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:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
...wow. I think you really need to dial it back a bit, there, Champ.

There's a world of difference between suppression of speech and not tolerating intolerance. I suggest you learn it.

There is not and suggesting there is misses all the evidence where that statement was currently just used to cludegon speech.

There's a difference between "You can't say that" and "You shouldn't say that".

For example: In the US, you can stand on a street corner offering a Nazi salute and hurling n-bombs. You really shouldn't, though, because civilized people don't tolerate that kind of hateful behavior. Just because the government can't arrest you for it doesn't mean you're free from social consequences.

Some people do seem to think receiving a negative social reaction is the same as something being banned.

Not to mention not being a government, platforms such as Dakka have no requirement to offer freedom of speech or freedom from consequence.

The same as any privately owned venue, really.

They result in a certain strain being able to couch their points in certain sorts of language and get away scot-free.

To answer the topic in the title of this thread:

Probably less work for the Dakka mod team. [/thread]

As a former moderator present in the old dakka and current, how Yakface summarised why the line in the sand was drawn in the stickied thread at the top of the forum was spot on.

This is a wargaming site.
The topics banned caused way more problems than they were worth.
They were a significant time component for moderation, when it could be done elsewhere.

Having been a regular user, then moderator, then regular user on dakka since 25 April 2000, and a non member from 1999, it is a much better place without it.

But do you get it anywhere? I find a lot of my daughters friends don't know even how to broach the topics anymore.

I’ve noticed that steering clear of politics and hot-button issues can definitely keep things smoother at family gatherings or in workplaces. It helps avoid awkward debates and keeps the atmosphere light. But from my experience, not talking about these topics can also mean missing out on learning how to handle and discuss different viewpoints. For instance, my friends and I used to avoid political talks, which was fine for maintaining friendships, but when we finally did dive into those discussions, we were a bit rusty. It’s like we had the basics down from school but didn’t really practice the deeper conversations. So, while it might keep things peaceful, it can also mean we’re not as prepared to engage with different perspectives when they do come up.

 ZergSmasher wrote:
To answer the topic in the title of this thread:

Probably less work for the Dakka mod team. [/thread]

Yeah, there were definitely aspects that were meant to improve things for posters, but I think the time spent moderating those threads vs. the value gained became very limited.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

StaevinTheAeldari wrote:
It has resulted in a world were everyone is blind.

It's not this forum, it is everywhere. Wherever we go there is a hand clamped down over our eyes, another over our mouth, two more around our throat.

People cannot make themselves heard, information cannot spread, people are not allowed to see what others see.

People become both ignorant and confident in their ignorance. Empty words are to be treated as solid ground.

It is not voluntary. Any place that does not clamp down, suppress, isolate themselves and make sure to obediently exercise control becomes a target. Even if they deal with the conflict inherit in places that allow some relief - where everyone starts flooding and where realities that have become completely separate suddenly starts to clash - even if they find a way to manage that they become a target. Fanatics may harass them, corporations they rely on may exclude them, politicians may threaten them, banks may freeze their accounts, they may get sued or jailed. And realities that are wholly disconnected will not synchronize regardless, so you have to look for other reasons to keep at it than forming some new consensus.

It is easier to just not allow for communication.

Because both the powerful and the powerless have become reliant on their false perceptions this state of affairs can only become worse in the future. Ever more extreme measures to suppress communication are going to be needed and desired.

Who knew not allowing people to complain about wokeness on a toy soldier forum was part of the spiritual decay of our civilization. The center cannot hold indeed!

It's a bit of a misnomer as there are still highly political things posted on here all the time, but they are usually left to stand as it's typically from one side of an aisle and oddly enough from one region of the world in particular.



Another byproduct of the political thread was that political belief disagreements bled into other parts of the website as people were flat out mistreated over their beliefs in threads that had nothing to do WITH the politics thread.

Political posting on Dakka is like offensive holding in American Football: do it until they call the whistle.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
One I always think of when looking at this sub forum. And this isn't a comment about policy here, but in general. A lot of places have this convention, lots of families have it for more harmonious family meet ups. You wouldn't discuss it in my workplace. Instead it would normally come up with close friends who probably shared outlooks and views.

So as many commentators have asked, did societies shying away from fractious topics help or hinder their consideration and debate? I have seen a shift in my lifetime for people to be taught more about previously unknown topics (e.g. in schools you new get told the basics of other religions instead of assuming they didn't exist), but it doesn't yet come with the same confidence to critique until you get to the more heady heights of education in this case. Do you think people get equipped with the tools necessary to think about, empathise and critique other views and beliefs?

