace for 8 years on this forum, and no amount of grandstanding or labeling be it "authoritative" or "leftist" is going to get me to actually allow you to get away with using racial slurs and demean people for literally no reason.

 

funk off with that sheet, there are a million places on the internet to spread unnecessarily hateful sheet, why the funk you chose a yugioh forum is absolutely beyond me.  

Two things 

 

1) Which slurs where used hatefully

2) And how have you deduced "reason"?

 

Using sarcasm to turn critique into satire doesn't change that you're pushing your personal view of hate 

Excuse me? Please point to a example of what you'd deem as hate speech. If anything, you're making unwarranted aggressive statements here. 

Calling a guy who marries a 12 year a pedophilia might be an example

[Resident Fascist]

 

Calling a guy who marries a 12 year a pedophilia might be an example

 

In that case, the truth is being presented. The truth is impartial in any argument. The truth should not be subject to any opinion or debate, the truth simply is that: the truth. Attempting to debate the existence of the truth or bend the truth only creates a false narrative full of holes that comes crashing down at the first criticism. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Nah, I've said multiple times that he married a 12 year old

 

I think the use of the word "pedophile" is what pissed them off

 

There's a delicate way of phrasing things they want you to use most likely. Like calling someone is mentally defunct, "challenged" instead of "retarded" etc.

[Sunshine Jesse]

This made me giggle.

 

Apologies in advance if this isn't proofread, i'm just waking up and can't really be bothered.

 

Anyway...

 

No. You're all completely incapable of self moderation.

You aren't actually any better at moderating us than we are ourselves. Don't speak as if your authority is based on insight instead of just your status as a mod. It's not.

 

 

Excuse me? Please point to a example of what you'd deem as hate speech. If anything, you're making unwarranted aggressive statements here.

I'll spare everyone else the song and dance unless they actually want to take the bait.

 

Anything we could point to as an example of hate speech would just be defended by you with "no, it's the truth," or you'd try to argue your intent and tone when it was blatant dogwhistling regardless. You're just trying to express hate in the most passive way possible so you have plausible deniability, but it's pretty obvious what you're actually saying behind the layer of quasi-PC language.

 

Not that I have much of a problem with hate speech. Say whatever you want.

[Resident Fascist]

 

Anything we could point to as an example of hate speech would just be defended by you with "no, it's the truth," or you'd try to argue your intent and tone when it was blatant dogwhistling regardless. 

 

 

Let's cross that bridge when we come to it, shall we? Deflecting the question back to the one who asked it does not further this discussion. 

[Aerion Brightflame]

The Arab does not know how to negotiate peace. It is a clockwork creature, fuelled by generations of religious indoctrination and programmed only to take up arms against "Nonbelievers". I have not yet seen an example that proves me wrong.

 

This is the best example of the 'hate speech' I can find from your recent posts. (It's actually weird, if you go backwards by about two months you were arguing on the opposite side). I've seen you say a bunch more stuff, but it was on discord so I cba to go back through the thousands of messages to find stuff.

 

Anyway, example time:

 

They also reveal the character of a race, their blunt brutality under the guise of religious worship is hidden.

Where rats appear, they bring ruin by destroying mankind's goods and foodstuffs. In this way, they spread disease, plague, leprosy, typhoid fever, cholera, dysentery, and so on. They are cunning, cowardly and cruel and are found mostly in large packs. Among the animals, they represent the rudiment of an insidious, underground destruction – just like the Jews among human beings.

 

The Jews are a race without farmers and without manual labourers, a race of parasites

 

 

So as you've guessed, these are quotes from Nazi propoganda towards the Jews. I feel I should qualify here, I do not intend to call you a Nazior anything like that, and if I could find a better example for this point I would have used it.

 

In both cases:

• The writer phrases his comments in a matter of fact way. Under the idea that what they write cannot be hate speech but absolute truth and they must convey it as such.
• It broadly generalises the culture it is scathing of.
• It dehumanises them (With words like parasite, rat, or creature instead of human)

Assuming one is willing to consider the Nazi anti semitism, hate speech, then one could also probably see why people get hate speech vibes from it. The fact that, in your opinion, it is being written from a position of absolute truth doesn't change that. Because it's in part an issue of perception rather than intent (We cannot read tone, so when you put long rants in it reads more angrily than one intends).

