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.
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.
Go shout abuse at strangers in a public place, see whether or not the cops come and mandate you into a holding cell.
Please.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/30 03:17:08
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Azreal13 wrote: Go shout abuse at strangers in a public place, see whether or not the cops come and mandate you into a holding cell.
Please.
This is literally allowed in America. Westboro Baptist Church did it, various 'Christian' groups have done it outside abortion clinics, Black Hebrew Israelites do it, etc, etc. You'd have to go much farther than refusing to acknowledge pronouns in most of America to get arrested.
The only way we can ever solve anything is to look in the mirror and find no enemy
Swearing is considered a public order offence in the UK and you can be locked up for it. It isn't often enforced, but somebody insisting they're entitled to do it is precisely the sort of times when it is.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
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.
Go shout abuse at strangers in a public place, see whether or not the cops come and mandate you into a holding cell.
Please.
You are comparing my agency as a language speaker in choosing not to use a single artificially placed word to an actual act of disturbing the peace because they're obviously the same thing.
Apples and oranges
Do you have an actual good argument as to why the word policing or not?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/11/30 03:24:40
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.
Go shout abuse at strangers in a public place, see whether or not the cops come and mandate you into a holding cell.
Please.
You are comparing my agency as a language speaker in choosing not to use a single artificially placed word to an actual act of disturbing the peace because they're obviously the same thing.
Apples and oranges
Do you have an actual good argument as to why the word policing or not?
No, I'm saying that your assertion that noone has the right to mandate your speech is patently false.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Azreal13 wrote: Swearing is considered a public order offence in the UK and you can be locked up for it. It isn't often enforced, but somebody insisting they're entitled to do it is precisely the sort of times when it is.
So what?
UK law is at odds with conventions on human rights.
No, it protects the rights of people not to be abused by total strangers who clearly have so little authority in their own lives that they think this is a hill worth dying on.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
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.
Go shout abuse at strangers in a public place, see whether or not the cops come and mandate you into a holding cell.
Please.
You are comparing my agency as a language speaker in choosing not to use a single artificially placed word to an actual act of disturbing the peace because they're obviously the same thing.
Apples and oranges
Do you have an actual good argument as to why the word policing or not?
No, I'm saying that your assertion that noone has the right to mandate your speech is patently false.
When you have so little of an argument, your rely on conflating a strawman example of disturbing the peace with mandated speech which are completely different things.
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.
Well, its continuing, so...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/30 03:32:42
Azreal13 wrote: No, it protects the rights of people not to be abused by total strangers who clearly have so little authority in their own lives that they think this is a hill worth dying on.
No, it allows a government or state to police speech and attack human rights, enjoy
It's a nice slippery slope to enjoy
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/30 03:33:52
Nobody is taking away your freedoms. Everyone is 100% allowed to be a dick if they want to.
And lets be clear, that is what you are fighting for right now. Your right to be a dick to someone else because you don't feel like accommodating them on something that costs you nothing.
100%. Your free speech is protected. It's not free of all consequence though. You are judged by your own merits. And the merits of your current position is your deserving of very little respect yourself. You have nothing to gain by digging in your heels on this. You lose nothing by conceding. Even if the cost isn't the forum itself cracking down on you (and in general I agree it shouldn't) you still pay the price of your merits. Your opinions lose value. Your standing in the general community should go with it. And you probably don't care. Cool. But there it is.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
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.
Go shout abuse at strangers in a public place, see whether or not the cops come and mandate you into a holding cell.
Please.
You are comparing my agency as a language speaker in choosing not to use a single artificially placed word to an actual act of disturbing the peace because they're obviously the same thing.
Apples and oranges
Do you have an actual good argument as to why the word policing or not?
No, I'm saying that your assertion that noone has the right to mandate your speech is patently false.
When you have so little of an argument, your rely on conflating a strawman example of disturbing the peace with mandated speech which are completely different things.
