13 ms·
RPG.net bans posts in support of Trump
- bovermyer 8y agoCan't see the actual site/post because of overly eager nanny firewall at the client, so I'm just going to comment on the title. So? It's a privately-run forum.
- umvi 8y agoWhy not ban just ban all political discussion? That would be more fair than calling out specific politicians you aren't allowed to support (but you are allowed to condemn)
- tw04 8y agoIf you read the link he's explains it in great detail. I won't rehash it all, but basically: we have 0 issues with conservative ideology, we have a lot of problems with politicians who support hate groups and promote racism.
- tomp 8y ago"We have no issues with conservative ideology, we just expand the definition of racism so that it includes opposition to migration, and expand the definition of hate group so that it includes men's rights organisations..."
- happytoexplain 8y agoYou've framed this criticism as a hostile, unconstructive mockery of a person who is ostensibly your partner in conversation/debate.
- 0xcde4c3db 8y agoThat would be a ridiculous rule for RPG.net. RPG settings and stories often have social commentary inspired by real-world issues, and occasionally even blatant stand-ins for real-life political parties and figures.
- CivBase 8y agoApparently they only want a particular flavor of social commentary.
- muzz 8y agoNope. That's not what the post says at all
- CivBase 8y agoLets skip the Donald Trump bit and get to the heart of the matter. > [Donald Trump's actions are] so wholly incompatible with our values that formal political neutrality is not tenable. We can be welcoming to (for example) persons of every ethnicity who want to talk about games, or we can allow support for open white supremacy. Not both. The problem is not Trump. The problem is the values they associate with him. They don't want people advocating those values on their forum, so they banned expressions of support for Trump. Are you suggesting they are okay with people advocating those values sans Trump?
- LiterallyDoge 8y agoBecause then my nerd rage can't be expressed to my 12 users.
- badwolf 8y agoPrivately owned and operated forum makes sensible moderation rules on how they would like to operate themselves. Now to Jim with the weather.
- ryanmercer 8y ago>Privately owned Ding ding ding! A website is effectively the owner's house, if you come through their door you follow their rules or you leave.
- ameister14 8y agoThat's not accurate. Do you believe that an owner should be able to deny services based on political or religious leanings?
- ryanmercer 8y agoAbsolutely. It's not a public park, it's virtual private space. If you say something on a website the owner is allowed to remove it, if you don't like that you are more than welcome to go make your own website for as cheap as probably 15$ a year with shared hosting.
- ameister14 8y agoWell, I'd argue that you are using a service and being denied use of that service arbitrarily does have some guidelines to it. It's not about how cheap it is, it's about whether or not it's discriminatory.
- LiterallyDoge 8y agolol "sensible"
- laquisha 8y agoChina pumping money where it matters.
- mooseburger 8y agoHate speech laws, deplatforming, or political bans don't actually accomplish any of their stated goals. In the Weimar Republic, there were hate speech laws (https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/copenhagen-speech-violence https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/copenhagen-speech-v...). Relevant quote: "Researching my book, I looked into what actually happened in the Weimar Republic. I found that, contrary to what most people think, Weimar Germany did have hate-speech laws, and they were applied quite frequently. The assertion that Nazi propaganda played a significant role in mobilizing anti-Jewish sentiment is, of course, irrefutable. But to claim that the Holocaust could have been prevented if only anti-Semitic speech and Nazi propaganda had been banned has little basis in reality. Leading Nazis such as Joseph Goebbels, Theodor Fritsch, and Julius Streicher were all prosecuted for anti-Semitic speech. Streicher served two prison sentences. Rather than deterring the Nazis and countering anti-Semitism, the many court cases served as effective public-relations machinery, affording Streicher the kind of attention he would never have found in a climate of a free and open debate. In the years from 1923 to 1933, Der Stürmer [Streicher's newspaper] was either confiscated or editors taken to court on no fewer than thirty-six occasions. The more charges Streicher faced, the greater became the admiration of his supporters. The courts became an important platform for Streicher's campaign against the Jews. In the words of a present-day civil-rights campaigner, pre-Hitler Germany had laws very much like the anti-hate laws of today, and they were enforced with some vigor. As history so painfully testifies, this type of legislation proved ineffectual on the one occasion when there was a real argument for it." Nothing gets stopped by merely refusing to extend some small measure of legitimacy to whatever is deemed "bigoted". These policies and norms do not change minds, which is the skill these wannabe social engineers need to master.
