Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
insaniak wrote: I feel like the marriage thing has missed the point that was actually being made. Regardless of whether or not you personally think that same-sex marriage should have been allowed in the '80s, the point being made was that some people didn't think that, but have since come to realise that they were wrong.
In other words, many people holding a specific worldview that was just 'the way things are' eventually came to realise that this was a poor reason to keep things this way, and that their preconceptions on the issue were incorrect.
Through exposure and education, a worldview can change. And no, that doesn't just mean presenting people with the facts, because if there's one thing that past two years or so have proved it's that facts just don't matter to a lot of people because they're incapable of separating fact from fiction... It means normalising the thing so that it stops being 'other' and starts just being a thing.
It's generally easier to hold irrational prejudices against a theoretical concept than against a friend or family member.
Actually human beings are naturally terrible at logic and reasoning. We simply are not logical creatures. That's why prominent leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. adamantly discussed how important propaganda is towards any end, good or bad. Propaganda does not necessarily mean misinformation; it simply means the tying of a concept to emotion because emotions are stronger than logic in our minds.
Cultural transmission is a novel idea, but the issue is that you are actively protecting the right of nazi whataboutsits or whatever term you wish to use, to also culturally transmit knowing darn well that all they have to do is make a ruckus with their tucker carlsonisms (often cited by klansmen and neo-nazis as being better at making their argument than they are) and you will shut down any attempt to correct that, because any attempt is condemned to erupt in nazi apologists playing the victim and you having to shut the forum down. It's incredibly manipulative and you are letting them do it.
I don't live in Germany, so mayhaps a German may correct me, but I would wager that if this website was being run by Germans they probably would be shutting that gak down because they've been there and they are NOT doing that again.
Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. -Kurt Vonnegut
If I say "I don't like peanut butter sandwiches", and you say "ah, but I don't like jam sandwiches", I have to question what jam sandwiches have to do with peanut butter, and why one felt the need to mention they didn't like jam sandwiches.
There's nothing wrong with agreeing that Nazis are trash. I just gotta *ask* why the need for some folks to always throw in how much they also think XYZ is trash too?
To use your analogy because they're both sandwiches
But that's not what the conversation was about - it was about *peanut butter sandwiches*, not sandwiches in general. Why bring other sandwiches into it?
In an Ork tactics thread, do we bring in Space Marine tactics because they're both 40k factions?
Seriously I really do not understand the hesitancy to group those three together.
There is no hesitancy to bring them together when they're all present, except when they are brought together when there was no topic to do so.
Salt, pepper, and ketchup are all fine together, but why on earth do I care about that when I'm discussing how fine I want my salt to be? I'm talking about salt, and folks are in here trying to espouse about pepper and ketchup. Why?
Besides if you said you don't like peanut butter I'd have to question your taste
I don't actually like peanut butter.
Its not a speech, Its a conversation that means the topic is as broad as the participants make it.
And why do the participants want to make it about other stuff? Why is it not enough to talk about the undeniably awful stuff and simply leave it there? Why must it always be a "but what about XYZ"?
If I'm talking to a friend who tells me he doesn't like creamy peanut butter and I say yeah and I don't like crunchy peanut butter either and he says that's not part of the topic, I'm going to wonder what he's on.
If I tell my friend how much I love dogs, and they reply saying "oh, so you must hate cats then", then I'll also wonder what they're on.
I don't see why bringing a completely different entity into the conversation has to do with anything, or *why* it was even relevant.
I think that's the basis of the problem, you see them as different as salt and ketchup because you focus on A and I see them as two brands of peanut butter because I'm more concerned with B
I'm focusing on A because A is what the issue was about in the first place. Why the hell do I care about B in a discussion about A, and why are people so eager to bring B into a conversation about A, and change the entire focus away from the topic on A?
I'm just asking why, is all. *Why* is there a need to change topic, or bring other topics in? Why must there always be a "but what about XYZ"?