Ok, I'll strawman, you attack my ability to argue rather than my argument.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/30 03:34:24
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
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.
Go shout abuse at strangers in a public place, see whether or not the cops come and mandate you into a holding cell.
Please.
You are comparing my agency as a language speaker in choosing not to use a single artificially placed word to an actual act of disturbing the peace because they're obviously the same thing.
Apples and oranges
Do you have an actual good argument as to why the word policing or not?
No, I'm saying that your assertion that noone has the right to mandate your speech is patently false.
When you have so little of an argument, your rely on conflating a strawman example of disturbing the peace with mandated speech which are completely different things.
Ok, I'll strawman, you attack my ability to argue rather than my argument.
Why? That was my intent, your arguments aren't the unassailable monoliths you seem to think.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
insaniak wrote: Getting back to the actual topic or moving on would be a good idea at this point, folks.
The actual topic is something I brought up in the big post before my last one. The entire impetus of this thread, or specifically the one that spawned this thread, is that "threat" I mentioned. It's not "guilt by association", it's "guilt by lack of disassociation".
"Sent to journalist" means "Do what I say or I will make this into a bigger deal - I will tar this site with the 'Nazi' brush and you'll never be able to recover, as public perception of you will be forever tainted. Dakka will be cancelled unless you do what I say".
To bring it back to something closer with this board's main thrust, take GW's laughable "anti-hate" statement from a couple of weeks ago. Some people have called it "virtue signalling", but I don't think that's true at all. Virtue signalling, in the corporate sphere, is most often a cynical and craven attempt to appeal to very loud groups on Twitter so that they sell more stuff (READ: See changes to Twitter and Facebook pics during 'Pride Month', or, more specifically, where those changes don't occur with companies that have lots of international audiences ). In the case of GW's laughable statement - and I'll explain in a moment why I keep referring to it as 'laughable' - wasn't done for any specific "let's look good to sell more stuff" reason. Rather, it was done out of fear. Fear of being banded for lack of disassociation.
I call the statement laughable because a statement "against hate" shouldn't need to be said out loud. Coming out against "hatred" is like coming out in favour of breathing. GW doesn't need to come out and stand up against "hatred" because it would be laughable to assume that they are in any way in favour of "hatred".
Unfortunately, because of people like the previous thread's OP, companies, groups, and people now have to make fething redundant and obvious public statements against exceptionally fundamental things precisely because of the fear of being labelled equal-to-or-worse than the thing they're condemning for simply not condemning it.
An actual genuine Neo-Nazi rocked up to a tournament. Ok. Whatever. The world spins on. People decided not to play against the guy. Ok great. That's their choice. Good on them. Had I known what those symbols were (and I didn't when the pics first showed up) I would have likely done the same. The result of this was the Neo-Nazi getting full points due to game forfeiture... ok, here's where the TOs probably should have stepped in, as now the Neo-Nazi is being rewarded for the choices other people are making. And that's where the story should have ended, except maybe with a statement from the TOs explaining the (actual) lack of action given the unforeseen circumstances of letting the guy continue to rack up points when no one wanted to play him.
But for fear of being labelled as supporting a Neo-Nazi, GW has to come out and state that they are not Neo-Nazis. And that's crazy. It's so fething crazy that it boggles the mind. No one with half a brain cell would ever actually believe that, if they had remained silent, GW would actually be supporting Neo-Nazis... which, really, just means we have a small and exceptionally vocal group of Dakkanauts who don't have half half a brain cell. Sad, but I can draw no other conclusions...
The Dark Eldar (and the Dark Elves before them) have slaves. Does GW need to put out a statement saying that they don't actually support slavery, or can we just be adults about it and assume that they don't? I've never heard the folks from Nottingham specifically state that they think the Earth is round, so maybe they should issue a statement that they think Flat Earther's are nuts, even though that's mostly assumed as well. Last I checked, Kirby never mentioned in an annual report that he doesn't think the moon landings were faked, so are we to assume that GW, as a corporation, supports the theory that the moon landings were faked?
