Lurker > darkknight109

I don't have a smartphone.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

It's awesome, but it has one of the most out-of-place Wilhelm screams ever.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

In no particular order

Lunar: Silver Star Story Complete (PS1)
Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask (N64)
Chrono Trigger (SNES)
Trails of Cold Steel (PS3)
Sonic Adventure (DC)
Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (N64)
TIE Fighter (PC)
Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars (SNES)
Super Smash Bros. Melee (GC)
Sonic 3 & Knuckles (GEN)

And the Top 10 Runners Up:
Phantasy Star Online: Episodes I and II (GC)
Banjo Kazooie (N64)
Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney (DS)
Super Metroid (SNES)
Fantasy Zone (SMS)
Tetris Attack (SNES)
Legend of the Mystical Ninja (SNES)
Final Fantasy VII (PS1)
Super Mario Galaxy (Wii)
To the Moon (PC)
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

omnichaos posted...

So are we not being informed of white supremecist attacks that are happening every single day, multiple times a day? lmao

I wouldn't trust Wiki to say if we were.

Or are you still upset that I've already posted multiple right-wing terrorist attacks that aren't on Wiki? Because I can give you more if that will convince you.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Dash_Harber posted...

omnichaos posted...

And how do you figure that?

Hey, care to respond to the actual topic at hand? Or are you distracted by all the derailing going on?

Don't hold your breath - I think I've got him to respond to three things total so far.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

omnichaos posted...

And how do you figure that?

Because it is.

Seriously, Wikipedia is a crowd-edited website, not an authoritative database on everything. Something only gets added there if someone bothers to add it; there's no one whose job it is to add every terrorist activity in the world to Wikipedia, hence why their list is so full of holes.

I'm kind of amazed I even need to explain that.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

omnichaos posted...

Yes it's surely incomplete, especially with very recent history, but are you also implying that it's biased?

Yes.

omnichaos posted...

That it's more likely to be incomplete in the case of non-Islamic attacks as opposed to Islamic ones?

Yes.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

A bit, yeah. People noted that Aladdin was pretty much drawn Caucasian compared to the more... erm... "ethnic" Jaffar. The big controversy with that movie, however, was a line from the opening song - "Where they cut off your ear if they don't like your face", which was subsequently changed in all home releases of the film to "Where it's flat and immense and the heat is intense".

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee filed a complaint over the movie as a result and the controversy was noted in a few publications.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

omnichaos posted...

So those terrorist attacks didn't happen?

No but a) Wiki is notoriously incomplete when it comes to listing out things like this and b) That doesn't support your original claim that "95%" of terrorism is carried out by Islamic extremists.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

No.

I mean, phrase this another way - if they were attacked and subdued before conducting the attacks and the planes were all safely landed and they were put on trial, do you think they would plead insanity? Do you think that plea would be accepted by anyone?

Almost assuredly not. None of them suffered from mental illness, so far as we know, so they're not insane - evil, but not insane.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

I don't honestly remember.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

omnichaos posted...

There are Islamic terrorist attacks happening on the planet every day darkknight.

*citation needed*

omnichaos posted...

No, most of it happens in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey, and Nigeria. And there have been multiple attacks every day for the month of September so far.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_September_2017

I'm impressed how you managed to ignore the fact that Wiki is not a valid source for your argument even after I pointed out holes in its data multiple times now.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Usually around 120 wpm, but I can hit 130 on a good day.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

omnichaos posted...

The mods refused to look at any evidence themselves, and just assumed it wasn't true

An assumption that happens to be correct.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

PK_Spam posted...

Okay, well... I don't have to win, right?

There's a few other sidequests where party-members will fight each other, but no, nothing like the Richard situation where someone actually leaves the party.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Double voting is illegal, and 196 people are being investigated for casting ballots in New Hampshire and in other states.

I mean, that's the important number there.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Start in the shallow web and just start heading towards the deeper end and you'll get there eventually.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

omnichaos posted...

Can you give 2 or 3 examples that are missing? I noticed that it's missing an anti-cop attack that took place shortly after the Dallas anti-cop attack.