Conversations flow and drift that's just their nature and its not a change of topic just a continuation. In your new analogy asking what about cats would be perfectly logical in that conversation. More I don't see them as different as dogs and cats I see it more as German Shepherds and Russian Wolfhounds.
To jump to cats *immediately*? Nah, that's bizarre, as is the immediate jump to talking about anything other than the fascist regime in question.
Conversations flow and drift when they've had a chance to get moving, but when conversations are dammed up by "but what about XYZ" immediately? That's not natural. So why does that river get dammed up so quickly?
And to address you other point, how old are you, do you remember life before the internet ? Sorry but despite what you may think it really wasn't some huge part of the national zeitgeist until late eighties early nineties.
My point is that non-straight couples have wanted legitimacy for longer than either of us, our parents, our grandparents, or really any of our relatives in recordable history. The point is that non-straight couples were denied that (in most cultures) for unfathomably long.
Yes, I get the rest of your point, but let's just make it very clear that this wasn't a "new" desire from non-straight folks.
insaniak wrote:Through exposure and education, a worldview can change. And no, that doesn't just mean presenting people with the facts, because if there's one thing that past two years or so have proved it's that facts just don't matter to a lot of people because they're incapable of separating fact from fiction... It means normalising the thing so that it stops being 'other' and starts just being a thing.
A way to help that normalising is for people to police bad action and to stamp out voices that would threaten the chance to normalise it. Exposure only works if the environment allows for it, and that such cases of exposure aren't shot down and locked in place by certain "debate" tactics.
Aka, people should take action to stop the metaphorical baby getting smothered in the metaphorical crib, and use what powers they have to allow such things to become normalised, such as, for example, shutting down bad faith actors and actively standing up to ridiculous comments like "if you're offended by hate symbols, you're the real Nazi", for instance.
Hell, I've advocated for such an initiative for normalising gender expression on this site, a topic which was locked down by certain folks crying "politics" over my own existence. This is exactly my point - I can only normalise something if you create an environment that allows such a thing to exist without getting smothered in the crib.
And to address you other point, how old are you, do you remember life before the internet ? Sorry but despite what you may think it really wasn't some huge part of the national zeitgeist until late eighties early nineties.
Maybe not for you but for a lot of people it was. Stonewall was in 1969, the first national march was in 1979 etc.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
macluvin wrote: The issue is that you are actively protecting the right of nazi whataboutsits or whatever term you wish to use, to also culturally transmit knowing darn well that all they have to do is make a ruckus with their tucker carlsonisms (often cited by klansmen and neo-nazis as being better at making their argument than they are) and you will shut down any attempt to correct that, because any attempt is condemned to erupt in nazi apologists playing the victim and you having to shut the forum down. It's incredibly manipulative and you are letting them do it.
Exactly the issue.
Yes, we can say as much as we like about how "normalising things will solve everything", but without shutting down well known Nazi/fascist talking points, you also normalise their behaviour too. And what then? Will you let that happen?
Education can certainly change one's mind on these issues, but not everyone is open to new information in the first place, especially if said information drastically challenges their preconceptions or contradicts their personal experience. And even if they are open to it, interpretation is a whole issue in itself, since any given data does not necessarily lead to the same conclusions when viewed by different people. Each observer is always going to apply their own filter, their own reality if you will, to make sense of it.
In a similar sense, it's also not a matter of intelligence either. Many functioning sociopaths and psychopaths are highly intelligent and still mistreat and harm people for their own pleasure. It's easy to dismiss extremists as stupid or ignorant, but this is really just a deflection from the scary truth that there are people out there who genuinely don't care about their fellow humans or worse.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/30 01:45:22
The nazis wanted to prevent normalisation of topics. That's why they burned books and put people in concentration camps and worse.
Same thing with those other totalitarian regimes
Humanities greatest potential lies in our ability to assess the world around us and come to good conclusions. All of our great leaps forward come from that. People taught from an early age, not a list of facts with no evidence to support them, but how to assess the data and come to good conclusions, don't fall easily for indoctrination bs.