 

Again, not calling you a Nazi, not trying to say your opinions are wrong or outrageous, they just read uncannily like it at times. It's literally just intended to be an example as to why writing something as a matter of fact doesn't stop it being hate speech or it reading like hate speech, and if I had a better (Less extreme) example I'd use instead.

[Dad]

Greetings. If you're like one of the many people who clicked on this topic for the absolutely abhorrent clickbait in the title, I apologise. Welcome to the Debates section, also known as the collective anushole of this board, or the moderation team's least favourite place. This thread is intended to put forward several suggestions to how the Debates section could, in my personal opinion, be better run, and cause less issues for moderators. 

 

 If you're a debates regular you probably clicked on this to either a) lock this topic, b) sheet on me or my opinions, or c) agree wholesale with the truthbombs I'm about to drop in this thread. Otherwise, please respond in any manner you see fit. As expressed in the title and in the opening statement of this thread, I feel the Debates section as a whole, is managed, at worst, with contempt and negligence, and corruption and bias at worst. While as an independent forum and not linked to any political source, YCM is not obligated to abide by any of the free speech laws that protect political speech in the majority of the Western world, I believe this is a poor excuse to suppress people's opinions in Debates. In any debate, both sides want to speak their opinion as they see it, and reducing people's abilities to say things as they see fit strangles freedom of speech. This is bad for Debates in multiple ways. Firstly, it often leaves Debates as a forum that is more often described as trying to light a bonfire in the rain. Every time a real debate, in this allegory, a fire, is started, a moderator is almost immediately dispatched to stamp on the bonfire and put the fire out. Secondly, and more importantly, it will ultimately kill Debates as a section. Debates is for well, Debates. What's a Debate without an opposition? Members need the right to speak their mind, even if their opinion is not of the popular mindset. 

 

 Does this mean I feel members should be able to say anything they like in Debates? Yes, yes I do. Moderators in real political Debates mostly exist to prevent actual physical violence between Debaters, Supporters and to generally keep the situation under control. However, the only Debates that actually matter is when both parties express their opinion truthfully and a conclusion can be reached based on both side's argument. The way it is currently set up in Debates, if you say anything that could be deemed mildly offensive to any group, but certain groups receive special protection which I feel, they do not deserve, as no group in a rational society is above scrutiny, your Debate can be shut down and you may receive warning points. When a member says something in Debates, it should be up to the rest of the Debates community to respond with at least a degree of rationale. We are not five, and while throwing colorful language at each other may look bad, all it does is weaken the argument of those hurling it. In turn, members move to ignore wildly irrational and pointless provocations within Debates, vastly improving post quality. In short, what I am proposing is a degree of self-governance within Debates. Only by holding every post by every member in Debates to account from here on is the only way I see to create a Debates forum where things are actually debated.

 

 Much like how in real politics, a big government equals a weak citizen, a strong moderation team equals a weak member. Law and order, much like in real life, is to be upheld by the members of the forum, not a selected group of elites with absolute authority. In the current system, where only moderators can pick moderators, expression of what the forum actually wants is lacking. While this mostly applies to Debates, such logic can be extrapolated to other boards if deemed successful. If the average Debates member is able to self-govern their own forum of interest with decent levels of success, why are they not given the agency to determine who ultimately governs the Debates forum itself? The moderator in the Debates forum should be there to prevent blatant rules abuses, linking to illegal content, pornography, violent imagery, and so on. Things that don't actually really contribute anything to the debate. Anything else should be fair game in the Debates forum. At the end of the day, what people's honest truthful opinions are may hurt someone's feelings. That doesn't disprove the validity of said argument. The core of freedom of speech is, at it's heart, the freedom to disagree with popular consensus in a rational and reasonable manner without fearing retaliation, from moderator or member, in any manner that may ultimately demean or cause actual damage to a member's life. Nannystating the Debates forum is not a way to create good discussion. For an example, there is a widely held trend amongst members in the Debates forum who tend to lean to the political left. This makes someone's opinion from the right, such as my own, often immediately contrary to others. If I, or any other poster crosses the line in Debates, I expect to be reprimanded by a member with hard evidence and facts, not warning points and a broken profile page. The overwhelming leftist bias in the YCM Debates forum stifles free-speech in itself, where expressing an opinion that is what any would consider "politically incorrect". 

