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.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I think part of the problem is that the mods deleted your posts where you explained yourself (and, again, I owe you an apology for getting you confused with someone else)

No worries, man. Everyone makes mistakes, everyone has bad days, and only absolute losers dip Wendy's fries in a Frosty.

 insaniak wrote:
The rationale is that the term itself is fine, but if it's used in an inflammatory way, then it's a problem.

How can it be used in a way that isn't inflammatory?
I mean, sure, even “miserable pile of gak”, "son of a female dog” and, well, [see forum posting rules], can be used in non-inflammatory ways. Won't stop all of those from being automatically censored by Dakka.
So I'm going to ask: which valuable post will be lost of “SJW” become a forbidden word? I want to weigh in with all the flame wars that this will prevent. Just to weigh in the good and the bad that would come from the decision. But the problem is that I literally cannot think of even one worthwhile post that this would prevent, now that politics are a forbidden subject.

[edit]feth, gak, that middle one wasn't censored by Dakka, had to censor it myself!!![/edit]

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
SJW doesn't have to be inflammatory. In some cases it's an apt description.

It is always inflammatory, even when it's an apt description.

I disagree. It certainly can be, but it doesn't have to be. That's like saying the terms activist, or alt right, or antifa are always inflammatory. They all could be in certain circumstances, but it's context dependent.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
It is always inflammatory, even when it's an apt description.

As much as me and Hybrid may be different and disagree, this is one thing he's correct about. No one uses SJW as a compliment or a descriptor. It was created for the sole purpose of being a pejorative. The idea is that the 'warrior' part of it is like calling some stupid person a 'genius'.

It's also something that gets thrown around where it shouldn't, for things not even remotely 'SJW'. Oh, main character of a video game is black? MUH SJW! Woman on the front of a game book? MUH SJW!

Like a whole lot of other names that people get labeled with in the 'culture war', it's pretty much diluted to mean 'anyone who does things I dislike'. Because both sides have no shortage of idiots.

 Hordini wrote:
That's like saying the terms activist, or alt right, or antifa are always inflammatory.

No that's not. Alt-right, and Antifa is how some people decided to brand themselves. Activist is a term with usually good connotations. SJW is a derogatory term that was introduced to brand others, in a dismissive way.
You would maybe have a point if you compared it to terms like tankies, or TERF. And TERF isn't even that clear, because it really is more descriptive than anything.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
That's like saying the terms activist, or alt right, or antifa are always inflammatory.

No that's not. Alt-right, and Antifa is how some people decided to brand themselves. Activist is a term with usually good connotations. SJW is a derogatory term that was introduced to brand others, in a dismissive way.
You would maybe have a point if you compared it to terms like tankies, or TERF. And TERF isn't even that clear, because it really is more descriptive than anything.

Except that alt right and antifa are also often thrown around and used to label people who aren't actually associated with either group/movement.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
The rationale is that the term itself is fine, but if it's used in an inflammatory way, then it's a problem.

How can it be used in a way that isn't inflammatory?

Right off the top of my head, someone self-identifying with it, for starters.

As with anything else, though, we'll review it if and when it becomes a problem.

 Hordini wrote:
Except that alt right and antifa are also often thrown around and used to label people who aren't actually associated with either group/movement.

Yes. They are sometime used in incorrectly. “SJW” is inflammatory even when used correctly. I think this is a big difference, worth making one banned and not the other.

 insaniak wrote:
Right off the top of my head, someone self-identifying with it, for starters.

Seen that happens often on DakkaDakka? As someone who is basically always on the side of the “SJW” when this kind of topics pops up, I would be all in favor of the term being banned, and I don't remember ever seeing someone identifying as such other than as a throw-away line to provoke ideological opponents. Anyone wants to chime in to say how they wouldn't want “SJW” usage to be banned because they want to be allowed to identify as SJW? What do you think, Peregrine?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
As with anything else, though, we'll review it if and when it becomes a problem.