You don't educate people about another persons issues by telling them issues exist. You present the evidence, do the math, and come to good conclusions.
I could summarize pretty much every major issue between groups of people in the world right now as some group or another not even looking at the facts.
I like your optimism but I disagree, I don't think most people's views are evidence based and I don't see much evidence of good conclusions around. See my edited post above. If I showed you undeniable evidence that some races were strictly inferior would you change your views and become a Nazi? What if we assess the data and come to uncomfortable conclusions?
I don't think most people are taught from an early age to assess the data. So there is that. Most people ARE indoctrinated into something in one way or another and that basically opens them up to be indoctrinated later by this, that, or another thing.
The Nazi stance isn't that people are just inferior, it's that they are not people. The 3rd Reich isn't just peak humanity. It's others are sub-human. There is a vast difference between "This person is objectively better at basket ball then that person" and "These people, based on skin tone are sub-human". One of them is based on merit and still recognizes others for being people, which is still deserving of a base level of rights, empathy, and respect (again based on their own merits). The other draws arbitrary lines around things that literally don't mater. Never have. And have only had pseudo scientific nonsense used to create and spread ignorance about people.
I'm old enough to where there was no serious discussion about allowing gay marriage and when it started being talked I was of course hell no.
Sometime later as I started to think about it I got to the point (even before main stream democrats) where I thought "well not marriage but maybe their should be a non religious equivalent."
But why were you "of course hell no"? Then why did you think "not marriage but maybe a non-religious equivalent" when straight people have been able to get married in non-religious ceremonies for centuries? Marriage is not innately religious.
Because RELIGIOUS indoctrination is very powerful and incredibly pervasive. People are born and raised in it so densely that it's a black hole few escape.
Of course everyones first knee jerk thought is that it's religious. How could it not be?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/11/30 02:16:19
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
If I say "I don't like peanut butter sandwiches", and you say "ah, but I don't like jam sandwiches", I have to question what jam sandwiches have to do with peanut butter, and why one felt the need to mention they didn't like jam sandwiches.
There's nothing wrong with agreeing that Nazis are trash. I just gotta *ask* why the need for some folks to always throw in how much they also think XYZ is trash too?
To use your analogy because they're both sandwiches
But that's not what the conversation was about - it was about *peanut butter sandwiches*, not sandwiches in general. Why bring other sandwiches into it?
In an Ork tactics thread, do we bring in Space Marine tactics because they're both 40k factions?
Seriously I really do not understand the hesitancy to group those three together.
There is no hesitancy to bring them together when they're all present, except when they are brought together when there was no topic to do so.
Salt, pepper, and ketchup are all fine together, but why on earth do I care about that when I'm discussing how fine I want my salt to be? I'm talking about salt, and folks are in here trying to espouse about pepper and ketchup. Why?
Besides if you said you don't like peanut butter I'd have to question your taste
I don't actually like peanut butter.
Its not a speech, Its a conversation that means the topic is as broad as the participants make it.
And why do the participants want to make it about other stuff? Why is it not enough to talk about the undeniably awful stuff and simply leave it there? Why must it always be a "but what about XYZ"?
If I'm talking to a friend who tells me he doesn't like creamy peanut butter and I say yeah and I don't like crunchy peanut butter either and he says that's not part of the topic, I'm going to wonder what he's on.
If I tell my friend how much I love dogs, and they reply saying "oh, so you must hate cats then", then I'll also wonder what they're on.
I don't see why bringing a completely different entity into the conversation has to do with anything, or *why* it was even relevant.
I think that's the basis of the problem, you see them as different as salt and ketchup because you focus on A and I see them as two brands of peanut butter because I'm more concerned with B
I'm focusing on A because A is what the issue was about in the first place. Why the hell do I care about B in a discussion about A, and why are people so eager to bring B into a conversation about A, and change the entire focus away from the topic on A?
I'm just asking why, is all. *Why* is there a need to change topic, or bring other topics in? Why must there always be a "but what about XYZ"?