Just off the top of my head

-Daniel Musso (stockpiled explosives and was planning an anti-government attack before being arrested in a sting operation by the FBI)
-William Keebler (arrested in Stockton Utah for trying to blow up a government building in Arizona).
-The Crusaders (an anti-government militia - three of their members were arrested for plotting a truck bomb operation on an apartment complex primarily occupied by Somalis).

Those three are just from the last year, nevermind the last eight that your Wiki article is attempting to cover. And that's not even including the big ones missed, like the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge takeover and standoff by anti-government extremists.

omnichaos posted...

I don't think it's automatically immoral to call someone a prick, because maybe they are a prick. Learn to laugh it off or ignore it, it's not hurting you. I have a problem with it if it's assault (like physical bullying, but it's usually the bully who's being called a prick). Otherwise, get over it. It builds character, makes you tougher, and elevates your sense of humor.

So someone verbally attacking someone isn't immoral (because the victim apparently needs to "man up"), but preventing someone from verbally attacking others is. Got it.

omnichaos posted...

Media organizations silencing speech is also censorship.

You're not being silenced, GameFAQs just doesn't want to publish hate speech and it would be immoral to claim that they, as a private business, have to.

omnichaos posted...

Because it would be unethical to make money off of my words and not pay me.

a) Ethics are not the same as morals. Ethics are laid out in law books and violating them brings charges. What GameFAQs is doing is not in any stretch of the imagination unethical and that's completely unarguable (you can argue about morality, because that's subjective - you're wrong, but you can argue it).
b) Suggesting GameFAQs is being immoral for not paying you is like suggesting that a soup kitchen you volunteered to work at is being immoral for not paying you. You agreed when you signed up that you wouldn't be compensated for what you write on these boards (because what the fuck you're writing on an internet message board why are you even asking about being paid for it?!), so if anything asking for payment is you being immoral by reneging on your agreement.

omnichaos posted...

Yes it is, and for so very many reasons.

That you have completely failed to articulate, given that you've spent most of this topic posting off random factoids rather than trying to challenge people's rebuttals or even provide a narrative for those factoids in the form of an argument.

omnichaos posted...

Far too many people take their uncensored speech for granted. People who value truth need to also highly value everybody's ability to access and spread information in order to find truth and avoid totalitarianism.

You have that access - just not through GameFAQs and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

If you want to, for instance, hold a white supremacist rally it would not be immoral of me to refuse to loan you my loudspeaker for it.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

wah_wah_wah posted...

So you determine what is moral based on whether you would personally stand to benefit from an action or not

That is not even close to what I said, but nice strawman all the same.

wah_wah_wah posted...

You aren't but you're advocating censoring those views. Aren't you? Did you take another dab?

I'm advocating censoring hate speech on a site that caters to teenagers, because I have better things to do with my leisure time than put up with it.

wah_wah_wah posted...

Can you point to even one instance in this topic of someone actually doing that?

No, but who said I have to?

There are several people in this topic suggesting or inferring that GameFAQs is somehow wrong for setting standards of decency on their completely free-to-use forums in an attempt to keep them from devolving into troll-infested shitholes (and I've seen plenty of other forums on the internet become that exact thing because they either didn't enforce their rules or never bothered to set them in the first place). I'm simply pointing out that that argument hinges on GameFAQs giving up their right to not publish speech they find hateful or deleterious and demanding such would, itself, be an act of immorality.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

omnichaos posted...

It's a list of terrorist attacks in the US since 2010, look at how many of them were committed by Jihadists in comparison to white supremacist terrorism.

It's also an incomplete list.

omnichaos posted...

Yes, for the example you gave in a restaurant of a patron calling the owner a prick. Because it might be assault, or might escalate into violence. It's a weird scenario and it seems most likely that the patron would be on their way out anyways if they were calling the owner a prick. The example certainly doesn't transfer well to gamefaqs, where SBAllen is in no danger of violence if some random 500 miles away calls him a prick. It's not something I care about being censored so much though because of it's lack of insight. I would still say it's at least slightly immoral to censor it, because who fucking cares if someone calls you a prick on the internet, ignore them and grow thicker skin.