 

 As for how moderation elections themselves would work in Debates, I feel that is not an issue to be decided solely by me, that would be outright hypocritical to everything I have said in this topic. Moderation election and the process of such in regards to a Debates moderator is to be determined by in large, the Debates Community. Thanks for reading this far, regardless of how you feel on this issue.

 

So it took me some time, but I thought about this, all night.  I've given it plenty of thought, and there's a lot to talk about, so bare with me.

 

First and foremost, let's be very clear.  Debating in YCM has been an issue for years.  Since the idea for it stemmed back in, what, 08'?  (I'm old, I don't remember.)  And I have been more lax and laid back on Debates and General, than I'm pretty sure any other mod has before me.  So this whole "stifling of free speech" is nonsense.  I'm a liberal.  Believe me, if I was out to get you and shut you up for any dissenting opinions, I wouldn't be in this position as a mod, and you damn sure wouldn't even be posting in debates right now.  The fact of the matter is, this is my section, and I've tried to be cooperative with both sides of the spectrum.  Clearly, I'm not doing that well enough.  Let's put it all on the table.

 

You say there's too much interference.  You feel like the very life is being choked out of you and your right to post whatever you please.  But there's a few things you're forgetting.

 

1.)  Access to YCM is a privilege.  Not a right.

2.)  YCM has always had a stern policy against hate.  Whether you dress it up and put a few irrelevant, decorative words around it, or you say it outright.  It's not acceptable.

 

If you can't argue your view points without creating a hostile environment, that's where I step in.  That's what moderators do.  And when you cause an uproar, I have to evaluate the situation, without bias.  Ask Winter.  There's been many a time he's been reported.  I can tell you from my brief history as a mod, only about 20% of the time do I actually have to punish him.  And by no means have I tried to forcefully convert him into a leftist.  Hell, I don't even like the left.  I say I'm a liberal, but damn, I'm a centrist.

 

There's so many extremes involved, that I don't want to be a part of either side of the spectrum.  And don't think for a second I haven't had to punish a few lefties here.  No one is going to get special treatment from me.

 

Anyway, I'm rambling.  I believe this argument you've brought up--it has fine points, and I think you handled it well, even if I don't agree with it--stems from the Islamic thread posted in General (for whatever silly reason).  We all know how that went down.  Frankly, I should've been more stern with you.  I was actually scolded for being too lenient.  Your punishment would have been much worse if Zai hadn't handled it, and I hadn't stepped in.

 

Speaking of which, I also handled that poorly.  I publicly humiliated a fellow team member and acted inappropriately.  I should not have engaged that topic the way I did, and it was unacceptable conduct.  I'm sorry for my behavior, to those in the thread, and to Zai.  I'll do my best to correct it and uphold the standards I expect from everyone else.

 

Back on topic.  You're misconstruing some evidence here.  Right now, the only one that I'm aware of who has a problem with your opinion, is you.  I don't care if you're arguing from the right.  I don't care what you believe.  What I care about is argument presentation.  

 

Having a problem with a person's faiths and ideologies is one thing.  I follow Christ.  I get that argument a lot.  But then you took it up.  You berated them as people.  You degraded them as humans.  You attacked their person and not their foundation.  Your argument was messy, it was extremely generalized, and it read as if you were ready to launch a campaign against any and all Muslims from the West to the East.  You strummed up something that sounded a lot like a demonstration--not against the extremists and scumbags who've attacked innocents and killed for their flawed ideologies--of marching on Muslims.  That is the problem.

 

Your argument was accurate.  Hell, I researched it myself.  But it was also headstrong.  You were blinded by your own extreme hatred for persons in the middle east, that you went off into a toxic rant that caused the entire damn thread to be shut down.

 

For the record, no.  I will not allow Debates to go completely un-moderated.  As much as I'd like to give it a month's break, I can't do that.  I can't just walk off my job to please a handful of my co-workers who dislike me.  I have work to do.

