|
Yeah FWIW I don't think they're a nazi I think it was a joke that misfired badly, so I don't think a permaban is necessarily warranted, but certainly some kind of bad joke tax sure. Some days you miss but there's missing and hitting the wall and there's missing and somehow painting a swastika on the wall.
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 17:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 15:35 |
|
|
No, opinions you don’t like don’t deserve bans if they are articulated with arguments. Thats the whole idea here. You retort with flaws in the points and then leave it be. If their arguments don’t have any basis, then you probe for not bringing anything to the table other than hateful, exclusionary feelings. But not until that’s made abundantly clear. The reality is there’s always some misunderstanding in-between, the gray area. Some folk’s method of getting to that may be making an outlandish claim and waiting for the entire internet to tell them why they’re wrong-they are just less empathic, not necessarily bad faith or trolling. But only if they tackle the points brought forward. That’s D&D Short one liners, reductivism, etc. are all social tools used to bully. You can say you feel okay bullying Nazis, go do so in GBS or CSPAM. These are leftist tools for control, acting no different than Nazis, just with a different target. That’s not debating or discussing. Calling someone a Nazi should not be okay unless you take the effort to compare their arguments with those historically made by the reich. Calling someone a Nazi doesn’t change them. Banning doesn’t either. Showing them how their arguments mirror Nazi principles might. This goes the other way too If the effect of your argument is to turn anyone you dislike into a ‘ist’ to nullify their opinion you aren’t debating or discussing. Way too much of this going on here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 17:44
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:It's an interesting one because that was in the UKMT where we are allowed to C-SPAM post as well as D&D post and the general rule is only our IKs are allowed to mete out punishment. Jose Valasquez posted:My feedback is that saying hitler had a point about the jews should be more than a 1 day probe This one would normally be up to the UKMT IKs, as it's a regional thread where D&D's generally mods don't normally step in. I'm not sure why GJB probed it instead of them. Gumball Gumption posted:Honestly looks like an extra-judicial shot since at worst it's white noise posting, 2.b I believe. Good probe under common sense but goes against how D&D is supposed to operate. They obviously are not trolling, they lack the rap sheet and have posters saying they're generally a good poster in that thread. It's in good faith and it doesn't seem like they expected the response or were intentionally poo poo stirring. VitalSigns posted:Skimming their post history they do not seem to be a Nazi (I realize I am risking savage mockery if my skimming was too brief and I missed a bunch of Nazi posts), and it was just a *very* tasteless joke, so maybe they dont need to be punished like an actual Nazi, but looking at what other people have gotten for much less, it should probably be more than a day to joke that doing the Holocaust was a good idea. Tesseraction posted:Yeah FWIW I don't think they're a nazi I think it was a joke that misfired badly, so I don't think a permaban is necessarily warranted, but certainly some kind of bad joke tax sure. Some days you miss but there's missing and hitting the wall and there's missing and somehow painting a swastika on the wall. That was my impression as well, that the user was trying to make a joke but isn't very smart.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 17:47
|
|
|
I think it's OK to ban people who post like they're in /pol/ or some sewage subreddit. Or is Holocaust cheerleading just a minor faux pax as long as it's "ironic"? That quoted post wasn't even a joke/humor, where's the punchline? Edit: If I post "Kanye West makes me think abolition was a mistake," maybe that is absurd enough to be a terrible joke. If I say "Those looting thugs in San Francisco make me think abolition was a mistake," that just makes me sound like a MAGA psycho. Quixzlizx fucked around with this message at 17:53 on Nov 8, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 17:50
|
|
|
Mid-Life Crisis posted:No, opinions you don’t like don’t deserve bans if they are articulated with arguments. Thats the whole idea here. You retort with flaws in the points and then leave it be. If their arguments don’t have any basis, then you probe for not bringing anything to the table other than hateful, exclusionary feelings. But not until that’s made abundantly clear. The reality is there’s always some misunderstanding in-between, the gray area. Some folk’s method of getting to that may be making an outlandish claim and waiting for the entire internet to tell them why they’re wrong-they are just less empathic, not necessarily bad faith or trolling. But only if they tackle the points brought forward. That’s D&D Feel pretty ok bullying Nazis in D&D, actually. Edit: Mid-Life Crisis posted:Calling someone a Nazi doesn’t change them. Banning doesn’t either. Showing them how their arguments mirror Nazi principles might. This goes the other way too At least we're acknowledging that the goal is to allow Nazis to present their arguments on equal ground with non-fascist ideology. Seems good, actually. mutata fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Nov 8, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 17:50