- Yoric 8y agoI don't think it's about changing minds. If you look at the OP, it's about letting people participate on a specific discussion channel about gaming without being harassed, (either explicitly or implicitly) for their origin, gender, etc. Changing people's minds, as you mention, is a different problem entirely.
- beaconstudios 8y ago
- tomp 8y agoJesus this is terrible. People are quick to point out that First Ammendment doesn't apply, but Freedom of Speech isn't just that, it's the principle - "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Discussion is what makes peaceful progress possible, otherwise you get revolutions!
- lghh 8y agoDiscussions that change someone's racism or the penchant to mock the disabled generally don't happen on the internet. In person, with friends perhaps, but not on faceless forums where people are more likely to double down on opinions in the face of criticism when they are as extreme as racism.
- geezerjay 8y agoModerating discriminatory statements is fundamentally different than censoring a political oponent. More importantly, these utter idiots don't even realize they are creating such profoundly anti-democratic precedents targetting a political rival that is actually contributing to their cause, as now they have very real and very specific examples of how they are being targettend and persecuted for their political views.
- pjc50 8y agoThe argument is that in this case support for Trump is support for discrimination, in a way that's very distinct from "normal" conservativism.
- lghh 8y agoExactly. Saying "I like the recently passed tax cuts" is different than saying "I support President Trump." The first is supporting a conservative policy decision, the second is supporting a person who would be banned from the forums themselves if they talked the way they do in real life as comments on the site.
- lghh 8y agoI was against this until I thought about it this way: if an individual on the forums posted the opinions that they are quoting Trump as saying they would likely be banned. For example, if I actively made fun of a disabled person or sexual assault victim I would rightfully be ostracized from the space. Now they are saying that showing open support for someone who uses that as their main rhetorical tactic is as bad as saying it yourself. I'm conflicted about it, but I understand it.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- gedy 8y agoIt's their perogative, no problem there, but I do find it a little childish that a moderater in that thread can keep their post footer as: "Eisenhower got elected President for overseeing a war that was ALL ABOUT killing Nazis. We should return to those days." — Cessna" Why not just ban all political posts?
- dogma1138 8y agoThe infractions section is going to get interesting: https://forum.rpg.net/forumdisplay.php?138-Infractions https://forum.rpg.net/forumdisplay.php?138-Infractions
- Tsubasachan 8y agoIf they ban all politics equally I'm all for it. Off topic moderation. Seeing American politics being hawked everywhere is rather tiresome. Makes me appreciate what Canada has to go through every day.
- kylnew 8y agoI’m surprised by some of the response; I actually think they were pretty articulate about exactly what they were banning and it certainly wasn’t all political speech. Trump stands for so much hatred and bigotry and it’s hard to vocalize support for him without implicitly/explicitly supporting that stuff yourself. We need to stop pretending like this is political discourse. Intolerance of intolerance is the only acceptable form of intolerance. I think that this intolerance for others through trump support is what they are banning first and foremost.
- balt_s 8y ago> Intolerance of intolerance is the only acceptable form of intolerance. This seems vulnerable to a meta-level attack: "who gets to decide what is intolerable?"
- muzz 8y agoThe answer is clear: in a privately owned business, the owners
- kylnew 8y agoI wish I had the definitive answer but in my books that line has been crossed in this context. I don’t think it’s as gray as we might want to pretend it is right now. The state of discourse online seems like some level of indicator something has happened recently that is descending us into chaos. Personally I do blame Trump and RPG.net seems to share a similar sentiment.
- mooseburger 8y agoThe state of discourse online is such because of the Culture War, and the Culture War predates Trump, and possibly caused Trump to be elected in the first place. The current phase of the Culture War began with universities getting creative with their definitions of "bigotry", "white supremacy", "racism", and "sexism". The worldview promulgated there eventually percolated to the mainstream and is a massive driver of the ongoing cultural conflict.
- throwasnakes 8y agoTo those who say this is OK but net neutrality is something that should be, why? If people can ban others for speech, because they're the ones providing the hosting. Should ISPs not be able to throttle whoever they'd like for the same reason?
- alphabettsy 8y agoThis is not even a close comparison. In one case the owner is providing a space at no cost to users where they have many choices. In the other, a company is proving you a connection to the network and nothing more, but in exchange for payment and often with no other choices.