 

I said it before, I'll say it again.  I have been more than lenient with this section.  To all parties.  If Aerion wrote some bullshit like that, you better believe I'd be on his ass like white on rice on a paper plate with a glass of milk in a snowstorm.  So, let me reiterate.  You won't find me pushing an agenda.  That's your job as debaters.  To push your ideals and argue points.

 

But I won't let you go h.a.m. just so you can feel more free.  I'm risking too much for too little.  The net result is a negative for the site.  I can't do that.

 

I didn't get to cover everything here, but I'll answer questions obviously.  I'll try to keep this thread open until the end of today, midnight central time.  But as it stands, there's discussion for it to be shutdown.  I'll leave you to this and I'll get back to you.  Just know if it gets out of hand, I'm locking it.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

His argument being accurate is an objective measure

 

It being hate speech is not. There's a reason the Supreme Court protected "hate speech" (or rather declined to criminalize it) and that's becuase "hate" is a highly subjective measure.

 

There's little difference between what shard and other critiques of Islam have said. The rest of us just dress the pig up.

 

---

 

I'm not a Christian, but cut out the false equivalency. If a man marries a 12 year old, he has every right to be called a pedophile. The fact we're not allowed to state this basic fact is as clear a demise of debates as anything.

 

Jesus had his moment, God certainly does, but trying to create an equalized Islam and then raving "hate" and "Islamophobia" at anyone who disagrees is a major problem with western discourse

 

 

If it goes outside debates. Warn the ever living sheet out of it.

[Dad]

I'm not a Christian, but cut out the false equivalency. If a man marries a 12 year old, he has every right to be called a pedophile.

 

 

I guess this wasn't clear.  I wasn't talking about Muhammad being a pedophile.  That was like, the least of the post warranting a lock in that thread.  Hell, Jared from Subway is a pedophile.  I wasn't talking about Muhammad at all.  And I didn't even mention that part of the argument.  So I don't know why you're reaching.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I guess this wasn't clear.  I wasn't talking about Muhammad being a pedophile.  That was like, the least of the post warranting a lock in that thread.  Hell, Jared from Subway is a pedophile.  I wasn't talking about Muhammad at all.  And I didn't even mention that part of the argument.  So I don't know why you're reaching.

Let's cut the chase then. What in Shard's post exactly got Night and Zai riled up?

[BANZAI!!!!]

His argument being accurate is an objective measure

It being hate speech is not. There's a reason the Supreme Court protected "hate speech" (or rather declined to criminalize it) and that's becuase "hate" is a highly subjective measure.

There's little difference between what shard and other critiques of Islam have said. The rest of us just dress the pig up.

---

I'm not a Christian, but cut out the false equivalency. If a man marries a 12 year old, he has every right to be called a pedophile. The fact we're not allowed to state this basic fact is as clear a demise of debates as anything.

Jesus had his moment, God certainly does, but trying to create an equalized Islam and then raving "hate" and "Islamophobia" at anyone who disagrees is a major problem with western discourse

If it goes outside debates. Warn the ever living sheet out of it.

Correct, labeling it hate speech is subjective. Know what its subject to? Moderator discretion. We are the governing body of YCM, and if we see something that we consider to be no bueno. Its no bueno, like it or not.

 

Saying the prophet Muhhamad married a twelve year old is factual. Saying that the religion of Islam is awful because of it is not a fact, its an opinion. And if you express that opinion in such a manner that a moderator deems to be toxic, or hateful, or any other label we want to put on something that we feel violates the site rules or code of conduct, you will be given whatever punishment those rules and our own discretion deem appropriate. Debates is not some special forum where the rules are relaxed or don't apply. If it doesn't fly somehere else on YCM, it doesn't fly in debates. Period.

 

As Dad said, we've been lenient. I'm all for free speech, and believe it or not I've been one of the people letting a lot of things that maybe shouldn't fly fly, be it in debates or the status bar. A lot of the time those verbal warnings I so enjoy giving come in place of actual warning points. So believe me when I say what we do is not because we're pushing an agenda or trying to stifle discourse, because we're not.

 

If you guys want to debate, debate properly, civilly, and within YCM's guidelines. Otherwise, you'll be reprimanded. Simple as that.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Correct, labeling it hate speech is subjective. Know what its subject to? Moderator discretion. We are the governing body of YCM, and if we see something that we consider to be no bueno. Its no bueno, like it or not.