|
|
|
mutata posted:Feel pretty ok bullying Nazis
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 17:52
|
|
|
Glad we're focusing on the jurisdictional issues instead of the fact the guy who said hitler had a point only got a 1 day probe. D&D at its finest
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 17:54
|
|
|
Mid-Life Crisis posted:No, opinions you don’t like don’t deserve bans if they are articulated with arguments. Thats the whole idea here. You retort with flaws in the points and then leave it be. If their arguments don’t have any basis, then you probe for not bringing anything to the table other than hateful, exclusionary feelings. But not until that’s made abundantly clear. The reality is there’s always some misunderstanding in-between, the gray area. Some folk’s method of getting to that may be making an outlandish claim and waiting for the entire internet to tell them why they’re wrong-they are just less empathic, not necessarily bad faith or trolling. But only if they tackle the points brought forward. That’s D&D This guy has terrible ideas but at least understands the rules of D&D and the Koos vision
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 17:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I am curious why all the people responding in ways that also broke the rules weren't punished though, when people were warned before to be civil to a guy spouting actual Nazi race science or get punished themselves. Honestly, please feel free to probe me for telling the guy to shut the gently caress up. It's insane that that post almost went completely unpunished.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 18:00
|
|
|
I think my whining that it should have been did eventually persuade the IKs to intervene rather than leave it to D&D mods next time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 18:05
|
|
|
Mid-Life Crisis posted:No, opinions you don’t like don’t deserve bans if they are articulated with arguments. Thats the whole idea here. You retort with flaws in the points and then leave it be. If their arguments don’t have any basis, then you probe for not bringing anything to the table other than hateful, exclusionary feelings. But not until that’s made abundantly clear. The reality is there’s always some misunderstanding in-between, the gray area. Some folk’s method of getting to that may be making an outlandish claim and waiting for the entire internet to tell them why they’re wrong-they are just less empathic, not necessarily bad faith or trolling. But only if they tackle the points brought forward. That’s D&D I'd like to use this post as an example of why rule I.B.1 (respond only to what was said) exists. You'll notice Mr. Crisis' points do not make sense as a response to calls for action against the unintelligent UKMT poster, because the latter was not serious, not articulated with arguments, and if taken at face value was unambiguously pro-Nazi. If I may be so bold as to take a guess at another user's motivation, this is because Mr. Crisis has been dying to make the argument you see above for quite some time, and is using this poor fit as the opportunity. And this is unfortunately common in online discourse. There are a large number of people who want badly to have a specific argument, even when no one is making the opposing argument. They may have seen it elsewhere, or even merely heard about it from a pundit/podcast/tweet, but it isn't occurring currently. It also sometimes involves talking about an ideology in general, or a thread consensus, with nothing specific quoted, which Mr. Crisis did as well, not quoting any specific posts but beginning his post as if he is talking to someone. This of course leads to demands on someone that they defend something they didn't actually say, or ambiguity about whether someone is being called out, and is not productive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 18:09
|
|
|
Mid-Life Crisis posted:No, opinions you don’t like don’t deserve bans if they are articulated with arguments. Thats the whole idea here. You retort with flaws in the points and then leave it be. If their arguments don’t have any basis, then you probe for not bringing anything to the table other than hateful, exclusionary feelings. But not until that’s made abundantly clear. The reality is there’s always some misunderstanding in-between, the gray area. Some folk’s method of getting to that may be making an outlandish claim and waiting for the entire internet to tell them why they’re wrong-they are just less empathic, not necessarily bad faith or trolling. But only if they tackle the points brought forward. That’s D&D I tend to agree most of the time and I think this forum goes too far in enforcing a band of acceptable political opinion and treating positions outside of it as inherently suspucious, but there's a balance you have to strike as well. This isn't just a regional debate competition between strangers, it's also a community, and people post here because they get something out if it, entertainment or education or whatever. If it becomes unpleasant, they leave, and most Jewish people i know do not