- mreome 8y agoThis is actually an argument that is sometime raised in regards to net neutrality. The difference between an ISP and a web host is that the former functions more as a utility (the debated common carrier classification). If they are a common carrier, the analogy would be the ISP is the power company and the web host is a land lord. The land lord can choose not to rent to someone for any reason other then the person belonging to a protected class. But the power company can't turn off their power as long as they keep paying. The distinction makes sense because you can find another land lord to rent from, or buy your own house (as you can find another web host, or become a web host). But you still have to get power from the, usually one, local electric company (as you have to get a connection to the internet from your, usually one, local ISP).
- tlackemann 8y agoOne moderator wrote: "No. You know what? Fuck that noise. Ethnic cleansing is not "different views." Racism is not "different views." White nationalism is not "different views." Dogwhistling that attacks against your political enemies will continue if the media doesn't stop saying things you don't like is not "different views." Putting children in cages is not "different views." This is not an argument over tax rates or the proper role of government in education. This is an argument about who will be allowed to exist in America. Get the fuck out of this thread. Don't post here again." Whether you agree with their decision to ban Trump support on their (privately owned) forums, you have to agree we are in a pretty grim state here in America.
- repolfx 8y agoThat is indeed very grim, given the number of angry straw men that moderator came out with. Has Trump ever supported "ethnic cleansing"? No. Has he even supported racism? As far as I know, no, despite attempts to cast his criticism of illegal immigrants as generalised racism. Those claims are absurd and extreme. This person appears to believe any sort of functioning immigration system at all is the same thing as mass murder. It looks to me from my vantage point abroad like a section of American society has become so totally swamped in righteous anger, that they have concluded - but are unwilling to explicitly say - that US immigration controls and borders should be entirely abolished. The Democrats are not campaigning on that platform though. So what happens next?
- tlackemann 8y ago> This person appears to believe any sort of functioning immigration system at all is the same thing as mass murder Where is that coming from? It seems completely out of context with what was said. Trump has been consistently proven to be racist, xenophobic, misogynistic - none of which are a crime - but should be considered seriously when at command of the United States. These aren't straw men points. There are real victims out there suffering real consequences because of the hate and regression Trump has promoted. Children ARE being locked in cages. To say it's all Trump's fault would be careless and wrong however, but at the same time we wouldn't say the civil rights movement happened without Martin Luther King. Trump happens to be the leader of a hateful movement no one can hide from. It is indeed very grim.
- LiterallyDoge 8y agoEh it's their website. Personal property. They're idiots though.
- CivBase 8y agoThey have the right to do this. I still think this is terrible. Echo chambers are becoming more common with the wide-spread adoption of the internet and people are increasingly worse at handling disagreements. It is so easy to immerse yourself in communities that validate your ideas. Many online services push you into these echo chambers because, in general, people engage more with groups that express ideas they are comfortable with. The internet is a never-ending record of the adverse effects of echo chambers. Politics, religion, game consoles, programming languages, frameworks, operating systems, browsers, text editors... they exist for just about everything and the effect is always the same. People immersed in echo chambers gradually stop being able to show empathy to those outside their group. Perceived public opinion is a powerful thing and we love to point to popularity as justification[1]. Humans need to be challenged in order to grow. Maybe RPG.net isn't the right place for people to be challenged politically. Then the mods should just ban discussions about any real-life politician. Targeting one politician just creates another echo chamber. Again, I know they have the right to do this. They should be allowed to do it. I think it's bad. [1] Apparently it's called "argumentum ad populum". Cool! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
- muzz 8y agoNot sure if a gaming forum is an apt comparison to a politcal echo chamber
- CivBase 8y agoYou don't have to be a politically-focused website to be a political echo chamber. Clearly politics are a common discussion point on that forum.
- gus_massa 8y agoThe part that is terrible is that they are not banning all political discussion, they are just banning the part they don't like. The rule says: > New Ban: Do Not Post In Support of Trump or his Administration If they want to keep the gamming forum on topic they can ban all political discussion. (As a comparison, HN has a ban in political discussion. It's difficult to ban all political discussion because the is an spectrum between 100% political and 100% technological, and some posts are both political and technological, and in some case there is not clear threshold.)
- edkennedy 8y agoI am fully in support of this, and actually quite surprised by the negativity in this thread about this decision. All the major hold outs online, like the Donald, already do the reverse of this and ban anyone who challenges their viewpoints.
- CivBase 8y ago/r/The_Donald isn't exactly a community I would hold up as an example of this sort of policy working out. I have a general distaste for communities like this and it's always disappointing to me when I see any community voluntarily turn itself into an obvious echo chamber.