I like how, in this example, the person being called a prick is the immoral one for actually taking steps to defend himself and resolve the situation, while you remain conspicuously silent on the person doing the name-calling.

wah_wah_wah posted...

It still isn't the right thing to do.

Sure it is. I don't want to see that sort of shit around here and I'm willing to hazard a guess that most other people here don't either, or they'd be over on 4chan or Reddit. GameFAQs has chosen to create a community in line with my personal tastes in that regard - that's not immoral in the slightest.

If you have different views on what should and shouldn't be allowed, that's your prerogative. But I'm not being immoral simply by having a different viewpoint.

wah_wah_wah posted...

You may be because if it wasn't responding to anything I said, then it was a weird non sequitor, the kind of text salad that often arises from drug abuse.

I said that demanding SBAllen and the rest of the GameFAQs staff give up their right not to publish hate speech was immoral; I never said you made that sort of a demand.

wah_wah_wah posted...

You again started talking about "rights" when AGAIN that has nothing to fucking do with morality.

Demanding someone give up their rights isn't immoral?

That's news to me. I mean, isn't that the exact argument you're trying to make here? That your right to free speech is being trampled?

Except the difference here is that anyone arguing that the board rules are immoral is demanding someone who is providing them a free service publish their views, no matter how noxious and regardless of what other people think or what effect it has on their income.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

wah_wah_wah posted...

The reality of what happens after is often much more bleak.

The "bleakest" thing that can happen here is you will be banned from using a free-to-use website. Pardon me if I don't see that as the end of the world.

wah_wah_wah posted...

lol what? Are you on PCP because I never once demanded anything.

I never said you did.

Who's on PCP now?

wah_wah_wah posted...

Again you fall back on getting into legal rights and not what is moral

My post did not even vaguely address the legality of what you were talking about.

omnichaos posted...

Let's make this a little easier.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#2010.E2.80.93present

...you just posted a Wikipedia article with no accompanying argument.

Once again, I fail to see what you're trying to prove with this.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

PK_Spam posted...

Huh... can you actually win the Hubert fight, or does he just dish out his MA before you can do that?

Nope, it's impossible. If you're good, you can whittle him down to no health, but his HP then just becomes "????" and his attack power shoots through the roof to the point where he can kill you in one hit.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

wah_wah_wah posted...

Again you're dodging that it is a moral question, not a legal one. We can all recognize that GameFAQs can legally do this. That's not what the question is. You are legally permitted to do all sorts of behavior that is immoral and wrong. The law and morality sometimes coincide, but not always.

Seeking to create an environment where people feel comfortable and striving to minimize discrimination is not in any way immoral.

Demanding that GameFAQs give up their own right to free speech by making them publish whatever you say, on the other hand...

omnichaos posted...

Some people do think it's moral high ground to be able to push a button and censor someone who says something that they don't like. They won't admit it and it's indefensible, but most people aren't ok with something that they consider to be immoral.

You literally admitted earlier in this topic that there were decent arguments to this "indefensible" approach.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

omnichaos posted...

A key factor here is accounting for population, of which the Muslim population of the US is around 1%. What percentage of the US population is white?

a) If you're going to ask what percentage of the US population is white, you'd best be counting all crime committed by whites. Otherwise the correct question to ask would be "what proportion of the US populace are white supremacists" (the answer being difficult to quantify with any accuracy, but almost certainly less than the number of Muslims judging by the number of hate groups currently operational [approximately 900]).

b) In both groups in America - whites and Muslims - the proportion of those who become terrorists are so exponentially small as to effectively be statistical outliers. Your odds of dying to a terrorist, Islamic or White Nationalist, are incredibly remote - less than plane crashes, drowning in a bathtub, or getting killed by a fucking deer (Deer kill about 130 people a year, which is more than terrorists managed every year this century other than 2001). Even in 2001 - a major outlier, for obvious reasons - your odds of dying to an Islamic terrorist were roughly on par with being mauled to death by a dog or dying in an Earthquake. The overwhelming majority of both groups are peaceful and law-abiding, which not only makes statistical analysis difficult (because with such a small sample size, even normal statistical flux can dramatically skew results), but on a more practical note it makes it pretty stupid to try and lump everyone together with a minuscule number of assholes. All whites are not that prick who ran over Heather Heyer; by the same token, all Muslims are not Osama bin Laden.