think it is fun or entertaining to debate whether they are a scheming parasitic degenerate race who should all be murdered. If they come to a place and are told that, they will probably leave and not come back, no matter how well-sourced the claims that they should be gassed to death are nor how "well-intentioned" the interlocutors. So then it becomes a question of who we would rather hang out with: our Jewish friends, our LGBTQ friends, our black friends, etc. Or offputting debate-me-bros who enjoy discussing whether the Holocaust was a good idea that didn't go far enough. I also don't agree that the only way, or even a good way, to learn is to stake out an extreme position in total ignorance in hopes that people will yell at you in a didactic enough manner to teach you. In my experience that tends to impede learning, because once you stake out a position you can easily become emotionally invested in defending it in order to avoid 'losing',: searching for sources that confirm your position, discounting rebuttals, and so on. Learning can also happen by posing questions and collaborating in discussion without making it into an adversarial contest. If I was introduced to an epidemiologist, and I wanted to learn about epidemiology, I would ask them questions. I would not 'learn' by adopting the contrarian position that germ theory is wrong and start citing sources that all disease comes from an imbalance between the four bodily humours, because the other person is much more likely to just write me off as a waste of time than spend their day trying to disprove pseudoscience to me to my satisfaction. E: also, what Koos said about Mid-Life Crisis' post not actually being a response to anything anyone else actually argued, since the Hitler post was a shitpost and not a serious argument with a proper bibliography. Just explaining why I would disagree with hosting pro-Holocaust arguments even if they were formatted like a research paper. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:05 on Nov 8, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 18:16
|
|
|
I’m not even sure UKMT discussion belongs in this thread. I know it’s technically in D&D but it’s pretty much its own thing AND THATS HOW WE LIKE IT LOCAL THREADS FOR LOCAL PEOPLE etc. (this is a joke come post with us)
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 18:32
|
|
|
Jakabite posted:I’m not even sure UKMT discussion belongs in this thread. I know it’s technically in D&D but it’s pretty much its own thing AND THATS HOW WE LIKE IT LOCAL THREADS FOR LOCAL PEOPLE etc. (this is a joke come post with us) Yes, it's probably not the ideal place. If one wants to resolve a UKMT issue, the best way would be to PM one of the IKs or if they feel it necessary, email the admins.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 18:33
|
|
|
I was under the impression that Freedom of Movement to and from the UK has ended, they should have to get a visa to post anywhere else E: unless they come here through the Irish thread of course
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 18:35
|
|
|
Ah, so the unironic fash-posting has been traced to the UKMT thread and ultimately determined that it's not D&D mods' problem.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 18:48
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:This one would normally be up to the UKMT IKs, as it's a regional thread where D&D's generally mods don't normally step in. I'm not sure why GJB probed it instead of them. In that instance the only two responses I felt would be appropriate would either be a ban, if they're actually a nazi rather than making an extremely stupid "joke", or something more serious than just giving them a sixer, which I think is the only thing I can actually give as an IK? So I told them directly that if they ever posted anything like that again I would do my utmost to have them banned. If you get a report for something like that and you want to ban them for it I would hardly argue against it for jurisdictional reasons? Like yeah I don't think we need any of the daft procedural stuff enforcing but if you see a report for someone making a joke about maybe hitler was right and you want to just ban them for it rather than asking them what the gently caress first, fair enough? I would simply not make jokes about hitler being right if I didn't want to be banned. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Nov 8, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 18:54
|
|
|
Mid-Life Crisis posted:No, opinions you don’t like don’t deserve bans if they are articulated with arguments. Thats the whole idea here. You retort with flaws in the points and then leave it be. If their arguments don’t have any basis, then you probe for not bringing anything to the table other than hateful, exclusionary feelings. But not until that’s made abundantly clear. The reality is there’s always some misunderstanding in-between, the gray area. Some folk’s method of getting to that may be making an outlandish claim and waiting for the entire internet to tell them why they’re wrong-they are just less empathic, not necessarily bad faith or trolling. But only if they tackle the points brought forward. That’s D&D This is indistinguishable from the infamous Cyrano-PCOS Bill "more of this please!" mod stance. Well-articulated racist/genocidal/etc. arguments shouldn't be welcomed!
