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.

Not Online!!! wrote:
So you had philosophy?

Altough i personally feel like the race to the bottom has to do more with the percived annonimity of the users. Percieved mostly because they are not in person there so they lose all manners.

Well, I am the sort of weird person who reads philosophy books for fun, so, yeah.

But I think you are right, "anonymity" does play a part, but I don't think that is the "full story" because the same sort of thing, to me, plays out in places that are not anonymous. But it does give rise to the notion of what I guess I might call an "incentivized self." That is, the aim of being some "idealized" person/persona, whatever you imagine "ideal" might be. So, since you can "play" whatever character you want, you play the one you see as incentivized for whatever reason(s).

I heard a podcast a while back with Jessica Yellen, who discussed how "news" is now predicated on pushing stories with notions of "conflict, jargon, competition and outrage." I think something along the same lines goes on with any "social media." Those things are the sorts of "messages" that "succeed" in the social media world, whatever success actually means.

For example, this very post here, by me. This "H" character tries to come across as "smart" despite not really being so and in previous posts, I've already resorted to jargon. I even earlier expressed something like "outrage" as well. For what reason? What did I get? I don't know, but seemingly I was incentivized (internally, I guess) to post all of it! But the thing is, even if my name was on this message, I'd still have posted the same thing, only I get the "luxury" of very deliberately trying to cultivate a certain notion of this "H" character, where my real name could carry "unwanted" historic/practical "baggage."

 Crimson wrote:

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:

"a person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another." Is the definition of racism. I can assure you that I have none of those feelings towards any race. This does not prevent me however from making or laughing at a racist joke because of it's intent and nature.

Propagating racist stereotypes even as a joke is racist behaviour. Furthermore, you cannot know how the subjects of such jokes actually feel, and even of some of them were okay with it doesn't make it appropriate.

Racial stereotypes are often based in some element of truth. That is what makes them funny and effective. The trick however is being able to separate individual people away from group identity. A white man is not primarily a white man, but a individual person. You don't look at him and attribute motive, characteristics or stereotypes because you instead look at him as an individual just like yourself. I and the majority of people are capable of separating a joke from reality and do not let that joke seep into what is real.

And if someone is offended by a joke. Ok.... so? You are not in the right because you are offended. Furthermore appropriate is defined by context. Making racist jokes can be appropriate and it can not be. To take this back to Arch Warhammer no one makes you watch his videos. If he says things that are offensive to you and you do not like it then do not watch him. Because he has a different opinion or one you deem offensive does not mean he needs to be silenced or banned,

I love a good internet drama, so this amused me. Watching a tiny corner of the internet apply catastrophic language to an event that is calamitous to them, but essentially unknown to those outside of that corner.

On the other hand.. we need to brace ourselves, people. The 40k fanbase has a loud and angry contingent of men who have a real animus to real and perceived inclusion, social justice, or the like. As GW is clearly trying to be more inclusive, this is only going to increase.

 Polonius wrote:
I love a good internet drama, so this amused me. Watching a tiny corner of the internet apply catastrophic language to an event that is calamitous to them, but essentially unknown to those outside of that corner.

On the other hand.. we need to brace ourselves, people. The 40k fanbase has a loud and angry contingent of men who have a real animus to real and perceived inclusion, social justice, or the like. As GW is clearly trying to be more inclusive, this is only going to increase.

Who has been anti inclusion? I am legit asking because I have not seen anyone who is against inclusivity the way I understand it. I struggle to find why someone would be against something be inclusive when it doesn't damage the product itself which like... how would a inclusive 40k damage 40k? More people who enjoy and value the product we all love the better.

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:
Making racist jokes can be appropriate and it can not be.

No, it's never "appropriate". If it's racially offensive, it is wrong and inappropriate.

To take this back to Arch Warhammer no one makes you watch his videos. If he says things that are offensive to you and you do not like it then do not watch him. Because he has a different opinion or one you deem offensive does not mean he needs to be silenced or banned,

On the contrary, if something is racially offensive, in the interest of human respect, those comments should be banned. If Arch is incapable of making comments without offensive undertones, he doesn't deserve to have a platform to share those offensive opinions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I love a good internet drama, so this amused me. Watching a tiny corner of the internet apply catastrophic language to an event that is calamitous to them, but essentially unknown to those outside of that corner.

On the other hand.. we need to brace ourselves, people. The 40k fanbase has a loud and angry contingent of men who have a real animus to real and perceived inclusion, social justice, or the like. As GW is clearly trying to be more inclusive, this is only going to increase.

Who has been anti inclusion? I am legit asking because I have not seen anyone who is against inclusivity the way I understand it. I struggle to find why someone would be against something be inclusive when it doesn't damage the product itself which like... how would a inclusive 40k damage 40k? More people who enjoy and value the product we all love the better.

Agreed. I don't see what to gain from keeping 40k "exclusive", so to speak.