And on and on it goes. Guilt by lack of disassociation is horrific, and this entire - what we we on, 9 pages now, plus the last thread? - exercise stems from this very real and very insidious threat (unlike imaginary fascists hiding under every gaming table and inside every miniatures case).
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2021/11/30 04:00:51
insaniak wrote: Getting back to the actual topic or moving on would be a good idea at this point, folks.
The actual topic is something I brought up in the big post before my last one. The entire impetus of this thread, or specifically the one that spawned this thread, is that "threat" I mentioned. It's not "guilt by association", it's "guilt by lack of disassociation".
"Sent to journalist" means "Do what I say or I will make this into a bigger deal - I will tar this site with the 'Nazi' brush and you'll never be able to recover, as public perception of you will be forever tainted. Dakka will be cancelled unless you do what I say".
To bring it back to something closer with this board's main thrust, take GW's laughable "anti-hate" statement from a couple of weeks ago. Some people have called it "virtue signalling", but I don't think that's true at all. Virtue signalling, in the corporate sphere, is most often a cynical and craven attempt to appeal to very loud groups on Twitter so that they sell more stuff (READ: See changes to Twitter and Facebook pics during 'Pride Month', or, more specifically, where those changes don't occur with companies that have lots of international audiences ). In the case of GW's laughable statement - and I'll explain in a moment why I keep referring to it as 'laughable' - wasn't done for any specific "let's look good to sell more stuff" reason. Rather, it was done out of fear. Fear of being banded for lack of disassociation.
I call the statement laughable because a statement "against hate" shouldn't need to be said out loud. Coming out against "hatred" is like coming out in favour of breathing. GW doesn't need to come out and stand up against "hatred" because it would be laughable to assume that they are in any way in favour of "hatred".
Unfortunately, because of people like the previous thread's OP, companies, groups, and people now have to make fething redundant and obvious public statements against exceptionally fundamental things precisely because of the fear of being labelled equal-to-or-worse than the thing they're condemning for simply not condemning it.
An actual genuine Neo-Nazi rocked up to a tournament. Ok. Whatever. The world spins on. People decided not to play against the guy. Ok great. That's their choice. Good on them. Had I known what those symbols were (and I didn't when the pics first showed up) I would have likely done the same. The result of this was the Neo-Nazi getting full points due to game forfeiture... ok, here's where the TOs probably should have stepped in, as now the Neo-Nazi is being rewarded for the choices other people are making. And that's where the story should have ended, except maybe with a statement from the TOs explaining the (actual) lack of action given the unforeseen circumstances of letting the guy continue to rack up points when no one wanted to play him.
But for fear of being labelled as supporting a Neo-Nazi, GW has to come out and state that they are not Neo-Nazis. And that's crazy. It's so fething crazy that it boggles the mind. No one with half a brain cell would ever actually believe that, if they had remained silent, GW would actually be supporting Neo-Nazis... which, really, just means we have a small and exceptionally vocal group of Dakkanauts who don't have half half a brain cell. Sad, but I can draw no other conclusions...
The Dark Eldar (and the Dark Elves before them) have slaves. Does GW need to put out a statement saying that they don't actually support slavery, or can we just be adults about it and assume that they don't? I've never heard the folks from Nottingham specifically state that they think the Earth is round, so maybe they should issue a statement that they think Flat Earther's are nuts, even though that's mostly assumed as well. Last I checked, Kirby never mentioned in an annual report that he doesn't think the moon landings were faked, so are we to assume that GW, as a corporation, supports the theory that the moon landings were faked?
And on and on it goes. Guilt by lack of disassociation is horrific, and this entire - what we we on, 9 pages now, plus the last thread? - exercise stems from this very real and very insidious threat (unlike imaginary fascists hiding under every gaming table and inside every miniatures case).
10/10, would exalt again. Pretty much sums up the entire madness that has been going on in this thread by the self-proclaimed anti-nazi groups.