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 19:18
|
|
|
mutata posted:Ah, so the unironic fash-posting has been traced to the UKMT thread and ultimately determined that it's not D&D mods' problem. I don't believe it's unironic, and yes, our policy is that we allow UKMT to handle its own affairs. OwlFancier posted:In that instance the only two responses I felt would be appropriate would either be a ban, if they're actually a nazi, or something more serious than just giving them a sixer, which I think is the only thing I can actually give as an IK? So I told them directly that if they ever posted anything like that again I would do my utmost to have them banned. As an IK, a sixer is the only thing that goes through instantly, but you can queue anything and it's likely to be approved.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 19:19
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:I don't believe it's unironic, and yes, our policy is that we allow UKMT to handle its own affairs. What's the logical fallacy where someone presents a point, introduces an example, then the opponent only argues semantics of the example and purposefully avoids the actual point? Pretty sure that's in the list somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 19:31
|
|
|
mutata posted:What's the logical fallacy where someone presents a point, introduces an example, then the opponent only argues semantics of the example and purposefully avoids the actual point? Pretty sure that's in the list somewhere. I was not purposely avoiding your point. I understood it to be that there is a post in the UKMT thread you find objectionable and feel D&D mods should do something about it, and I attempted to address that directly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 19:37
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:I was not purposely avoiding your point. I understood it to be that there is a post in the UKMT thread you find objectionable and feel D&D mods should do something about it, and I attempted to address that directly. Ah, my mistake. The point is this one: Jose Valasquez posted:Glad we're focusing on the jurisdictional issues instead of the fact the guy who said hitler had a point only got a 1 day probe. This is hardly unique to the UKMT thread, and is in fact D&D policy as I understand it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 19:40
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:on the subject of ramping, i think there's a currently ongoing example of someone who just keeps getting short probes over and over for doing the same poo poo constantly, despite the fact that the short probes and mild rapsheet scoldings clearly aren't working The fact that the act is named after the poster suggests the mods have attributed an endearing quality to this gimmick, which is probably why they won't ramp.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 19:44
|
|
|
I do not personally think that if you would consider something to be a "site wide issue" as in:quote:Though positions are not moderated in D&D, all SA rules such as those regarding bigotry apply fully. If you see something you believe has no place on the site, this is a sitewide issue rather than merely a D&D one, and you should contact the admins at forumadmins@somethingawful.com. That which thread it is in would greatly matter? My response is probably always going to be to ask people what the gently caress they're doing before using buttons, as the poster in question made one monumentally stupid post and then apparently cringed themselves out of existence that, to me, achieves the same thing as anything I can do to keep them out of the thread. They are not continuing to cause problems and I assume they understand that nobody in UKMT is going to want to give them the time of day and that seems to be enough to make them not post there any more. But if you would like to take a site-wide or even forum-wide position that that sort of thing is bannable (which I don't honestly know if it even is, I don't run the forum, I have no idea what its stance on "maybe hitler was right" is) I don't see why the specific thread would make a difference? I assume you got reports about it, it's entirely up to you if you want to do that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 19:48
|
|
|
Mid-Life Crisis posted:No, opinions you don’t like don’t deserve bans if they are articulated with arguments. Thats the whole idea here. You retort with flaws in the points and then leave it be. If their arguments don’t have any basis, then you probe for not bringing anything to the table other than hateful, exclusionary feelings. But not until that’s made abundantly clear. The reality is there’s always some misunderstanding in-between, the gray area. Some folk’s method of getting to that may be making an outlandish claim and waiting for the entire internet to tell them why they’re wrong-they are just less empathic, not necessarily bad faith or trolling. But only if they tackle the points brought forward. That’s D&D Bullying Nazis online is no different than being a Nazi?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 19:56
|
|
|
Reik posted:Bullying Nazis online is no different than being a Nazi? Hitler was killed by a Nazi, so it checks out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 20:26