Good question but complicated to answer..
And sometimes (in such cases) shortening such an answer for the sake of readibility (or approachability) doesn't aid it.. so when I say I'll keep this short, I'll keep it as short as possible;

It's kindof both that it hurts such subjects are obstructed from discussion because this makes such subjects more static and incendiary while they should be nuanced by the reveal of root history and mythology.

It also helps because most people simply do not know what they support and do so from the basis of aesthetic, social structure or in broader sense the algorithm bubble they are in to the same dynamic.

All things can (and should) be put under a loop, nuanced and brought to discernment as that the genuity and ingenuity can be considered, and this cannot be done top down as it then becomes a society of the mindless, passively accepting the dictations of what things are, unable to actually think' and reason' for themselves. Sadly that is -generally- where we're at; a vastly uneducated populace, or perhaps better put; miseducated populace that reasons not by logic but believes in concepts, theories, that which is accepted out of convenience or by lack of interest aquiesced.

When it comes to politics the baseline should be that it is a personal, local' preference and direction of living, most optimally unregulated, internalized, ventured by experience and personal contract. This is not what it is, it is a literal wrestling show with favorite fighters donning makeup and bad line scripts to captivate the hopes of those that have missed the boat on the prior best scenario of self sufficiencies.. and thereto the populace sells their voice to the illusion of re-presentation, rather than presenting oneself to adequacy (and where unable, learning to, reaching such sovereignity)

When it comes to religion it is much more complicated due to the overplastering of cultures, time and time again'. Most of religion is not indigenous, construed from many a interconnecting culture, speech confused wether or no intentionally aside', tied to psychological warfare to power structures, often to enrich another megachurch pastor. The term speech confusion is the key word here, as for one to the ancient world (the truly ancient, so not that deemed antique in the mainstream domain which would draw the line at greece or rome) the god of this world was the Sun; lifegiver and re-establisher of nature by its pressence, and most if not all deities are personifications of this root, its aspects and attributes to the theogonies.
Such personifications (deities) were added to, often retaining core symbology, sometimes altering such depending on the era, demeanor (wars) or virtues of culture, again' constantly in contact with eachother. (Contrary to the mainstream take that cultures were isolated and developing on their own, which is not so, take for instance the gallatians in the levant being thracian celts and the japanese had sami (finnish) influences, the hun were displaced by the mongol and onogur, the founders of Qin(china) came from Gojoseon (korea) and the canadian natives were ainu.

A good example I am personally looking into currently (as I am besides my hobby here a scholar of mythology and its cultures) the connection between the Hittite and Minoan culture as the so called Laburinthos (imagined as a maze in popular fiction) refers to the Labrys which is a double headed axe, and the Mino-Taur (bull of minos) had a name being "Asterion" which means star or great fire. The Hittites for one had the stormgod (highest of all gods which is a Sungod as all Stormgods ultimately are personifications of Solar cataclysm in worldwide ancient mythologies) Tarhunt who held such a Labrys which was unique to the Minoan culture, and is also often depicted as riding a Bull. Now this is not necessarily unique to the region in its symbology considering the anatolian range was called Taurus and anti-Taurus (which has relation to the Tara/Tyr/Thor/Tharapita/Thoragalles etc lineup) but still.

Back to today, when you look at the most prominent "religions" such root meanings are ignored and one ends up with the outer-shell of its presentation, again.. to most people this is all they will be interested in to its aesthetics' as explained before.. their self value is not derrived from personal achievement but from the makeup of the group, the religious ceremony that like the colors of a flag give that sense of belonging to the achievements of others.

One then can do no more than picture a statement about the ancient god of creation; the Sun' as the most high and light of the world' diverted into its personifications, beholding such personifications alone' to their.. 'again.. aesthetic. Their decoration.

And from this space, man defends that decoration of preference (or conditioned state, in case of being born and raised into such) with emotion.
Oh yes, the outburst of being presented by a decoration alien to one can be so incendiary as to make one of little culture (knowledge) violent.

I do think it is a good thing that hobby forums limit themselves to discussions about or atleast related to their source subject, there are plenty of forums or channels where the histories and philosophies can be discussed aswell.

Hope this wasn't too long.
-Helveine.

 Waaagh_Gonads wrote:
As a former moderator present in the old dakka and current, how Yakface summarised why the line in the sand was drawn in the stickied thread at the top of the forum was spot on.

This is a wargaming site.
The topics banned caused way more problems than they were worth.
They were a significant time component for moderation, when it could be done elsewhere.

Having been a regular user, then moderator, then regular user on dakka since 25 April 2000, and a non member from 1999, it is a much better place without it.

This.

As someone who regularly contributed to the old OT forum, I totally understood the "toll" that Yakface/mods withstood when it was allowed.

There's a place for political debates.

Dakka isn't one of them.

There's no shortage on the internet of sites if you want to fly your political flag.

...and if we're honest, Dakka is a much better forum since then.