c) It doesn't matter anyways, because your question was asking why people get more freaked out about white supremacists than Islamic extremists, and you were trying to suggest that Islamic extremism is the greater threat. Both of those rely on raw number of crimes, not proportionality. Even if you want to suggest that a greater proportion of Muslims are Islamic Extremists than whites are White Supremacists (a blatant false equivalence, but I'll humour you), that doesn't in any way make Islamic Extremism a greater threat. If I started a new organization composed of me and four other people and those four people all turned out to be mass murderers, the fact that 80% of my organization's adherents committed mass terror doesn't make it the greatest threat the nation is currently facing.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

omnichaos posted...

And just caring about the stuff that hits close to home exclusively is immoral.

No one said anything about caring "exclusively" about stuff close to home...

omnichaos posted...

But to completely ignore the atrocities that are happening abroad because your political ideology claims that "Muslims are top-tier victims" is abhorrently immoral.

...and no said anything about ignoring the atrocities happening abroad.

For the record, if you think Islamic Extremism is the world's number one threat, it's worth noting that the overwhelming majority of their victims are other Muslims.

omnichaos posted...

Yes we do. It's important to be realistic about which problems are worse

Worse in what context? Because if we're talking about domestic impact, white supremacy is significantly worse.

omnichaos posted...

And if you want to put what's happening abroad aside and only focus on terrorism in the US, then Jihadists are still worse here than white supremacist terrorists.

Except they're not. Take a look at that graph I posted above - far-right terrorists are by far the largest threat to the United States and have been since the Cold War ended.

omnichaos posted...

Even if you disinterestingly swindle out the worst terrorist attack in world history.

An attack that is now 16 years old - it's sort of disingenuous to still consider September 11 indicative of modern events, because it's slipping further and further back into the history books. In three days, there will be people with their driver's license who were born after the 9/11 attacks. Let that sink in for a few minutes.

But maybe you want that historical perspective. OK... how far back in the history books do you want to go? Because if we're really factoring in history, let's tack on a few more years so we get into the Jim Crow era and all that lovely news about police officers beating down peaceful black protesters and siccing dogs on them. At that point, white supremacy dwarfs islamism as a domestic threat by an even larger margin.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

So now that we've had this little discussion, Let's note that we've had seven posts of debate thus far and zero moderations to go along with it.

See? You're allowed to voice controversial opinions, as long as you're not an asshole to people when you do it. Just don't cross that line and you can have the exact frank exchange of ideas you were asking for.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

omnichaos posted...

Take note of which Muslim majority countries you don't see on this list, because they were too dangerous to poll in.

Alright. I've taken note of them.

What exactly are you expecting me to do with this information?

You're spitting out a bunch of factoids without connecting them with an argument, then you're asking me questions about them and about my views.

omnichaos posted...

Now note the level of outrage that is acceptable towards white supremacy on this website in comparison to Islamism.

Probably because white supremacy is an evil much closer to home (same reason why Harvey and Irma are getting tonnes of press, while the 2004 tsunami that killed almost a quarter of a million people got significantly less attention). On that note...

omnichaos posted...

Which do you think is a larger problem on this planet right now? White supremacy, or Islamism?

Depends entirely on where you are in the world.

If you live, for instance, in the middle east, white supremacy probably slots in somewhere between "lightning strikes" and "being mauled to death by penguins" on your "things to worry about" list. Similarly, if you live in the West, you are far, far more likely to fall victim to a white supremacist or other right-wing extremist than to an Islamic extremist.