Saying the prophet Muhhamad married a twelve year old is factual. Saying that the religion of Islam is awful because of it is not a fact, its an opinion. And if you express that opinion in such a manner that a moderator deems to be toxic, or hateful, or any other label we want to put on something that we feel violates the site rules or code of conduct, you will be given whatever punishment those rules and our own discretion deem appropriate. Debates is not some special forum where the rules are relaxed or don't apply. If it doesn't fly somehere else on YCM, it doesn't fly in debates. Period.

As Dad said, we've been lenient. I'm all for free speech, and believe it or not I've been one of the people letting a lot of things that maybe shouldn't fly fly, be it in debates or the status bar. A lot of the time those verbal warnings I so enjoy giving come in place of actual warning points. So believe me when I say what we do is not because we're pushing an agenda or trying to stifle discourse, because we're not.

If you guys want to debate, debate properly, civilly, and within YCM's guidelines. Otherwise, you'll be reprimanded. Simple as that.

Right, and I'm saying you're a far left radical who uses said disgression as your personal Pravda. At this point it's discuss what I (Zai and his leftie friends on the mod team) want.

 

The mod team isn't even representative of our generation- Dad being as close to representing the other side as it gets. How is anyone but the left supposed to get fair rulings?

 

If a guy marries a 12 year old today: he's a pedophile. And most here would not bash somone for

calling him awful. But this being Islam and Night & your being sensitive means special rights and outrage.

 

---

 

How about you and Night and the rest get the funk out of debates and let the guy we chose as debate mod deal with problems in debates. He was doing a pretty decent job too before the mod team got packed with lefties

[VCR_CAT]

Right, and I'm saying you're a far left radical who uses said disgression as your personal Pravda. At this point it's discuss what I (Zai and his leftie friends on the mod team) want.

 

The mod team isn't even representative of our generation- Dad being as close to representing the other side as it gets.

 

If a guy marries a 12 year old today: he's a pedophile. And most here would not bash somone for

calling him awful. But this being Islam and Night & your being sensitive means special rights and outrage

 

Hey I have an idea, how about you give this a try:

 

Express your views in a way that doesn't involve belittling others, your shitty memes, or just being generally polite and considerate about it. I bet you anything that you could express your views freely without being an ass or spouting out torrents of garbage.

 

I mean, you act like everyone else shares the same views as the moderators, when really I could go off on a bunch of stuff that Zai and I don't see eye-to-eye on (say that 10 times fast), but y'know it's almost like just being... respectful has its merit?

 

You and Shard aren't getting the attention because they "disagree with you" or because of a "bia". You get the attention because your posts are way too frequently just childish shlock, and when points are actually made, you'd rather just shut your ears and ignore it. You're not debating, you just want an echo chamber to scream your views and refuse to listen to anything that says otherwise.

 

So do it. I dare you. Continue to post your views, but do so in a respectful manner, make points well, listen to people and actually debate. If you're still getting a sheet treatment then you have something to complain about.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Hey I have an idea, how about you give this a try:

 

Express your views in a way that doesn't involve belittling others, your shitty memes, or just being generally polite and considerate about it. I bet you anything that you could express your views freely without being an ass or spouting out torrents of garbage.

 

I mean, you act like everyone else shares the same views as the moderators, when really I could go off on a bunch of stuff that Zai and I don't see eye-to-eye on (say that 10 times fast), but y'know it's almost like just being... respectful has its merit?

 

You and Shard aren't getting the attention because they "disagree with you" or because of a "bia". You get the attention because your posts are way too frequently just childish shlock, and when points are actually made, you'd rather just shut your ears and ignore it. You're not debating, you just want an echo chamber to scream your views and refuse to listen to anything that says otherwise.

 

So do it. I dare you. Continue to post your views, but do so in a respectful manner, make points well, listen to people and actually debate. If you're still getting a sheet treatment then you have something to complain about.

I haven't gotten a warning out of debates in ages, so not sure why you're dragging me into this personally.