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:

Racial stereotypes are often based in some element of truth. That is what makes them funny and effective. The trick however is being able to separate individual people away from group identity. A white man is not primarily a white man, but a individual person. You don't look at him and attribute motive, characteristics or stereotypes because you instead look at him as an individual just like yourself. I and the majority of people are capable of separating a joke from reality and do not let that joke seep into what is real.

And if someone is offended by a joke. Ok.... so? You are not in the right because you are offended. Furthermore appropriate is defined by context. Making racist jokes can be appropriate and it can not be. To take this back to Arch Warhammer no one makes you watch his videos. If he says things that are offensive to you and you do not like it then do not watch him. Because he has a different opinion or one you deem offensive does not mean he needs to be silenced or banned,

Frankly, people like you who excuse the behaviour worse racists and bigots are a big part of the problem. Inciting racism with words will have tangible effects and it is perfectly within the rights of that subreddit moderators to deplatform people for that.

 Nah Man Pichu wrote:
I guess in an Ork video he compared Gretchin to Jews, which is probably not ok lol. Didn't verify, I don't care to scan through videos to find it, but it seems like something that would be hard to lie about (the internet being the internet)

so, you can make jokes about stereotypes, especially if the joke is about the stereotype, not about the people. Compare:

"Wow, the Gringott's Goblins look like somebody watched Deep Space Nine and thought, 'the Ferengi aren't anti-semetic enough!'"

to

"Jew are just like the Ferengi!"


One is playing with the idea of a common stereotype, the other is just labelling people.

 Polonius wrote:
I love a good internet drama, so this amused me. Watching a tiny corner of the internet apply catastrophic language to an event that is calamitous to them, but essentially unknown to those outside of that corner.

On the other hand.. we need to brace ourselves, people. The 40k fanbase has a loud and angry contingent of men who have a real animus to real and perceived inclusion, social justice, or the like. As GW is clearly trying to be more inclusive, this is only going to increase.

Rightwing 40K enthusiast who makes bigoted 'jokes' is a massive red flag. Those people are usually borderline (or sometimes not even borderline) neo nazis and like 40K because they find the Imperium inspirational.

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:


Who has been anti inclusion? I am legit asking because I have not seen anyone who is against inclusivity the way I understand it. I struggle to find why someone would be against something be inclusive when it doesn't damage the product itself which like... how would a inclusive 40k damage 40k? More people who enjoy and value the product we all love the better.

I bolded that part, because I think that's probably the problem. I've seen some pretty nasty 40k related FB groups that were little more than anti-feminist and anti-Muslim memes. Hell, the page "Anti-Feminist 40k" is still up. The community has improved over 10 years ago, but it's still pretty rough.

 Crimson wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I love a good internet drama, so this amused me. Watching a tiny corner of the internet apply catastrophic language to an event that is calamitous to them, but essentially unknown to those outside of that corner.

On the other hand.. we need to brace ourselves, people. The 40k fanbase has a loud and angry contingent of men who have a real animus to real and perceived inclusion, social justice, or the like. As GW is clearly trying to be more inclusive, this is only going to increase.

Rightwing 40K enthusiast who makes bigoted 'jokes' is a massive red flag. Those people are usually borderline (or sometimes not even borderline) neo nazis and like 40K because they find the Imperium inspirational.

labeling people like you just did is the same as being racist.....

calling someone a neo-nazi because they make jokes that offend you isn't proper behaviour like you seem to be asking for.

Also, the people most offended my racial stereotypes often are people that aren't the target race.

The recent disqualification of a contender in Eurocosplay for "blackfacing" is a clear example of that, most of the outrage came from caucasians.

Outrage culture is the worst thing America has culturally exported to the world since McDonald.

Crimson wrote:

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:

Racial stereotypes are often based in some element of truth. That is what makes them funny and effective. The trick however is being able to separate individual people away from group identity. A white man is not primarily a white man, but a individual person. You don't look at him and attribute motive, characteristics or stereotypes because you instead look at him as an individual just like yourself. I and the majority of people are capable of separating a joke from reality and do not let that joke seep into what is real.

And if someone is offended by a joke. Ok.... so? You are not in the right because you are offended. Furthermore appropriate is defined by context. Making racist jokes can be appropriate and it can not be. To take this back to Arch Warhammer no one makes you watch his videos. If he says things that are offensive to you and you do not like it then do not watch him. Because he has a different opinion or one you deem offensive does not mean he needs to be silenced or banned,

Frankly, people like you who excuse the behaviour worse racists and bigots are a big part of the problem. Inciting racism with words will have tangible effects and it is perfectly within the rights of that subreddit moderators to deplatform people for that.

I agree that a moderator can do what they want on their platform because it's their platform. I'm not against banning someone on your platform if they do not abide by your rules as you have the right to do what you want in your house. I don't agree with the reasons or methodology behind it, but that's a different thing all together. I am not excusing racist behavior or bigots. Jokes do not incite racism or hate. Your line of logic is the exact same thing as saying video games and violent movies incite people to violence. It's just not true. The overwhelming majority of people are able to separate a joke from reality because of the very nature of something being a joke.