(since we're all about the biting graphics now, here's a good one on the subject: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DIsIrzWW4AAtPvd.jpg )

In both cases the risks aren't zero (Islamic extremists have killed a few hundred people in America over the past decade, and a surprisingly high number of white supremacists have military backgrounds, meaning they could feasibly wind up in the Middle East), but each one has their sphere of influence and they happen to be on opposite sides of the world. So if you're wondering why people get so worked up about white supremacists, but treat Islamic extremists like just another piece of news, that's why - most of the death and destruction wrought by Islamic extremists is taking place in countries far away from home (and most of their victims are their own kin and countrymen, rather than ours), whereas the White Supremacists are right in our backyard, making them both more dangerous (to us) and much harder to ignore.

If you're talking on a global scale, yes, the Islamic extremists win - they have far better organization and more resources than white supremacists and their overall death toll is significantly higher, whereas most of the White Supremacists are raging man-children from poor households seeking someone to blame for why their life is shit.

But I still fail to see where you're going with this comparison. It's sort of like asking "Who's killed more, Islamic extremists or school shooters?" - just because Islamic extremists win that contest doesn't mean that school shooters aren't horrible fucking monsters who deserve every bit of our scorn for preying on society's most vulnerable. We don't need to have some sort of Olympics of Awfulness to figure out who we're supposed to despise the most - we're allowed to multitask here.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

omnichaos posted...

You're going to need to respond with a more substantive argument than just tossing another statistic at me if you want me to continue this debate.

As of right now, I'm not even sure what you're trying to prove.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

omnichaos posted...

I don't think it's clear at all.

What's unclear about it? It means don't insult someone based on their race, religion, etc.

I'm not sure how it could be made more clear than that.

omnichaos posted...

Especially when calling somebody a racist or a Nazi doesn't get modded.

Is this hate speech?

Dreamsaber posted...

TC needs to just admit he wants to say the n-word without repercussions.

Well, let's go through this. Are they insulting you based on your race, religion, sexual orientation, culture, ethnicity, disability, nationality, or gender? No. As a matter of fact, you haven't even specified any of the above for yourself, so it would be impossible to do so.

So no, not hate speech - just your garden variety jab (and a pretty mild one, honestly - pretty sure Dreamsaber was joking about that).

omnichaos posted...

Tell me what you take from this:

I fail to see how this relates to the topic of censorship, and I'm leery about steering this onto another topic of conversation which is likely going to blow up the thread, but I'll answer anyways.

What I take from it is that, amongst those Muslims who believe Sharia Law should be the law of the land (an unspecified portion of Muslims depicted in that image), roughly 1/5 to 1/4 of them support stoning as a punishment to adultery in Southeastern Europe, rising to a 1/3 to 1/2 in Central and Southeast Asia, with slight-to-strong majorities in South Asia and the Middle East (where, for what it's worth, such punishments are seen as quite normal).

The inverse of this would also be true - a strong majority (75-80%) of those Muslims who believe Sharia Law should be the law of the land in Southeastern Europe do not believe stoning is an appropriate punishment for adultery, dropping to a slimmer but still statistically valid majority in Central and Southeast Asia, with popularity dipping well into minority status in South Asia and the middle east.

So you've done a good job in showing there's a wide variety of opinions in the Muslim world on punishment - always useful to keep in mind, given that large groups of people seldom uniformly agree about anything and it's a bad idea to tar them all with the same brush.

Beyond that, it's an interesting factoid, but relatively useless without greater context. For instance, how many Muslims in each area believe Sharia Law should be the law of the land? And what do those numbers look like for those Muslims who don't agree with Sharia Law? Perhaps more importantly, what are the local laws in each of those areas, (which I posit would have a far greater effect on whether or not someone would support that kind of punishment - you might be asking one group if they support laws already in place and another if they support changing the laws to something very different from what they are presently, and you'll naturally get more people supporting the former than the latter)? As a control, what do the numbers look like for non-Muslims in those areas?

Without that kind of data, a cherry-picked statistic like this is ultimately not as relevant as it may first appear. It could be part of a greater trend or it could be noise - impossible to tell, but still useful for people pushing an agenda with a simplistic narrative.