I think it's already a problem. Every time I see it I naturally tend to write more heated answers, and I'm realistically far from the only one. Because that's what inflammatory language do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
As much as me and Hybrid may be different and disagree, this is one thing he's correct about. No one uses SJW as a compliment or a descriptor. It was created for the sole purpose of being a pejorative.

Out of curiosity, is there another expression from the other side of the culture war that is similar and that you'd like to see banned too? Tried to think of one but couldn't, because stuff like “sexist” or “racist” has much more legitimate uses totally outside of the scope of this current culture war.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

I think it's already a problem. Every time I see it I naturally tend to write more heated answers, and I'm realistically far from the only one. Because that's what inflammatory language do.

Noted. And it will be considered, as I said.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Out of curiosity, is there another expression from the other side of the culture war that is similar and that you'd like to see banned too? Tried to think of one but couldn't, because stuff like “sexist” or “racist” has much more legitimate uses totally outside of the scope of this current culture war.

I'd like to see 'Nazi' banned, unless someone is an actual literal Nazi or Neo-Nazi. Nothing irks me more than that word being abused and cheapened to mean 'someone who disagrees with me'. Because when you pair that with 'we should punch Nazis', that gets really dangerous. One particular Youtuber that I dislike (I think he's a whiny little butt-hurt pansy that let his snark and gakposting wreck his entire channel's purpose), as much I can say bad things about him- isn't a 'Nazi' by any stretch.

I'm part Jewish, non-practicing. My Grandfather shot Nazis. I grew up hearing my Nanny- a German woman with a number on her arm- telling me how awful they were. I think it's the equivalent of spitting on her, my grandfather, and my family to call someone like Jeremy Hamby, some troll using a Pepe meme, or someone who voted for Trump a 'Nazi'. We can argue what level of 'bad' or 'offensive' those people are, but you wouldn't stand in front of the people who faced ACTUAL NAZIS and tell them "Yeah, those are the exact same thing" because I can promise you, YOU would be the one getting punched.

I think it's a disgusting label, and there are places it belongs, but it's often not on places like Dakka.

'And that Little Timmy, is how Nuts and Bolts became the new home for all the politics threads...'

Okay guys, Baron has started two general politics threads in the OT Zone, and this has our (the mods) full blessing!

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Ok, to get this party started:

US and NA Poltiics Thread has been moved to:
http://otzone.proboards.com/thread/7450/na-poltiics-general?page=1&scrollTo=126674

UK and EU threads have been moved to:
http://otzone.proboards.com/thread/7451/uk-eu-politics-general

Have fun

I'll likely sticky the thread links in the OT forum eventually, too. We have absolutely no problem with Dakkanauts taking the political discussion elsewhere together, and that's actually how the OT forum got its start (before Dakka had an OT board)

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
and only absolute losers dip Wendy's fries in a Frosty.

I didn't report the guy who brought anti-Semitic slurs to the Warmahordes thread, but by God I'll report this!

You go too far for a man named after a chip that wishes it were a cheeto.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
I'd like to see 'Nazi' banned, unless someone is an actual literal Nazi or Neo-Nazi.

I'd be 100% fine with Nazi being used to describe someone who isn't literally a neo-Nazi or an actual Nazi being banned. Saying things like “The Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville had Nazi” would be fine (literal Nazi flags being carried around), and “Ernst Röhm was a gay Nazi” (historical figure that was part of the Nazi party even before it rose to power, and literal homosexual) would be fine, but “Trump is a Nazi” or “ICE agents are Nazi” wouldn't be fine. Not sure how to deal with corner-case like people who actually argue for a white ethnostate while refusing the label (say, Richard Spencer), but if them not being called Nazi is the price to pay for more civil discussions, would be 100% worth it.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:
I'm part Jewish, non-practicing. My Grandfather shot Nazis. I grew up hearing my Nanny- a German woman with a number on her arm- telling me how awful they were.

My grand-mother fled from Germany to Italy, France, back to Italy and then Switzerland, part of my family ended up in the camps too.
I got some beef with them too, obviously.