 

So you want me to dress up the pig to make Zai and Night feel better. That's really what it boils down to here Cat, and nobody should have to. I find you guys cavalierly discussing the "murder of millions" offensive. Do I get to force you to use nice words about abortion?

 

Nope.

 

Surprise suprise, it's a leftie tolerated view, so the mod team doesn't feel a need to protect the safe space.

 

1) don't think speech should ever be dressed up

2) only speech the left dislikes is mandated to being dressed up on here

 

Like becuase the mod team is almost entirely far lefties and completely unrepresentative of the generation they rule over

[BANZAI!!!!]

First thing's first. Keep sheet civil people.

 

Right, and I'm saying you're a far left radical who uses said disgression as your personal Pravda. At this point it's discuss what I (Zai and his leftie friends on the mod team) want.

The mod team isn't even representative of our generation- Dad being as close to representing the other side as it gets. How is anyone but the left supposed to get fair rulings?

If a guy marries a 12 year old today: he's a pedophile. And most here would not bash somone for

calling him awful. But this being Islam and Night & your being sensitive means special rights and outrage.

---

How about you and Night and the rest get the funk out of debates and let the guy we chose as debate mod deal with problems in debates. He was doing a pretty decent job too before the mod team got packed with lefties

My being liberal has nothing to do with my moding YCM. We've said time and again that its not nearly as much about what you're saying as how you're saying it. I guarantee that if you guys conduct yourselves civilly, you won't hear a peep from us.

 

It doesn't even have anything to do with Islam itself. Were Shard saying similar things about christianity or judaism or black people or any other group or religion, we would have reacted the same way.

 

I'd appreciate it if you stopped throwing labels around in an attempt to make yourself look like some kind of vicitm.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

First thing's first. Keep sheet civil people.

My being liberal has nothing to do with my moding YCM. We've said time and again that its not nearly as much about what you're saying as how you're saying it. I guarantee that if you guys conduct yourselves civilly, you won't hear a peep from us.

It doesn't even have anything to do with Islam itself. Were Shard saying similar things about christianity or judaism or black people or any other group or religion, we would have reacted the same way.

I'd appreciate it if you stopped throwing labels around in an attempt to make yourself look like some kind of vicitm.

And we have just your word as proof for all these claims. Claims which conveniently don't seem to mesh with reality. You're not letting your views dictate you modding? But these a few posts up you said it was mod disgression. Do your views not affect your disgression?

 

False equivalency again

 

You guys are far left; your judgments favor the far left. This isn't complicated or some elaborate blame game.

 

---

 

Lotta posts here can be summed up with

1) deal with it

2) false equivalency

3) why don't YOU be "nicer"??

 

Doesn't matter if three guys say it 4 different ways. Topic is stagnating with no change (as expected)

[Aerion Brightflame]

Why are you focusing so much on calling Muhammed a pedophile?

 

I may have missed it here, but which part of the thread has put the focus on hate speech on being that thing specifically? I don't recall it. And honestly, that's not the bit I'd focus on for it being hate speech. I get why you are focus on it, because you can just go 'well he married a 12 year so it's a fact, just deal with it and stop being senstive'. You've attempted to qualify what has been said that counts as hate speech as being this one specific example to dismiss the entire comment.

 

But personally, I'd focus on the part where Shard called Arabs  'clockwerk creatures' indoctrinated to only to hate the 'non-believer's as hate speech. For the reasons I talked about previously to do with framing more so than argument itself.

 

For the record I think there absolutely is a left-wing bias amongst the moderation team here. But I don't think that's why you and Shard get clamped down upon in these threads quite so often. Again, it's because you conduct yourself poorly a lot of the time, you argue from an absolute position say. And because that behavoir derails any hope of debate, and the derailing of the topic causes mods to step in. The reason I assign that on you guys, is because threads rarely derail without one of you posting as a catalyst for it so it's an argument of causatio more than blame. You definately have a circlejerk about the villianous left going on, but whatever.

 

As this as gone on I'm less convinced of the issue of hate speech and you guys being so outrageous specifically. I think half the time the issue is people clearly over-reacting to things you've said, which are just poorly phrased rather than outright unreasonable. I'm still adamant we can't look after ourselves, because we've never proven ourselves capable of having proper debate (Myself included in there. Reading back through a lot of my own posts and Jesus Christ do I look like a hypocrite half the time).

