|
natetimm posted:GG is very much an adoption of the same tactics call-out culture has been using for years. They mercilessly and continually poo poo on people who don't toe their ideological line via public forums. This isn't new or exciting, and the harassment native to that type of toxic activism has been ongoing on both sides of the political spectrum online for a long time. is it really necessary to point out that people are lovely to other people on the internet, or that it's real fuckin dumb to say "well they did it first/they do it too" when it comes to threatening to kill people because you disagree with their opinions about video games maybe it's just me but i don't see it as particularly noteworthy that people use the internet to be shits
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 09:35 |
|
|
"i don't see why it's so bad to threaten to rape someone because she said video game characters wear revealing clothing. hell, those same people have been threatning to beat up racists for literally at least five years now. tit for tat"
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
natetimm posted:You should see it as noteworthy because it's becoming the genesis for a new set of bad laws people are trying to push through. Online harassment and threats is quickly becoming the equivalent of terrorism for a new generation, with all the dumb and reactionary laws to protect people from it being proposed like before. It's going to become the new altar people demand their rights be sacrificed upon due to a culture of fear and panic being stirred up by the media and political agitators. You already have prominent sites eliminating discussion altogether and writers calling for stupidly strict enforcement and the stripping of immunity from online content providers in regards to what their users say. hm yes speech censorship wasn't a thing until tumblr activists started shaming racists, good point and what about my first amendment rights to call obama a race traitor murdering rapist on the local news comment section. i demand action *pounds fist on table*
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:I should have guessed this thread would have tumbled into gamergate bullshit within 3 pages. Congrats, apparently the greatest threat to free speech in modern times is hosted in the bowels of twitter, tumblr, and 4chan. well when you ask the average internet addict what the greatest threat to free speech is in the world today, academically they want to say journalists in non-democratic countries, but before they can form the words some sharp and painful memories about the time @PaisleyPlumper42 called them a limp dicked racist pop up and divert thought
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
i don't really have any good examples of what i'm talking about so i'm just going to quote the popehat gamergate guy to make my arguments for me. what were we talking about again?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
natetimm posted:There's an entire movement going on right now to gut commets sections and lots of sites are on board with it. Vox turned off their commets, for example. maybe this is because comments are usually worthless and a waste of resources and not because of some chilling feminist conspiracy to destroy gamer culture in the future we can only defend the first amendment if every news organization provides a space for randos to call each other retards and bitches. these are the sacrifices we must make to protect our ideals. i long to see a day where the niggerstomper58 post is regarded as highly as the gettysburg address
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
natetimm posted:It further cements the means of communication into the hands of billion-dollar media outlets and limits the amount of pushback they receive. The entire point of the internet is to facilitate the communication of ideas between people, if you let a select few organizations lock down the traffic and the discussion, it just goes back to being similar to TV and the samey news culture that surrounded it. It's both sides of the aisle shrugging as their options are more and more limited because someone is convincing them it's screwing over someone they don't like. It's not in anyone's best interests, really. it's true, we had no way of discussing issues with each other before comment sections were invented
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
someone should really invent a way for people to share ideas on the internet that doesn't rely on comment sections. maybe something like the old roman forums, or some board for discussion, or even a place where people can just collect in one room and chat idly. i bet if someone came up with that they'd make a million smackers
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
natetimm posted:I'm saying comments , not the uploading of things like child porn. You don't see how things like holding google responsible for things they link to that could be potentially defamatory is bad? How much talking do you think SA would permit if it were forced to be held legally responsible for the statements of its posters. How many times has noted forums drama queen Effectronica threatened to kill someone over politics on this site? How long would management let controversial topics continue if they had law enforcement or lawyers beating down their door every time he did it? so you're saying we should bring back LF
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
natetimm posted:I think the people cheering on their elimination are obviously interested in maintaining their opinions and views as the sole output of their respective sites, but I don't think it's limited to the left wing. Breitbart itself was known for deleting opposing opinions and hating gamers before their new tactic of embracing comments and gamers, so I'm not dim enough to believe they're doing anything but promoting their own self-interest. However, studies have been done showing that comments left either in support or critical of online articles can cause the reader to have a negative view of the article. It's a real statement on how stupid some outlets think their readership is that they must be protected from contrary opinions. It's reaching an almost religious fervor at this point. ladies and gentlemen, behold: a man who thinks that the average comment left on a news site is well considered, thoughtfully crafted, and intended to spark civil discussion