On a completely unrelated note, did you know that near the end of World War II, 13% of all Americans suggested that the Japanese should be completely slaughtered as a people? As in, every last one hunted down and killed, including the children and those who were assisting the Allies?

https://goo.gl/QGNALK

People believe some pretty barbaric things, huh.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

omnichaos posted...

There is no way to point out global terrorism statistics without sounding like an asshole to somebody. There is no way to point out what hundreds of millions of Muslims believe without sounding like an asshole to somebody.

You don't need to worry about sounding like an asshole to "somebody" - you just need to follow the rules you agreed to follow when you signed up here. That's it.

You're making this way more complicated than it needs to be.

omnichaos posted...

Yes, like actual discussion instead of automatically smearing someone as a racist or Nazi sympathizer for being against censorship. Some people refuse to have intellectually honest conversations because they are far Right/far Left absolutists and they will use any means necessary to censor you or smear you in order to prevent you from being heard. In order to prevent your point of view from being understood by not just themselves, but everyone. This book burning mentality needs to be looked down upon, not enabled.

Agreed, but that does not need to come at the cost of basic decency.

If you have a halfways decent worldview, left or right, even far left or far right, you can express it politely and in a way that won't get you modded here. I argued with someone years ago - back when the rules were more draconian than they are now - who earnestly believed that women were not cut out for being breadwinners and that they should leave it to the men. I've argued with someone else on this board who has literally said that he believes poor people should be temporarily sterilized, because they keep having too many kids and being a drain on the system. If they can voice views like that and not get modded, I'm pretty confident you can too.

And if your views are so utterly noxious that they're somehow - by their very nature - against the GameFAQs ToS regardless of how politely you express them, I think that says a lot more about you than GF.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

I wish you'd stop making this topic, TC. We keep explaining this to you and you still seem to ask this every week.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

omnichaos posted...

Discussing the massive problems that Islam has.

That won't get you modded if you aren't an asshole about it. I've had plenty of debates with other people on that subject that were completely moderation free, including with people who were highly critical of Islam.

omnichaos posted...

I'll take offensive honesty over egg-shell trodden politeness every time

And should you choose that way, there's nothing wrong with that. Just understand that not everyone agrees.

Me? My personal experience has taught me that about 90% of life's problems can be peacefully resolved by being calm, mature, polite, and trying to understand the other person's point of view. Rare is the problem that can only be solved by being a blunt asshole - they do exist, but I find far too many people reach for that method of resolution as the first resort for problems that have far better solutions available.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

omnichaos posted...

There are political discussions here that are off limits.

Such as?

omnichaos posted...

It also encourages dishonest speaking mannerisms in order to avoid being censored.

In most parts of the world, that's called "being polite".
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

omnichaos posted...

darkknight109 posted...

omnichaos posted...
They will also make you leave if you have a baby that is crying. Did they make that baby leave because the content of the noise it was making was offensive?

As it turns out, both restaurants and GameFAQs can also toss you out for doing things *other than* being offensive. That doesn't in any way change the specifics of the discussion at hand, though.

Ok, but do you see how conflating being disruptive and using offensive speech isn't a good argument? People say offensive things while eating in restaurants all the time and are not removed. If you're going to stand up and yell shit, no matter what you're saying, you're going to be asked to leave.

That also doesn't counter my point. If you call the owner of the restaurant a prick, regardless of how non-disruptive you're being you'll probably be told not to come back.

In my example the hypothetical person is being both disruptive and offensive - you can and will be tossed for either one of those.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Judgmenl posted...

I mean how hard is it for people to understand that I don't have a television and haven't for 10 years now?

I don't either. That doesn't preclude you from small talk.

The local office secretary talks to me about this nature show she thinks I'd like all the time and tells me about it even though I have zero interest in it and no TV subscription to watch it on even if I did. I don't tell her "The fuck are you talking about?", I act interested, smile, and nod politely while I listen to her because - and this is the important part - she's trying to be nice to me. She's not telling me about this TV show because she wants to waste my time, she's genuinely trying to connect with me and I'd be an asshole if I just blew her off.