- archagon 8y agoFrog boiling. “Trump is president, and a third of our country supports him, so he’s gotta be at least sort of mainstream and acceptable. And we can’t go around banning mainstream and acceptable things.” The underlying premise is wrong, but many people no longer seem to recognize it. This is how the fringe builds power until it’s too late to stop them.
- kangnkodos 8y agoThe title is a little misleading. RPG.net is banning PEOPLE who publicly support Trump on their forum. Look at these 5 videos. People on the left are allowed to bring their whole selves to RPG.net. People on the right are not welcomed to do the same. https://www.wsj.com/news/types/voices-from-a-divided-america https://www.wsj.com/news/types/voices-from-a-divided-america
- danaris 8y agoIf your "whole self" wants to dehumanize and kill entire classes of people because of their perceived race, sexual orientation, gender, etc, then I don't think it should be welcomed. Anywhere. And if your "whole self" actively supports others who espouse such views, even if you do not directly do so yourself, then while I won't go so far as to say you're as bad, you're certainly bad enough that you should also not be welcomed in that way.
- basic1 8y agoGrow up.
- mooseburger 8y ago1. Conservatives and even Trump supporters don't want that. 2. Thanks for pushing normal people even further to the right.
- kangnkodos 8y ago@danaris - Thank you for stating out loud what many people think a Trump supporter is. You summed up the stereotype very well. That's important. Now please take a few minutes and look at the people in the videos (see my previous comment) who are Trump supporters. Those are real people who support Trump. Please let me know specifically which ones are bad enough that they should not be welcomed.
- danaris 8y agoTrump espouses the views I enumerated. He supports the dehumanization of, and in some cases violence against, women, LGBT+ people, and people who are not white. Therefore, anyone supporting him also supports these things, and should not be welcomed.
- nisuni 8y agoA question for all the “my business, my rules” crowd: do you also support a cake shop refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple?
- muzz 8y agoWhat was the legal outcome of the court challenge in that situation?
- danaris 8y agoI'm honestly not sure of my answer to that question, but there's a huge difference between refusing service to someone because of their sexual orientation and refusing service to someone because of active support of white supremacists and other hate groups. Not only is one discriminating because of what you are and the other because of what you do and say, but the "do and say" side in this case is doing and saying things that are unquestionably morally repugnant, and in many cases actively inciting (or at least condoning) violence against classes of people...mainly because of what those people are.
- zimpenfish 8y ago> their sexual orientation Which I believe is considered a "protected class" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group - whereas being a racist/white supremacist/alt-right (currently) isn't. That's the difference.
- danaris 8y agoWhile that's true, and the legal definitions are derived from the moral foundation I'm applying here, they themselves aren't really my point. Rather, it's that the reason they're protected classes in the first place is because they're (basically) things people either can't control about themselves.
- nisuni 8y agoYour are conflating two different things: speaking in favor of one particular policy of President Trump is NOT speaking in favor of supremacist or hate groups. I am myself in favor of a couple of Trump’s policies, and I am pretty sure I am not a white supremacist or part of a hate group.
- bliblah 8y agoHate to be the one that says this...Why is this being posted on Hacker News? A privately operated forum is using moderation tools in ways that not everyone finds agreeable, how is this news in 2018? We have a lot of discussions on free speech but do we really need to post every single site that uses these tools to reiterate the same points? >Pro:Free exchange of ideas is being threatened and is creating an echo chamber; i don't agree with the ideas but will die for you to say it >Con: They are privately operated and the first amendment isn't a catch all for all speech; XKCD comic showing you the door... Maybe i'm cynical but most discussions just devolves to the same conversations being repeated with nothing interesting to add to the already long list of FB, Google, Go Daddy, Twitter posts/groups that have been censored/deplatformed. At this point it seems everyone already has their opinions firmly placed and nothing will really convince them otherwise.
- archagon 8y agoTrump literally proclaimed himself a nationalist a few weeks ago. As far as online communities go, these bans are long overdue. I’m not interested in sharing an online space with people who are more than happy to tear my country down.
- Algurnon 8y agoIn post-ww2 Germany, they essentially adopted the policy of suppressing Nazi ideology and it was regarded as a good thing, thought every German except post-war Nazi holdouts. They came to find out its not all that much dif't in fx than shouting "fire! in a crowded theater. Not just those who went throught he war, but especially all those who were born afterwards. This here is just doing what Germany did except pre-emptively. Like Woody Guthrie's guitar. The 1st Amendment is a great step forward in democracy, but Rupert Murdoch has a ) day exploit on the constitution and pretending he doesn't = owned