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
i just simply cannot tolerate a world where liberals can write biased propaganda about property tax millage rates and water service outages while not permitting me to point out that the water line broke because obama is a kenyan socialist hellbent on destroying america's proud white traditions
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Some sites are worse than others, but generally comments sections are OK if you're capable of looking for substantial content. Sorting through white noise and dumb responses isn't really that difficult and really if it's worth it to people to delete comments entirely because of that inconvenience then they are probably giant babies. i'm not confident in your ability to accurately judge substantial content or the relative merit of opinions
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Your comparison to newspapers is dishonest because the amount of time, effort and resources required to do what you're describing is astronomical, while doing it on a site is much easier. Again, that's the entire point of the internet, to make communication cheaper and easier. Reinstalling the old system of dominant media presenting their more slanted than ever coverage unopposed isn't good for anyone. you do realize that people are capable of communicating without the internet, right? like people talk to each other actually irl, face to face, in person, and are capable of sharing their opinions with each other. this happens frequently. hell, i'd wager to say that the majority of human communication does not take place via internet comments. i'd bet money on that
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
natetimm i am deadly serious here. do you actually speak to anyone offline because at this point i'm not exactly sure that you do given your apocalyptic concern with the lack of internet comments re: humans fundamental ability to share thoughts
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:I made the mandatory trigger warning joke in the OP but I swear to Christ if you fuckers make this all about gamergate I will lock this thread and push it in the lake. Actual issues that matter please. who are you to say that anti gamergate SJWism isn't the biggest threat to free speech, fascist
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Look, you guy aren't the first group of people aggressively cheer the loss of your rights and privileges, you just have the distinction of having more information regarding it available to you than any other generation. The argument against comments sections is the same one against free speech i.e. "Some people will use it to do things I don't like". When the argument gets to the point where you would rather silence everyone for the sake of silencing those people, maybe you're too personally involved in hating the caricature of people you disagree with. Maybe you're allowing yourself to be manipulated into being a partisan tool. when was the last time the sun kissed your bare skin
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
natetimm posted:I live at the beach and surf, swim or hike almost every day. I will admit to sitting in a dark apartment with all the blinds drawn at the moment, but it's hot a gently caress here. sorry, i'm too busy giving/recieving orgasm exchanges with my model girlfriend to read this post so if internet comments voluntarily fall out of popularity, do you see any alternatives for people to be able to share ideas with each other? maybe some kind of 'paper internet' where people can write down what they want to say and other people then read it somehow? maybe put the words up on a wall with a projector?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
if you don't think the way i do, then maybe - consider this - you're being manipulated by a conspiracy to think incorrectly. you should be a smart guy free thinker, like me, who's right about topics
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
natetimm posted:Does something really voluntarily fall out of popularity when the only people who no longer like it are the thin-skinned pseudo journalists writing the articles? uh yeah that's definition of voluntary. just because you're being a partisan tool being mad at a caricature doesn't suddenly get the government involved in a news organization's realization that comment sections only foster bitter weirdos
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
natetimm posted:I think once media companies reach a certain amount of control over the market where they run a near-monopoly and conspire with each other to maintain it, they should be subjected to the same types of laws that the government is subject to. Watching leftists tie themselves in a knot to suck corporate dick will never stop being amusing to me. so just to make this clear, you really do believe that the removal of comment sections is just an additional barrier thrown around the towering edifece of corporate speech and a way to disenfranchise the little guy from being able to participate in public life that's irl what keeps you up at night comment sections as the last battlefield of free expression
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:lmao and what minority are you in natetimm christian white straight male, obvs. the most hated group in america
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
natetimm posted:It doesn't keep me up at night, but I certainly think it's being done so the writers for those sites can present their views without disagreement. Blaming their elimination on troll or low-content posts is just a convenient excuse to eliminate any sort of discussion. so just to keep it clear, you think that most comment sections are full of well considered posts that are worth reading, comprehending, and responding to in turn this is what you believe. this is your argument that you're making and, having made this argument, expect people to take you seriously
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