People will occasionally bring up - and sometimes talk at great length about - subjects you have neither interest in nor knowledge of. Part of socially functioning is learning how to politely follow along in the conversation and gently steer it in another direction if given the opportunity.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

FWIW, I absolutely loved Graces, although it is by far the cheesiest Tales game I've played. If you can look past that, though, the gameplay is fun, the characters are likeable and the story's pretty good. It's my second-favourite after Symphonia.

PK_Spam posted...

I understand that Pascal is pretty much the love child of Estelle and Rita, where she can summon and do a bunch different elemental spells. Can she heal? Or is that just Cheris and Sophie's thing?

No, Pascal cannot heal. Sophie and Cheria are your main healers (the latter in particular), and one other character (who may or may not be a minor spoiler, depending on where you are in the game) is an off-healer.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Pascal isn't that fun to main because the enemies tend to prioritize attacking the player-controlled character and Pascal's pretty fragile. She's great to have in the party, though, and a hilarious character to boot.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

omnichaos posted...

They will also make you leave if you have a baby that is crying. Did they make that baby leave because the content of the noise it was making was offensive?

As it turns out, both restaurants and GameFAQs can also toss you out for doing things *other than* being offensive. That doesn't in any way change the specifics of the discussion at hand, though.

omnichaos posted...

This is not a restaurant. This is a place where people come to have discussions with each other

Within the context of the rules you agreed to when you signed up to the site, yes, absolutely. That is what all of us signed up for. I, personally, support those rules because I don't like sites like 4chan and parts of Reddit where people are free to (and inevitably do) act like total assclowns. I have better things to do with my time than put up with some raging asshole with an internet connection as he busily vomits poorly spelled racial epithets all over the screen.

If that's your bag, there are lots of websites out there that will cater to your tastes. This is not one of them and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Alexandra_Trent posted...

Mums are like that; well not just mums. Parents are like that. It doesn't matter if you're 4 or 40

My parents haven't been like that since I was in my early teens.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

If anyone did that to me, their number is getting blocked, mother or no.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

I don't bother to answer the phone if it's a number I don't recognize. If they're important, they can leave a message.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Rush Limbaugh actually made this accusation (specifically that the mainstream media is overblowing the hurricane's potential dangers).

Not even making that up. The hard right now thinks that weather reports are fake news.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Another aspect worth noting about European armour at the time is that middle-ages metallurgy was kind of shit compared to what we know today. Their steel was of awful quality, so it tended to be weak and brittle - much easier to puncture with an arrow than the steel of today.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

omnichaos posted...

There is deep irony in using uncensored speech in arguing (poorly, because there really is no good argument, including keeping ad revenue and authoritarianism) in favor of censoring offensive speech.

There are lots of good arguments, you just don't like them.

SBAllen, for instance, is entitled to his own free speech and freedom of speech includes freedom to react to other people's free speech within the bounds of the law. If SBAllen considers your free speech to be immoral or deleterious to his business, he has the right to act on his own freedoms - namely the freedom to not associate with you. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence.

Again, I feel it worthwhile to point out that you are posting this on a completely free to use site, and you have no guaranteed right to its use. You agreed, when you signed up, to obey the established rules and that was your price of admission. If you don't like the rules, well, too fucking bad - GameFAQs is not required to cater to your whims.

I don't know when it happened, but a creeping immaturity seems to have afflicted the internet generation some time in the last five years or so. If you told anyone else ever in the history of human civilization that they had to obey a set of rules while inside a particular establishment, with those rules effectively being "behave yourself and don't be an asshole", no one would have blinked; yet sometime in the last few years a very vocal subset of the internet population has developed a toddler-like reaction to that instruction, which basically consists of "But that's not fair! I should be allowed to say whatever I want, wherever I want, whenever I want and not get in trouble for it or face any negative repercussions because free speech!"

We have agreed, since time immemorial, to mostly try and behave ourselves when we're around other people. Sometimes those instructions are explicit, sometimes they are implied, but when someone says "You don't have the right to not be offended", they are only half-correct because there are plenty of laws on the books with that express purpose in mind. As an example, if I took my girlfriend, went to the local school and started having sex on the sidewalk outside (which is public property, so I wouldn't even be trespassing), I would be arrested and charged with a battery of serious crimes, even though I am doing nothing harmful beyond offending the sensibilities of those present.

omnichaos posted...