 Ketara wrote:
'And that Little Timmy, is how Nuts and Bolts became the new home for all the politics threads...'

If anything this probably shows the difficulties that are likely to occur going forward. It's going to be like wack-a-mole.

 RiTides wrote:
Okay guys, Baron has started two general politics threads in the OT Zone, and this has our (the mods) full blessing!

I imagine it does, since it's a forum where they post pics of dicks chained together. It pains me to say it, but I don;'t think it;'s going to be a viable solution.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I didn't report the guy who brought anti-Semitic slurs to the Warmahordes thread, but by God I'll report this!

You go too far for a man named after a chip that wishes it were a cheeto.

How DARE you insult the Triangle of Worldly Delights and insinuate that it wishes to be 'cheesy powder turds'. You disgust me, you uncouth swine.

People who dip fries in Frosties should be permanently banned from BACON. That's how serious this is.

Just to make sure it's clear:

Please no more discussion of individual political terms (that you'd like banned / not banned) in this thread. We'll keep a close eye on all of these, and any other inflammatory language, but will not be making hard and fast rules on each. However, using any of these terms can easily violate rule #1 (Be polite!) so by far the safest thing is to avoid them altogether.

At this point we've well and truly covered that idea, and we'd like this thread to remain open a bit longer in case folks have other questions about the forum change.

Thanks all!

I think this is for the best. And I also think it'll calm down in a few days. And I also think it doesn't need any more clarification than what yakface posted; if it was something that previously would have been allowed outside the OT forum, it's still fine, if it's something that previously would have been "take it to OT guys" it will now be "take it somewhere else".

In spite of the comments in this thread, I think the majority of people know what "no politics/religion" means and are fine with that.

I'm sure a few folk spent a decent chunk of their day reading/replying to the political threads and are now at a loose end, but I'm also sure they'll be able to adjust hopefully with minimal crapping up of other threads and moderator intervention.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
You go too far for a man named after a chip that wishes it were a cheeto.

underrated post

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
And I also think it doesn't need any more clarification than what yakface posted

Just further proof that no one reads stickies.

 Manchu wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
You go too far for a man named after a chip that wishes it were a cheeto.

underrated post

No it isn't. Until your dried cat turds covered in cheese powder have a whopping 40 flavors- Cheetos are the inferior snack for plebs.

Begun the Chip Wars have.

Don't make us ban discussion of junk food!

 Manchu wrote:
Begun the Chip Wars have.

Don't make us ban discussion of junk food!

You pansies are just snowflakes eating cheese turds.

It must burn your butt to know that Doritos can come in a ROLLED variety and be better than Cheetos.

I don't see anyone scooping salsa and queso with a cheese turd.

Ban it you coward. We know you're just suppressing the CORRECT Snack System.

 Elemental wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Or they could've used the yellow triangle of friendship, pointed out the error, and gone on their way rather then..

Sure. "Hey mods, I'm letting you know through the yellow triangle of friendship that this guy is using the expression SJW!" "Yeah, we know, but we think this should totally be allowed, we'll only come back to it if (i.e. when) the thread has already degenerated".
They could have just used the yellow triangle of friendship, sure. Not sure why they'd do that, given it wouldn't change anything, but they could.

Yeah. One thing that's frustrating is that the mods seem incredibly reluctant to criticise individual posters, no matter how clear it is that it's one or two bad posters dragging a thread down. Yes, they'll post warnings or lock a topic for being 'heated', but don't appear to care about who was dancing around with a can of petrol and a cigarette lighter.

That would seem to be a good idea, especially when it seems to be the same usual (and well known) suspects.

But, that might not be relaxed, polite or friendly enough, and would drift into a more strict, authoritarian and punishment-heavy style of moderation.

So instead, no more Politics or Religion in the OT, which on the surface seems kind of an obvious and overdue 'solution'.

Maybe now the same usual (and well known) suspects will drift away to other places?