 

I think I'll requalify my initial statement; Why doesn't everyone stop being a funking jabroni and maybe we can get some stuff done for once?

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

If wanting reasonable discussion without mud-slinging, insults, and slurs is a "far left" value, then what the funk is the right doing.

 

This whole discussion is pretty easy to summed up. No matter what is said to shard and winter, they can argue that any view opposing them does such to support an oppressive leftist agenda. And, technically, that argument can't be dispelled. As has been proven, no matter how much support or reasoning is given against them, they can just respond with "you are just saying this because far left agenda".

 

When the argument they are championing is as broad as this, there really is no room for discussion because, under its own logic, it is able to dismiss any counterpoint. This isn't a debate, it is arguing with a broken record. In fact, this was brought up on the previous page, how even if we found an example of what is generally accepted here as hate speech, it could be written off as easily as "that's just the truth, stop being so sensitive" which then immediately happened.

 

If people really have so little to expend their mental effort on that they insist upon crusading against an imaginary shadow government, that's their prerogative. But for it to take up this much focus from so many people, just so that a few people can play victim, is ridiculous.

 

Any argument against this will amount to "you are just saying that because far left/you are supporting oppressive modship and oppression is WRONG/you are just forcing your PC views down our throats/Muhammed married a 12 year" because really that's all there is to this thread.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Why are your concerns about how shard and I treat Islam worth any more than my concerns about how you guys dehumanize abortion?

 

Becuase the mods agree with you and have you in their good books. Grading hate is relative. And the mod team being skewed far left makes "hate" what the left dislikes.

 

No Giga, "far left" isn't a dirty word. If the mod team was conservative, the same problem would occur but with "far right" activism.

 

It just so happens that this forum is run by West coast and north east folk, and thus skews left

[Night]

I'll spare everyone else the song and dance unless they actually want to take the bait.

 

Anything we could point to as an example of hate speech would just be defended by you with "no, it's the truth," or you'd try to argue your intent and tone when it was blatant dogwhistling regardless. You're just trying to express hate in the most passive way possible so you have plausible deniability, but it's pretty obvious what you're actually saying behind the layer of quasi-PC language.

 

This sums it up pretty funking well actually. It's also the reason why this debacle is both endless and fruitless.

 

Basically, you have personal views contrived mostly with hatred that you vehemently want to shove down everyone's throats on a yugioh forum and when that kind of toxicity gets deemed unnecessary for this forum you get up in arms and start claiming everyone and their mom is a leftist, as if that's supposed to automatically bring any sense of coherence to this fuckery. 

 

The mere concept of you assuming that by calling a fictional character a pedophile in any way irritates me is legitimately laughable. Write a 12-page essay on him, throw in a chapter about Jesus and even a suggestive illustration of Ganesha, I literally couldn't give less of a funk. The real issue stems from when you generalize entire groups of people and further demean them unnecessarily on a funking yugioh forum. It has absolutely nothing to do with Islam, the exact same would be said if any derogatory statements had been said about Blacks, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Gays etc. Why? Because I couldn't give less of a funk about how factual you're being, if in the same sentence you're spewing a hateful opinion about a group of people then it doesn't belong on this forum, I don't understand what in the funk is so difficult to comprehend here. 

 

But no, keep hiding behind your bullshit "but these are facts!!!!!!" defense.

 

And now here's you humorously assuming sheet in 6 posts, what a quality debater you are:

 

Calling a guy who marries a 12 year a pedophilia might be an example

 

Yeah that's it.

 

Nah, I've said multiple times that he married a 12 year old

 

I think the use of the word "pedophile" is what pissed them off

 If a man marries a 12 year old, he has every right to be called a pedophile. The fact we're not allowed to state this basic fact is as clear a demise of debates as anything.

 

Put it on record that literally no one said this, this is just yet another failed tactic to try and assume a motive in order to further cause contention. 

 

But you assuming the counterpoint at every juncture isn't a clear demise of debates. Right.

 

If a guy marries a 12 year old today: he's a pedophile. And most here would not bash somone for

calling him awful. But this being Islam and Night & your being sensitive means special rights and outrage.