Going to disagree with you, HBMC, GW's statement was very necessary. Particularly in Europe and the US, a statement against hatred is sadly necessary.
Maybe you're In a unique place of privilege, but the idea that people aren't in favor of hatred is... not an experience I share. Hell, just tonight someone told me that the 'Off white' fashion designer who died deserved it because he was obviously doing drugs, and Epsteen/Maxwell's victims knew what they were signing up for.
This isn't a rare experience. So no, it isn't laughable at all.
Voss wrote: Going to disagree with you, HBMC, GW's statement was very necessary. Particularly in Europe and the US, a statement against hatred is sadly necessary.
Maybe you're In a unique place of privilege, but the idea that people aren't in favor of hatred is... not an experience I share. Hell, just tonight someone told me that the 'Off white' fashion designer who died deserved it because he was obviously doing drugs, and Epsteen/Maxwell's victims knew what they were signing up for.
This isn't a rare experience. So no, it isn't laughable at all.
and how is GW's statement going to have a bearing on that person exactly?
Voss wrote: Going to disagree with you, HBMC, GW's statement was very necessary.
It's only necessary in a world where the fear of being branded 'that thing' for not speaking out against it exists.
That's the world we live in.
So, in light of that, HBMC stands against:
Slavery Terrorism Murder Theft Socialism Communism Fascism Theocracies Fundamental Religions Flat Earthers Anti-Vaxxers Fake Moon Landing People (whatever they're called) Twitter (which is just an easily accessible form of electronic extortion and intimidation)
[EDIT]: Oh no! I didn't specifically list 'racism' in the long list above. That must mean I support racism! *clutches pearls*
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/11/30 04:23:27
'We don't support your ideology' is a pretty meaningful statement.
I'm not so worried about performative aspects HBMC is worried about. Or coercion. Or lack of disassociation.
The folks who are rightfully getting criticism are the ones that voluntarily, of their own free will, showed up an anti-Neo Nazi talk to say they weren't so bad. So feth them.
There is a difference between a statement and action. I agree with HBMC. Right up until GW hosts a tourney and this guy or one of his ilk rocks up. Does GW act, or do they sit idly by?
Thats going to be the part that maters.
And this thread is more or less about dakkaites trying to wrap their heads around the mods line for when the statement becomes the action.
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
Voss wrote: Going to disagree with you, HBMC, GW's statement was very necessary.
It's only necessary in a world where the fear of being branded 'that thing' for not speaking out against it exists.
That's the world we live in.
So, in light of that, HBMC stands against:
Slavery
Terrorism
Murder
Theft
Socialism
Communism
Fascism
Theocracies
Fundamental Religions
Flat Earthers
Anti-Vaxxers
Fake Moon Landing People (whatever they're called)
Twitter (which is just an easily accessible form of electronic extortion and intimidation)
[EDIT]: Oh no! I didn't specifically list 'racism' in the long list above. That must mean I support racism! *clutches pearls*
You forgot climate change/global warming deniers you earth hating bigot, how dare you besmirch mother gaia and her vast blue booty /s
The folks who are rightfully getting criticism are the ones that voluntarily, of their own free will, showed up an anti-Neo Nazi talk to say they weren't so bad. So feth them.
Voss wrote: 'We don't support your ideology' is a pretty meaningful statement.
Not when such things are assumed.
Like I said, GW hasn't made any specific statements regarding Pol Pot, so let's assume they're pro-Khmer Rouge. They've never put up a WarComm article showing that they're not in favour of drowning babies either. Guess that means that they tacitly support such things, even though they've never said anything of the sort and shouldn't need to if not for the fear of disassociation.
The only way they can show that they are against something is to make a statement condemning it.
Oh, I'm against Pol Pot and drowning babies as well, before any of you label me pro-Khmer Rouge or pro-infanticide via aquatic asphyxiation.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2021/11/30 04:31:29
). In the case of 