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I do not personally think that if you would consider something to be a "site wide issue" as in: Yes, if someone deems something worthy of admin attention they can take it to the admins regardless of what thread it's in (or even which forum). It is not, however, up to us (meaning D&D mods) what to do with posts in your thread, even if we get reports about it, due to the arrangement we've had for some time where you are self-governed. mutata posted:Ah, my mistake. The point is this one: Yes, positions aren't moderated in D&D, even the worst ones, though that post also would have been hit in D&D proper for other reasons. This is because doing so makes moderators arbiters of what's good and right, which in turn makes moderation much more difficult, makes rule enforcement issues into political issues, and stifles debate. For a more in-depth explanation of my reasoning, I would recommend using search to find my posts which say "moderate positions" or variations thereof. Because this policy has been debated extensively it is unlikely to change.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 20:26
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:
So the problem with joking that the Holocaust was a good idea is the "joking" part? If they had instead put it forth as a serious thesis with supporting arguments backed by citations to historical writings on the Jewish Question, would that fly in the name of not stifling debate? And if so, why was the "mods enjoy eating their own feces" thread closed, that is certainly a position which is open to falsification and therefore possible for reasonable people to debate, yet you seemed to have no trouble determining what is right or wrong to argue there
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 20:35
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So the problem with joking that the Holocaust was a good idea is the "joking" part? You've done it - your inescapable logic has trapped the mods in the Phantom Zone and you are now the King of Posting
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 20:39
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:Yes, positions aren't moderated in D&D, even the worst ones, though that post also would have been hit in D&D proper for other reasons. This is because doing so makes moderators arbiters of what's good and right, which in turn makes moderation much more difficult, makes rule enforcement issues into political issues, and stifles debate. For a more in-depth explanation of my reasoning, I would recommend using search to find my posts which say "moderate positions" or variations thereof. Because this policy has been debated extensively it is unlikely to change. This moderation philosophy seems to embody the idea of "perfect is the enemy of good". You're struggling so hard to achieve perfectly objective moderation that you're forgetting that a moderator is supposed to be someone that applies their judgment, which is inherently subjective.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 20:40
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So the problem with joking that the Holocaust was a good idea is the "joking" part? If it had occurred in UKMT, I don't know, but in D&D proper, yes. Seeing Nazi or antisemitic arguments and their refutations could be quite informative, particularly with the outbreak of this ideology in the past decade, as it would help people not only recognize them but argue against them elsewhere. VitalSigns posted:And if so, why was the "mods enjoy eating their own feces" thread closed, that is certainly a position which is open to falsification and therefore possible for reasonable people to debate, yet you seemed to have no trouble determining what is right or wrong to argue there That thread was closed because it was done in bad faith. The user did not believe mods eat feces, or that productive discussion could be had on the matter. Its intent was only to demonstrate hypocrisy regarding D&D moderation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 20:41
|
|
|
Reik posted:This moderation philosophy seems to embody the idea of "perfect is the enemy of good". You're struggling so hard to achieve perfectly objective moderation that you're forgetting that a moderator is supposed to be someone that applies their judgment, which is inherently subjective. The goal is not perfect objectivity. The goal is that a mod's judgement is employed in matters of whether something is interesting, whether someone is being sincere, whether something is damaging discussion, and that sort of thing. Rather than our judgement being employed to give unassailable answers to political, philosophical or scientific questions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 20:44
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:Yes, positions aren't moderated in D&D, even the worst ones, though that post also would have been hit in D&D proper for other reasons. The thing is, specific positions are going to be inconsistent, bad faith, and incoherent as an essential characteristic of the specific position. If a romantic is looking back to and attempting to bring back a past that never actually existed, that’s always eventual going to break your rules. It’s always eventually in bad faith. It’s always starting from a broken myth, and it’s root it’s already rebutted because the idealized past never actually existed. I don’t think it matters which romanticism either. Maga romanticism about the fifties or folks looking back to Stalin and the USSR. It starts at point where the rules are already being broken.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 20:45