 

He was doing a pretty decent job too before the mod team got packed with lefties

 

Do you ever get tired of typing the same sheet over and over again.

 

Surprise suprise, it's a leftie tolerated view, so the mod team doesn't feel a need to protect the safe space.

 

Like becuase the mod team is almost entirely far lefties and completely unrepresentative of the generation they rule over

 

Again, you're generalizing, or do you genuinely assume the majority of this forum actual shares the same ideals you do?

 

You guys are far left; your judgments favor the far left. This isn't complicated or some elaborate blame game.

 

Keep assuming bud.

 

Ultimately you're right though, it's not that elaborate. You two like attention, spouting your toxic rhetoric gets you a lot of attention. We have to do our job and quell hateful rhetoric, but it's conveniently on the cusp of what is deemed "hateful" and merely "freedom of speech" so therefor every time you get ousted you can scream "power abuse!!! they want to shut me up!!!!" and so we carry on playing this moronic game because you have too much time on your hands and nothing better to do. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

This sums it up pretty funking well actually. It's also the reason why this debacle is both endless and fruitless.

 

Basically, you have personal views contrived mostly with hatred that you vehemently want to shove down everyone's throats on a yugioh forum and when that kind of toxicity gets deemed unnecessary for this forum you get up in arms and start claiming everyone and their mom is a leftist, as if that's supposed to automatically bring any sense of coherence to this fuckery.

 

The mere concept of you assuming that by calling a fictional character a pedophile in any way irritates me is legitimately laughable. Write a 12-page essay on him, throw in a chapter about Jesus and even a suggestive illustration of Ganesha, I literally couldn't give less of a funk. The real issue stems from when you generalize entire groups of people and further demean them unnecessarily on a funking yugioh forum. It has absolutely nothing to do with Islam, the exact same would be said if any derogatory statements had been said about Blacks, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Gays etc. Why? Because I couldn't give less of a funk about how factual you're being, if in the same sentence you're spewing a hateful opinion about a group of people then it doesn't belong on this forum, I don't understand what in the funk is so difficult to comprehend here.

 

But no, keep hiding behind your bullshit "but these are facts!!!!!!" defense.

 

And now here's you humorously assuming sheet in 6 posts, what a quality debater you are:

 

 

 

Yeah that's it.

 

 

 

 

 

Put it on record that literally no one said this, this is just yet another failed tactic to try and assume a motive in order to further cause contention.

 

But you assuming the counterpoint at every juncture isn't a clear demise of debates. Right.

 

 

 

Do you ever get tired of typing the same sheet over and over again.

 

 

 

Again, you're generalizing, or do you genuinely assume the majority of this forum actual shares the same ideals you do?

 

 

 

Keep assuming bud.

 

Ultimately you're right though, it's not that elaborate. You two like attention, spouting your toxic rhetoric gets you a lot of attention. We have to do our job and quell hateful rhetoric, but it's conveniently on the cusp of what is deemed "hateful" and merely "freedom of speech" so therefor every time you get ousted you can scream "power abuse!!! they want to shut me up!!!!" and so we carry on playing this moronic game because you have too much time on your hands and nothing better to do.

 

Still waiting on you to answer what was so offensive about Shard's post. I've asked, only Tom (not a mod answered).

 

Be specific, what was it if not the pedophilia comment?

 

---

 

You just said you don't care how factual something is; the criteria is what you decide is "hateful"

 

At that point your handing out judgment based on only your opinions.

 

---

 

If Jews and Christians married 12 year olds, I'd call them pedophiles too. There's plenty of filth in those two religions ( and blatant misogyny in Hinduism too)

 

But I'm unaware of Moses, Jesus, or Vishnu marrying 12 year olds and going on vicious conquest. The false equivalency is strong here.

 

---

 

Didn't shard specify his problem was with Islam not the people at one pt? Kinda pokes a hole in your demonization narrative

 

---

[Dad]

I've seen enough.  This isn't going to get anywhere, and its devolving rapidly.  Sorry to say, as expected, nothing will come of this.  What truly baffles me is why we have to define "hate".  Has it become so toxic and so downright meaningless, that the difference is hard to find?  That in itself is a big problem.  And we're going to have to address it immediately.