Conversations flow and drift that's just their nature and its not a change of topic just a continuation. In your new analogy asking what about cats would be perfectly logical in that conversation. More I don't see them as different as dogs and cats I see it more as German Shepherds and Russian Wolfhounds.
To jump to cats *immediately*? Nah, that's bizarre, as is the immediate jump to talking about anything other than the fascist regime in question.
Conversations flow and drift when they've had a chance to get moving, but when conversations are dammed up by "but what about XYZ" immediately? That's not natural. So why does that river get dammed up so quickly?
It's not bizarre at all its and as I said and you ignored its a false analogy, you're creating a separation I disagree with. Its more two different dog breeds than different pet types.
To continue with the tortured analogy here's how the conversation goes.
Someone brought a German Shepard to the game store and it bit someone, German Shepards should be banned.
U'mmm both Rotweilers and Pit Bulls cause more deaths every year maybe the policy should take that into account.
Why are you a German Shepard apologist, stop your whataboutism and changing the subject, we arent talking about those.
Boggle
Sgt_Smudge wrote: A way to help that normalising is for people to police bad action and to stamp out voices that would threaten the chance to normalise it. Exposure only works if the environment allows for it, and that such cases of exposure aren't shot down and locked in place by certain "debate" tactics.
Aka, people should take action to stop the metaphorical baby getting smothered in the metaphorical crib, and use what powers they have to allow such things to become normalised, such as, for example, shutting down bad faith actors and actively standing up to ridiculous comments like "if you're offended by hate symbols, you're the real Nazi", for instance.
Hell, I've advocated for such an initiative for normalising gender expression on this site, a topic which was locked down by certain folks crying "politics" over my own existence. This is exactly my point - I can only normalise something if you create an environment that allows such a thing to exist without getting smothered in the crib.
For the record, your gender expression thread had one poster complain that it was political, and it was pointed out to them (by me) why this was not the case.
We've had numerous discussions in here before about the issues around policing 'bad faith' posting, and I fully realise that you disagree, but nothing has really changed there. We can intervene when something goes against the rules. We can intervene when someone is trying to drag a thread off track - provided it hasn't been dogpiled on for multiple pages after the original derail. But, ultimately it's not the job of volunteer moderators on a forum devoted to toy soldiers to serve as thought police.
Apologies if this has already been mentioned or if I’m missing context, but wasn’t there a separate forum made specifically for political discussion when the “no-politics” rule went up? I’m not up date to how it’s going or if it is even still a thing, but would it be helpful to direct conversations steering that direction to that forum if folks wish to discuss it further?
Faithful... Enlightened... Ambitious... Brethren... WE NEED A NEW DRIVER! THIS ONE IS DEAD!
SkavenLord wrote: Apologies if this has already been mentioned or if I’m missing context, but wasn’t there a separate forum made specifically for political discussion when the “no-politics” rule went up? I’m not up date to how it’s going or if it is even still a thing, but would it be helpful to direct conversations steering that direction to that forum if folks wish to discuss it further?
There have been at least two over the years. The Phantom Lord's OT board was set up way back in the day before Dakka even had an Off-Topic section. As far as I know it still technically exists.
And a former Dakka moderator started a separate forum specifically for talking about politics back at the start of this year. No idea if that's still going.
Neither of these are actually affiliated with Dakka, beyond sharing some members.
SkavenLord wrote: Apologies if this has already been mentioned or if I’m missing context, but wasn’t there a separate forum made specifically for political discussion when the “no-politics” rule went up? I’m not up date to how it’s going or if it is even still a thing, but would it be helpful to direct conversations steering that direction to that forum if folks wish to discuss it further?
There have been at least two over the years. The Phantom Lord's OT board was set up way back in the day before Dakka even had an Off-Topic section. As far as I know it still technically exists.
And a former Dakka moderator started a separate forum specifically for talking about politics back at the start of this year. No idea if that's still going.
Neither of these are actually affiliated with Dakka, beyond sharing some members.
