I have no problem with offensive speech being censored on a privately run website.
If you don't like it, there are many other forums out there that you can go to instead.
If you don't like it, there are many other forums out there that you can go to instead.
darkknight109 posted...
I have no problem with offensive speech being censored on a privately run website.
If you don't like it, there are many other forums out there that you can go to instead.
darkknight109 posted...
If you don't like it, there are many other forums out there that you can go to instead.
https://www.reddit.com/r/gamefaqs/
Equating internet moderations to censorship is a bit like calling someone who isn't a vegetarian a mass murderer
darkknight109 posted...
Equating internet moderations to censorship is a bit like calling someone who isn't a vegetarian a mass murderer
Saying censorship is beating people in to submission if not murdering is like saying assault is only when you're put in intensive care.
Kyuubi4269 posted...
darkknight109 posted...
Equating internet moderations to censorship is a bit like calling someone who isn't a vegetarian a mass murderer
Saying censorship is beating people in to submission if not murdering is like saying assault is only when you're put in intensive care.
If you want to talk about censorship as some great evil, though, you need to use the term only when it is actually being used for evil. Crying about how the nasty admins won't let you post a racist meme just devalues the whole phrase and makes actually damaging forms of censorship sound like more whining instead of something to actually be alarmed about.
How about being suspended for 2 weeks for saying gender dysphoria is a mental illness? You know, like how it's classified?
The mods censor dissenting opinions so there is reason to see it as immoral.
You know, I find it very strange how much of a hard-on the internet generation has for so-called "censorship", when most of what is being complained about isn't in any way comparable to actual censorship.
Let's be clear: "censorship" is supposed to mean the active suppression of facts and/or dissent, usually undertaken to solidify the grasp on power held by some party or autocrat. Censorship frequently involves not just the stifling of discourse and the editing or silencing of troublesome voices, but also violence, intimidation, and sometimes downright murder. It is an action undertaken by totalitarian regimes, it causes hardship, and it impedes progress.
Breaking the rules, fair, next.
It would be just as immoral if you got thrown out of a theatre for shouting "I hate black people!" at the top of your lungs - which is to say, not immoral at all.
You know, I find it very strange how much of a hard-on the internet generation has for so-called "censorship", when most of what is being complained about isn't in any way comparable to actual censorship.
Let's be clear: "censorship" is supposed to mean the active suppression of facts and/or dissent, usually undertaken to solidify the grasp on power held by some party or autocrat. Censorship frequently involves not just the stifling of discourse and the editing or silencing of troublesome voices, but also violence, intimidation, and sometimes downright murder. It is an action undertaken by totalitarian regimes, it causes hardship, and it impedes progress.
Having a post moderated on GameFAQs isn't censorship - that's just called a ToS violation. It means you broke the rules you agreed to follow when you signed up for this 100% completely free-to-use site. In the same way that if you shouted "piss cock balls fuck" in the middle of a fancy restaurant you would be asked to leave, you are not being censored so much as you are being taken to task for being an asshole and violating the rules of decent human conduct.
Equating internet moderations to censorship is a bit like calling someone who isn't a vegetarian a mass murderer - you're ridiculously blowing the former out of proportion and dis-empowering the label that's supposed to be used for the latter.
As for "impeding progress," I'm just going to laugh. Whenever you see something you dislike, you claim that it's against progress
There's no rule that says you have to believe transgender people are the gender their dong is not representative of.
Firstly, you'd get thrown out for shouting anything for being disruptive.
Secondly, a more accurate example would be whispering to your friend "Black people have ancestors in Africa." and being thrown out for disagreeing with their opinion that black people are actually aliens from the planet zarg.
You know, I find it very strange how much of a hard-on the internet generation has for so-called "censorship", when most of what is being complained about isn't in any way comparable to actual censorship.
Let's be clear: "censorship" is supposed to mean the active suppression of facts and/or dissent, usually undertaken to solidify the grasp on power held by some party or autocrat. Censorship frequently involves not just the stifling of discourse and the editing or silencing of troublesome voices, but also violence, intimidation, and sometimes downright murder. It is an action undertaken by totalitarian regimes, it causes hardship, and it impedes progress.
Having a post moderated on GameFAQs isn't censorship - that's just called a ToS violation. It means you broke the rules you agreed to follow when you signed up for this 100% completely free-to-use site. In the same way that if you shouted "piss cock balls fuck" in the middle of a fancy restaurant you would be asked to leave, you are not being censored so much as you are being taken to task for being an asshole and violating the rules of decent human conduct.
Equating internet moderations to censorship is a bit like calling someone who isn't a vegetarian a mass murderer - you're ridiculously blowing the former out of proportion and dis-empowering the label that's supposed to be used for the latter.
You're right, there isn't. Fortunately, you weren't modded for what you believe; you were modded for what you said, and there's definitely a rule against saying that sort of stuff. In fact, it happens to be Rule #1.
And they would be 100% within their rights to do so.
Calling everything you disagree with offensive is pretty immoral, after all by that logic you would be modded for arguing with me.
Being allowed to do something doesn't make it moral.
Gamefaqs moderators DO have a tendency to moderate and delete posts of forum users that do NOT break the ToS. They do this to attempt to censor people they do not agree with in order to prevent others from hearing an objective opinion. These moderators are in a position of power and they DO use it to censor people unjustly. I myself have had about four moderations overturned when I requested a different mod read a case. I know I'm not the only one.
Kyuubi4269 posted...
The mods censor dissenting opinions so there is reason to see it as immoral.
It would be just as immoral if you got thrown out of a theatre for shouting "I hate black people!" at the top of your lungs - which is to say, not immoral at all.
Who gets to decide what is or isn't offensive?
morals aren't defined by open debate
Because you're disrupting the movie, not because you're offensive
If you mark posts, you are the guy making disruptive noises in the theater who is justifiably removed.
The only way we can come to conclusions to what sane morality is is through open discussion and exchange of information. It's either that or violence. I choose discussion.
I have heard complaints about how liberal Facebook is and whatnot and retorts includes telling said complainers to make their own conservative version of Facebook.
Is censorship of offensive speech on gamefaqs "morally" sound?"Of course it is, moron; now shut up."
Calling everything you disagree with offensive is pretty immoral
You should not get to decide that they deserve to be censored for everyone else.
there really is no good argument,
There are very many good arguments against the formation of echo chambers.
Considering that it's biased in favour of SJWs, no.