|
|
|
I guess what I’m trying to say is anything a calm Hitler argues is bad faith and appealing to fake story from the very start.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 20:48
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:The thing is, specific positions are going to be inconsistent, bad faith, and incoherent as an essential characteristic of the specific position. That is exactly the point. Having absurd, unsupportable positions means that, at least ideally, when these positions are refuted, they will be forced to either give up or resort to dishonest tactics to continue the argument, and the dishonest tactics are what is moderated. That is how one hopes truth and goodness comes to the fore in a debate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 20:49
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:The thing is, specific positions are going to be inconsistent, bad faith, and incoherent as an essential characteristic of the specific position. This doesn’t do much to separate romanticism from learning from history. I don’t want to live in Maoist China, but that doesn’t mean we have nothing to learn from Mao. They wrote a ton of material we might find relevant and useful today, regardless of differing goals. It’s not romanticism to read those works and say “here’s why this tactic works, how it’s worked in the past, and how it might be applicable today.”
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 20:49
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:I'd like to use this post as an example of why rule I.B.1 (respond only to what was said) exists. You'll notice Mr. Crisis' points do not make sense as a response to calls for action against the unintelligent UKMT poster, because the latter was not serious, not articulated with arguments, and if taken at face value was unambiguously pro-Nazi. If I may be so bold as to take a guess at another user's motivation, this is because Mr. Crisis has been dying to make the argument you see above for quite some time, and is using this poor fit as the opportunity. It’s in response to the multiple calls to just ban people, ban all Nazis, etc. I didn’t quote the pile on because I’m on mobile and lazy. If you want to say the latter is my problem then so be it, but don’t say it wasn’t directed at the recent conversation. I can argue that the actions posters are demanding from moderators is not okay on a philosophical level while not engaging the details of whatever was said by quoted OP.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 20:49
|
|
|
Koos Group posted:If it had occurred in UKMT, I don't know, but in D&D proper, yes. Seeing Nazi or antisemitic arguments and their refutations could be quite informative, particularly with the outbreak of this ideology in the past decade, as it would help people not only recognize them but argue against them elsewhere. Seeing Nazi or anti-semitic arguments and their refutations could be quite informer yes, and that goal could be accomplished by a thread with a historical or philosophical survey of those arguments without anyone actually taking the Nazi position and arguing for murdering millions of people. What is the additional benefit of allowing actual Nazis to advocate Nazi positions, is there any? Koos Group posted:That thread was closed because it was done in bad faith. The user did not believe mods eat feces, or that productive discussion could be had on the matter. Its intent was only to demonstrate hypocrisy regarding D&D moderation. Well since I have seen no evidence either way, I am still undecided on the matter, and seeing the arguments and refutations of possible mod coprophagia could be quite informative.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 20:50
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Seeing Nazi or anti-semitic arguments and their refutations could be quite informer yes, and that goal could be accomplished by a thread with a historical or philosophical survey of those arguments without anyone actually taking the Nazi position and arguing for murdering millions of people. What is the additional benefit of allowing actual Nazis to advocate Nazi positions, is there any? It's the same as the benefit of having any position argued by its actual adherents rather than only summarized or analyzed by others. Getting it straight from the horse's mouth means it is more likely to be similar to what you'll encounter in the real world, and you can see what sort of things they might say in response to criticisms. VitalSigns posted:Well since I have seen no evidence either way, I am still undecided on the matter, and seeing the arguments and refutations of possible mod coprophagia could be quite informative. I would remind you that, though D&D's rules are relaxed here, one of the rules of this thread is still to be honest and post in good faith.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 20:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 15:35 |
|
|
i'd like to see some evidence that the mods don't eat feces.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2023 20:56
|
|