Ah, that’s fair. I remember the second forum, but never really checked it out. I had assumed it was unofficially affiliated or something, though it might be a bit rude to redurect convos there without some kind of permission. Anyway, just throwing the idea out there in case.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/30 02:33:12
Faithful... Enlightened... Ambitious... Brethren... WE NEED A NEW DRIVER! THIS ONE IS DEAD!
I'm not going to be speech policed by someone who attempts to mandate that I erroneously use a mass pronoun in place of a singular pronoun. just to tickle their fancy
GoldenHorde wrote: I'm not going to be speech policed by someone who attempts to mandate that I erroneously use a mass pronoun in place of a singular pronoun. just to tickle their fancy
I think your understanding of pronouns might be slightly off. The use of 'They' as a singular has been common practice since at least the 1300s.
Moreover, referring to someone by their preferred method of address is nothing to do with 'speech policing'. It's common courtesy, and ultimately no different to referring to someone as 'David' because they don't like being called 'Dave'.
GoldenHorde wrote: I'm not going to be speech policed by someone who attempts to mandate that I erroneously use a mass pronoun in place of a singular pronoun. just to tickle their fancy
I'm not going to be thought policed. Ever.
Actually, that’s why I brought the idea up. Rather than closing a thread entirely, a redirect may create a new avenue with which to continue the conversation. Seems a bit softer than an outright closure. I’m no expert with this sort of thing, so perhaps you folks can think of a better solution. Just tossing an idea out there in case it is of any help.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/30 02:46:14
Faithful... Enlightened... Ambitious... Brethren... WE NEED A NEW DRIVER! THIS ONE IS DEAD!
GoldenHorde wrote: I'm not going to be speech policed by someone who attempts to mandate that I erroneously use a mass pronoun in place of a singular pronoun. just to tickle their fancy
I think your understanding of pronouns might be slightly off. The use of 'They' as a singular has been common practice since at least the 1300s.
Moreover, referring to someone by their preferred method of address is nothing to do with 'speech policing'. It's common courtesy, and ultimately no different to referring to someone as 'David' because they don't like being called 'Dave'.
It's not common courtesy. It is not common practice.
They is a third person plural pronoun. Insisting it be used as singular is evident that its not in use.
If you are a singular entity, I'm not calling you 'they'. Don't care. Find another. Choose one that's not intentionally confusing the language. They'll get over it.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/11/30 02:50:01
Sgt_Smudge wrote: ... and actively standing up to ridiculous comments like "if you're offended by hate symbols, you're the real Nazi", for instance.
I'm far more concerned with the opposite of that. The accusational side of this coin. The "You didn't immediately condemn this symbol/person/whatever, therefore you either tacitly or actively support their views, therefore Nazi!".
It doesn't happen here much that I've seen - thank God - but I know of places where people have been accused of being fascists, or having fascist sympathy because they thought Darth Vader was cool. He murdered children, and you think he's cool, therefore you're totally ok with child murder! It's the "Hitler breathed oxygen, and you breathe oxygen, therefore your just like Hitler!" joke, only done with completely seriousness and no sense of irony.
There's an entire site, the name of which I won't bring up but you should be able to figure it out, that obsesses over imaginary fascists, going so far as to claim that the Chaos Gods are actually the good guys, and represent all the marginalised people that "fascists" oppress. I've even seen a recent take where someone suggested that the Tyranids should be re-written to be a kind of universal anti-body that specifically exist to hunt down fascists governments, which is why they're attacking the Imperium*.
These. People. Are. Crazy.
But even if you ignore how nutso they are, the actual worst part is that disagreeing with them on any level (no, Slaanesh is not "Gay Coded", no, Tzeentch is not the God of trans people any more than Nurgle is the god of people suffering from disabilities**) has you instantly tarred and feathered with the mighty "You're a fascists" brush.