And hey all this disagreement with me makes me feel offended and attacked. This means you are wrong and I am right because in my view I am the victim <-- This is similar to your line of thinking I feel and as you can see it's a completely ridiculous statement.

Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:
Making racist jokes can be appropriate and it can not be.

No, it's never "appropriate". If it's racially offensive, it is wrong and inappropriate.

To take this back to Arch Warhammer no one makes you watch his videos. If he says things that are offensive to you and you do not like it then do not watch him. Because he has a different opinion or one you deem offensive does not mean he needs to be silenced or banned,

On the contrary, if something is racially offensive, in the interest of human respect, those comments should be banned. If Arch is incapable of making comments without offensive undertones, he doesn't deserve to have a platform to share those offensive opinions.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tibs Ironblood wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
I love a good internet drama, so this amused me. Watching a tiny corner of the internet apply catastrophic language to an event that is calamitous to them, but essentially unknown to those outside of that corner.

On the other hand.. we need to brace ourselves, people. The 40k fanbase has a loud and angry contingent of men who have a real animus to real and perceived inclusion, social justice, or the like. As GW is clearly trying to be more inclusive, this is only going to increase.

Who has been anti inclusion? I am legit asking because I have not seen anyone who is against inclusivity the way I understand it. I struggle to find why someone would be against something be inclusive when it doesn't damage the product itself which like... how would a inclusive 40k damage 40k? More people who enjoy and value the product we all love the better.

Agreed. I don't see what to gain from keeping 40k "exclusive", so to speak.

@sgt_smudge

I strongly disagree with you on the bolded points. Something being offensive is not natively wrong because what is offensive is relative. Am I not allowed to say anything that is offensive? Then I can't speak at all because someone is going to find something offensive no matter what it is. I can say that I am a biological man and someone will take offense to my attributing myself to a certain gender because they believe there's no such thing. Does that make me wrong for saying what I said? Where do you draw the line between what is reasonable and unreasonable levels of offense and furthermore how do you determine who gets to determine what is and what isn't offensive? Finally how do you enforce that? The only way to enforce that would be to limit freedom of speech by government legislation and now you have the government telling you what you can and cannot say. See the problem? I see where you are coming from and it's a good place and I respect you for that, but it doesn't change the fact that you are wrong. You don't understand the problems that go with regulating speech in the ways you are suggesting, or you choose to ignore it.

Who "deserves" a platform? How do you define who gets to have a platform and who doesn't? How do you determine why they do and why they don't? It's all relative and the enforcement of any ideas carried out need to be backed by legal force to have any power which means yet again the government is controlling and regulating free speech which is a big no no. That's a major reason why modern day china is the horror story it is.

Freedom of speech is the only viable method in which we can communicate in a free society because any other alternative leads to a severe limitation in freedom of thought, expression and personal liberties such as freedom. If someone says something you don't agree with that's fine. Let them. Is what they're saying stupid? Fine. I strongly disagree with what you are saying, but I'll defend your right to say it to the death. When speech is not calling for outright harm and violence it is free speech and protected (at least here in the US) by our constitution and amendments.

In order to think one has to risk being offensive.

 H wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
So you had philosophy?

Altough i personally feel like the race to the bottom has to do more with the percived annonimity of the users. Percieved mostly because they are not in person there so they lose all manners.

Well, I am the sort of weird person who reads philosophy books for fun, so, yeah.

But I think you are right, "anonymity" does play a part, but I don't think that is the "full story" because the same sort of thing, to me, plays out in places that are not anonymous. But it does give rise to the notion of what I guess I might call an "incentivized self." That is, the aim of being some "idealized" person/persona, whatever you imagine "ideal" might be. So, since you can "play" whatever character you want, you play the one you see as incentivized for whatever reason(s).

I heard a podcast a while back with Jessica Yellen, who discussed how "news" is now predicated on pushing stories with notions of "conflict, jargon, competition and outrage." I think something along the same lines goes on with any "social media." Those things are the sorts of "messages" that "succeed" in the social media world, whatever success actually means.

For example, this very post here, by me. This "H" character tries to come across as "smart" despite not really being so and in previous posts, I've already resorted to jargon. I even earlier expressed something like "outrage" as well. For what reason? What did I get? I don't know, but seemingly I was incentivized (internally, I guess) to post all of it! But the thing is, even if my name was on this message, I'd still have posted the same thing, only I get the "luxury" of very deliberately trying to cultivate a certain notion of this "H" character, where my real name could carry "unwanted" historic/practical "baggage."

I think it has partly to do with the effect of negative events beeing more impactfull in our memory then positive ones.

As for the later part. I feel like the more the social media (including forums) normalized the more people regard it unconsciously and use it unconciously. And also treat it more as a communication that is closed off and private even though everyone can see it.

As for this

Well, I am the sort of weird person who reads philosophy books for fun, so, yeah.

i mean, i study philosophy. and it can make fun but also be absolute torture.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
Outrage culture is the worst thing America has culturally exported to the world since McDonald.

And here i thought it was the music

And we're done here.