 Mysterio wrote:

 Elemental wrote:
Yeah. One thing that's frustrating is that the mods seem incredibly reluctant to criticise individual posters, no matter how clear it is that it's one or two bad posters dragging a thread down. Yes, they'll post warnings or lock a topic for being 'heated', but don't appear to care about who was dancing around with a can of petrol and a cigarette lighter.

That would seem to be a good idea, especially when it seems to be the same usual (and well known) suspects.

But, that might not be relaxed, polite or friendly enough, and would drift into a more strict, authoritarian and punishment-heavy style of moderation.

So instead, no more Politics or Religion in the OT, which on the surface seems kind of an obvious and overdue 'solution'.

Maybe now the same usual (and well known) suspects will drift away to other places?

It's not just politics threads though (that was just where the process was most noticeable), it's something you'll see from time to time in pretty much every forum. Actually, the US Politics forum was partially self-regulating, since a majority of posters had realised not to engage with low-quality drive-by posters like whembley.

If people see other posters getting a thread temp locked virtually single-handedly and then, when it's purged and re-opened, resuming as if nothing had happened, that sends a message about what you can get away with on this forum.

 Elemental wrote:
It's not just politics threads though (that was just where the process was most noticeable), it's something you'll see from time to time in pretty much every forum. Actually, the US Politics forum was partially self-regulating, since a majority of posters had realised not to engage with low-quality drive-by posters like whembley.

You know, it's counter-productive to flame someone outside of Politics when the whole point it seemed people were trying to make is that 'the toxicity stayed there and was self-regulating'.

 Adeptus Doritos wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Begun the Chip Wars have.

Don't make us ban discussion of junk food!

You pansies are just snowflakes eating cheese turds.

It must burn your butt to know that Doritos can come in a ROLLED variety and be better than Cheetos.

I don't see anyone scooping salsa and queso with a cheese turd.

Ban it you coward. We know you're just suppressing the CORRECT Snack System.

Rolled Doritos are just attempted Cheetos. Cheetos don't need so many flavors because they got it right the first half dozen times.

If we're snowflakes, what does that make you? Salt-right? National Snacktialist? A regular Klaus Barbecue.


I say, dip those Cheetos proudly into the nearest frosty.

That bit of conversation got really weird really quickly.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
That bit of conversation got really weird really quickly.

And now I've made a thread in OT into which we can move the conversation.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Elemental wrote:
Yeah. One thing that's frustrating is that the mods seem incredibly reluctant to criticise individual posters, no matter how clear it is that it's one or two bad posters dragging a thread down.

Honestly, the magic of "completely opaque moderation" is that you don't know if they do. Maybe that person got a temporary ban because of their message. Just that they took a week of debating what was the appropriate sanction, sent them a PM, and noone was ever aware that they were banned. Which makes people believe that if they act the same way, they won't be banned. Which leads to more people acting this way.

I have been moderating on this board for about 10 years and have been a member for about 15 in total. Not everyone agrees with my style or decisions, and I am as capable as any human of making mistakes.

I think the moderation policy of handing out sanctions in private is a good one. I also agree with the policy of not permanently suspending members until they are about a light year beyond the fence of acceptability.

I believe these two policies are helpful in converting some "bad" posters into better ones, and that is a good objective. We want people to come to the forum, contribute, and help make it a fun place to hang out.

All the above being said, there is no doubt in my mind that discussion has become generally more politicised and polarised in the past five years compared to the previous five years. The manifestation is trigger events like Gamergate, Black Lives Matter, #MeToo, Trump, and Brexit. There are several factors behind this, which I won't go into because they are obvious from the events or movements I have mentioned, and because clearly it takes us into the forbidden realms of politics and religion.

In the current climate, where trivial discussion of pop culture games and films is fraught with social angst, the banning of P&R from the OT Forum is designed to make the forum a nicer place to be, and lighten the load on the moderation team through reducing the necessity of interventions.

Hopefully in the long term the social situation will stabilise and people will stop biting each other's heads off for disagreeing with them.