I come to this site because I see it as the best 40k related site out there. I stick to a few sub-forums (N&R, sometimes General Discussion, and then 40k General, my terrain blog and a few other places) and I have fun doing so. I don't want to have to fear being accused of having Nazi-sympathies because I think TIE Fighters are cooler than X-Wings, or because one of my fav aspects of the Imperium is the Inquisition.
D'ya geddit???
*And calling the Imperium fascists is reductive in the first place given just how diverse the Imperium actually is, but that's a whole other discussion. **All arguments they have made.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2021/11/30 02:53:23
insaniak wrote: But, ultimately it's not the job of volunteer moderators on a forum devoted to toy soldiers to serve as thought police.
As soon as the thought leaves their head, either by speech or written word, it is no longer just a thought but an action. There is no law against thinking "fire" in a crowded theatre, there are laws against saying it.
Moderating what people can and cannot say is not thought policing, you are not moderating their thoughts but their actions.
EDIT: For instance, it was obvious, based on all of their previous posts, that GoldenHorde wouldn't listen to you regarding pronouns. And what do you know, they didn't. Surely that is a rule 1 violation and you can ban them now?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/11/30 02:55:36
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
They is a third person plural pronoun. Insisting it be used as singular is evident that its not in use.
'They' is either a third person plural pronoun, or a singular pronoun where the gender of the person referred to is not known. That would include use as a singular pronoun where the person simply doesn't want to tell you their gender, or does not identify as a specific gender.
Regardless, even if this wasn't the case, words change. 'You' for example, was originally a plural pronoun... and yet I've never heard anyone complain about it being used to refer to a single person.
I'm reminded of the kerfuffle over the use of 'Ms' back when I was in high school. Or more recently people claiming women with PhDs were over-reacting by expecting to be called 'Doctor' instead of 'Miss'... It shouldn't be a big ask to respect the wishes of the person you're talking to.
insaniak wrote: But, ultimately it's not the job of volunteer moderators on a forum devoted to toy soldiers to serve as thought police.
As soon as the thought leaves their head, either by speech or written word, it is no longer just a thought but an action. There is no law against thinking "fire" in a crowded theatre, there are laws against saying it.
Moderating what people can and cannot say is not thought policing, you are not moderating their thoughts but their actions.
Of course it is repugnant censorship style thought policing. The idea that one group can arbitrarily ban subjects or topics of discussion.
GoldenHorde wrote: I'm not going to be speech policed by someone who attempts to mandate that I erroneously use a mass pronoun in place of a singular pronoun. just to tickle their fancy
I think your understanding of pronouns might be slightly off. The use of 'They' as a singular has been common practice since at least the 1300s.
Moreover, referring to someone by their preferred method of address is nothing to do with 'speech policing'. It's common courtesy, and ultimately no different to referring to someone as 'David' because they don't like being called 'Dave'.
It's not common courtesy. It is not common practice.
They is a third person plural pronoun. Insisting it be used as singular is evident that its not in use.
If you are a singular entity, I'm not calling you 'they'. Don't care. Find another. Choose one that's not intentionally confusing the language. They'll get over it.
It's Sgt_Smudge's choice to choose their pronouns. They are allowed to use they/them to refer to themself, and it's a basic courtesy to respect that, just as you might not want people to call you GoldenChode.
Plus, it's perfectly acceptable to us they/them/their/etc to refer to a singular entity, as was pointed out above.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/30 03:04:49
DQ:90S++G++M----B--I+Pw40k07+D+++A+++/areWD-R+DM+
bittersashes wrote:One guy down at my gaming club swore he saw an objective flag take out a full unit of Bane Thralls.
GoldenHorde wrote: I'm not going to be speech policed by someone who attempts to mandate that I erroneously use a mass pronoun in place of a singular pronoun. just to tickle their fancy
I think your understanding of pronouns might be slightly off. The use of 'They' as a singular has been common practice since at least the 1300s.
Moreover, referring to someone by their preferred method of address is nothing to do with 'speech policing'. It's common courtesy, and ultimately no different to referring to someone as 'David' because they don't like being called 'Dave'.
It's not common courtesy. It is not common practice.