*drinks unfiltered sewage from a plastic cup* "i dont' even know why we have an FDA. in my experience, people are pretty good at judging for themselves what's fit to drink" (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:You trying to pin him down with taking a coherent position is an abrogation of his right to shitpost all the time. Fascists. really the question at this point is if he has a consistent ideological underpinning or if he's just looking to get pissy at cultural marxists on behalf of comment sections i mean as funny as it would be if he actually had some kind of argument it's probably even funnier that he's just getting high blood pressure over the stalinistic thought policing that is not being able to blast racial slurs on the local news website
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 23:39
|
|
|
possibly the funniest scenario is that natetimm thinks he's skewering a bunch of coward liberals with his insanely profound truth bombs his continued desire to go to bat for the sacred integrity of literal shitposting as a mechanism to advance democracy indicates that he is likely just high as hell on his own farts, and his inability to disengage from this absurd dogpile indicates a compulsion to be right by all means necessary even if it comes down to pumping out pureed secondhand arguments and buzzwordy jargon about ethics there's really not many other reasons for someone to argue so sincerely and repeatedly that people remove comment sections because they're afraid of dissent boner confessor fucked around with this message at 23:46 on Nov 1, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
natetimm posted:You are a shining example of a bad faith poster who boils every person with an opposing viewpoint down into some sort of caricature you've taught yourself to intensely hate. Also, anyone who regularly posts in D&D accusing someone of being high on their own farts is projecting all over the motherfuckin' place. yeah, but you think people are scared of the shining truth of comment sections. most people regard comments as a horrible pit full of misspelled anger but you, because you are apparently a lone genius, see them for what they really are - a rising manifesto of glory akin to copeland's fanfare for the common man so now i'm just wondering if you think this is some kind of clever troll or you, against all odds, really are this ill informed
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
natetimm posted:You are posting this in a comments section. wait, so by comment section you think people mean "the internet as a whole"? are you not aware of the definition of comment section as apparently everyone but you defines it or are you just so drat desperate to not get clowned in a d&d slapfight here that you're willing to pretend you don't know
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 23:50
|
|
|
pretending you're suddenly unaware of the definition of terms previously used in an argument is a bold and unorthodox debate tactic, i commend your ability to think on your feet and adapt to new circumstances
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
7c Nickel posted:Note the use of the word "objective", an ancient word of power that screens him from ever having to accept any examples if someone tries to engage him. if you put any effort into meeting his requirements he'll suddenly have a touch of amnesia and claim that you weren't conforming to his particular and unique definition of objective the man's a maverick i tell you, he's unstoppable
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2015 23:56
|
|
|
natetimm has a point. as a straight white man who rarely ventures outside of his house, i don't see the harm that negative social contact can do to others. elminiating all social contact altogether is far more efficient anyway
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 00:12
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:Do you count emotional harm as harm or do you discount it? Is emotional harm impossible? there's no such thing as emotional harm if you're autistic. checkmate, feelings havers
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I want to remind you that you said, and I quote, "hate speech never killed anybody". I gave you a concrete example of hate speech killing huge numbers of people, and you turned it into a joke. Because you're incapable of looking at yourself critical for fear of recognizing yourself for the monster you are. All you had to say was, "ok, yes, I was exaggerating when I said hate speech never killed anybody, and those deaths are all tragedies" but nope, you decided to speak from the heart and tell us how you really felt. Now all you can do is own up to it. it's almost like natetimm is a congenitally retarded person who has a habit of using words incorrectly and is terrified of authoritarian feminism lurking around every corner this is why he is so vocally resistant to the idea of people not having a platform to screech idiocy in public
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:It always staggers me how progressives, who generally understand that hierarchies and systems of power tend to trample the rights of the oppressed, occasionally forget this and argue in favor of granting broad power to suppress dissent to those same authorities. If hate speech laws pass in the United States, don't act surprised when they're first used to punish people who criticize Christian megachurches. Why would the State, which is generally correctly identified as a racist, sexist and violent organization, apply hate speech laws in an egalitarian way that protects the rights of the minority? given that we have hate speech laws on the books and none of this has come true,
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
Small Frozen Thing posted:This thread has certainly been enlightening. it's refreshing from time to time to get a peek into exactly how dysfunctional thought processes work and how they can lead to aberrant opinions you only have to provoke someone into showing their work to identify where it all goes wrong
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 00:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 09:35 |
|
|
Silver2195 posted:Where are you talking about? Hate speech (as opposed to hate crime) laws are legally unenforceable anywhere in the US, and in every country that does have hate speech laws, they have been abused to prosecute people who fell well short of actually inciting violence. good, people who engage in hate speech are overwhelmingly unpopular weirdos who need to cloak themselves as rights advocates in order to pretend that they aren't just social outcasts
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 01:04
|
|