They is a third person plural pronoun. Insisting it be used as singular is evident that its not in use.
If you are a singular entity, I'm not calling you 'they'. Don't care. Find another. Choose one that's not intentionally confusing the language. They'll get over it.
I'm consistently amazed by people's refusal to go through the slightest inconvenience just to be civil to other persons. I mean, by literally changing one word, you are positively impacting another human's interaction with the world. I don't need you to go SuPER WoKe or anything, but is one simple phase or word REALLY that much to ask? It's like saying "I refuse to give pennies to poor people, I will never be supportive of free wealth." The person isn't asking you to change your life, but to help them change theirs.
And by the by, if you have such a pervasive need to declare your personal mind laws on the internets, you must be a TREAT to deal with at the Holidays.
Smudge is easily one of the most rational and intelligent persons here, and your desire to pick a fight with them over a WORD speaks volumes about your need for attention.
It just serves to demonstrate that if you want to have an inclusive community where many different people feel welcome you need to exclude certain other people.
Does the dakka moderation team think that GoldenHorde's right to participate here is more important to the site than the right of non-binary members of the board to be treated with respect?
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
To steal a line someone said recently - Wargaming is for everyone.
The irony is that when GW said it, it was to firmly state that the ideologies we are arguing about in this forum have no place in wargaming. When GW said it, there was a "except for those with ideologies based on hate" in between the lines.
Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. -Kurt Vonnegut
A Town Called Malus wrote: As soon as the thought leaves their head, either by speech or written word, it is no longer just a thought but an action. There is no law against thinking "fire" in a crowded theatre, there are laws against saying it.
Moderating what people can and cannot say is not thought policing, you are not moderating their thoughts but their actions.
The point about moderating 'bad faith' posting is that it assumes that the poster is making a claim based on a desire to derail the thread or push an agenda rather than out of a genuine belief that what they are saying is true. If we assume that the person using, for example, a 'fascist talking point' is doing so out of a desire to push that agenda, then we can call it bad faith and act accordingly. The problem is, it requires that assumption, rather than assuming that the poster is just ignorant, or mistaken, or has some other reason for thinking what they do.
By assuming that person is acting in bad faith and removing them from the discussion, you lose the opportunity to educate them, and you potentially just further entrench the idea that they are right in thinking what they do and are being victimised for it.
Is the possibility of removing an actual fascist apologist worth the risk of inadvertently removing someone whose only actual 'crime' is being from a sheltered background, or religious, or young and naive?
Maybe. I don't know. I make toy soldiers for a living and moderate a discussion forum in my spare time.
EDIT: For instance, it was obvious, based on all of their previous posts, that GoldenHorde wouldn't listen to you regarding pronouns. And what do you know, they didn't. Surely that is a rule 1 violation and you can ban them now?
To be clear - being wrong is not a rule 1 violation. Nor is refusing to accept that you are wrong when it is explained to you.
Going from there to actually continuing to be disrespectful to other forum members would, however, be actionable.
It's not common courtesy. It is not common practice.
They is a third person plural pronoun. Insisting it be used as singular is evident that its not in use.
If you are a singular entity, I'm not calling you 'they'. Don't care. Find another. Choose one that's not intentionally confusing the language. They'll get over it.
You have to give them credit though, making forced language about courtesy and politeness is an impressive sleight of hand. Your mistake is to insist on dialectic, they don't care if it's correct or not.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/30 03:11:00
A Town Called Malus wrote: It just serves to demonstrate that if you want to have an inclusive community where many different people feel welcome you need to exclude certain other people.
Does the dakka moderation team think that GoldenHorde's right to participate here is more important to the site than the right of non-binary members of the board to be treated with respect?
I didn't disrespect them. i don't need to use a forced pronoun. If they don't like he or she, I'll use their name instead.
No one has the right to mandate my speech.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/30 03:12:11
Faithful... Enlightened... Ambitious... Brethren... WE NEED A NEW DRIVER! THIS ONE IS DEAD! 