There are very many good arguments against the formation of echo chambers.

This is not an echo chamber. You are not required to belong to any political ideology when posting here, as evinced by the many, many political arguments that take place here. You're just required not to be an asshole when expressing your views, which is not difficult to do.

omnichaos posted...

We have a politics board and religion board, and many non-topical boards. All of them are subject to censorship of offensive speech.

And if you don't like that, find another website to go to. There are lots of them out there with looser restrictions.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

...is a lie.
There is only passion.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

omnichaos posted...

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.

Maybe so, but to be perfectly frank no one on GameFAQs staff cares what your views are on morality. They have their own views and have asked you to follow them while you are here; if you do not, you will be suspended or banned from using their service.

It's really not that complex. You have the right to your own opinion and morals, but GameFAQs is not obligated to provide you with a platform to air those opinions - if they think you are out of line with the regulations they set forth, or acting in a way that disrupts their business by driving away users and/or advertisers, they are free to air their own opinions on morals by barring you from using their service.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

omnichaos posted...

Who gets to decide what is or isn't offensive?

Here? SBAllen does, as judged and enforced by the mods (and by him specifically if you appeal the moderation far enough). At any other business? The business owners.

In public spaces that aren't owned by anyone? Depends on where you live, but generally there is either no standard for offensiveness (meaning it's up to each individual to define what is or is not offensive and how they will react to any offensive conduct they encounter there) or the government will define what crosses the line between free expression and unacceptable speech.

Amuseum posted...

morals aren't defined by open debate

Morals aren't really defined period. They're entirely subjective.

Ethics are morals that actually have some definition to them and are generally legally enforceable.

omnichaos posted...

Because you're disrupting the movie, not because you're offensive

Put it this way - if you went up to one of the staff at the concession stand and, without disrupting anything, called them a racial slur, you would be similarly tossed out.

omnichaos posted...

If you mark posts, you are the guy making disruptive noises in the theater who is justifiably removed.

Except you're not removed for marking someone else's post; they are, if the posts are actually in violation of the rules.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Calling everything you disagree with offensive is pretty immoral, after all by that logic you would be modded for arguing with me.

It has nothing to do with whether I agree with it or not, nor did I call it offensive. I just said you broke the rules. Which you did*.

*Source: you got modded and suspended for two weeks.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Being allowed to do something doesn't make it moral.

No, but the whole premise of your comparison was kind of ridiculous to begin with, so that's about all the energy I felt like putting into a response.

UraRenge2005 posted...

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.

In my experience, mods trying to mod people simply because they disagree with them are rare (though certainly far from unheard of - had it happen to me a few years back). And, as you've pointed out, there is a dispute system whose entire purpose is to counteract that.

I find most of the time moderations get overturned, it's less likely that the original mod was being a dictatorial tyrant trying to stifle dissent and more likely that it was a borderline case and/or the original mod didn't read the entire thread and see the context of the post and a subsequent mod disagreed that an offence took place at all.

Regardless, I'd argue that what your referencing isn't really what the OP is asking about. The question isn't about mods modding unjustly, it's asking whether banning offensive speech (i.e. something you can be modded for by a mod who is 100% following the rules) is moral.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Zeus posted...

As for "impeding progress," I'm just going to laugh. Whenever you see something you dislike, you claim that it's against progress

Perhaps you're right and censorship could be used to favour progress. We could use it, for instance, to squelch the anti-science crowd like climate change deniers, anti-vaxxers, and the like, and in doing so promote progress. Thing is, it's almost never used in that way - when true censorship is used by a regime, it's almost always with the goal in mind of inhibiting progress because a knowledgeable populace is one that's going to start demanding more rights and representation before too long, which is the death knell for any autocracy.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

There's no rule that says you have to believe transgender people are the gender their dong is not representative of.

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.

https://www.gamefaqs.com/features/board_etiquette

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Firstly, you'd get thrown out for shouting anything for being disruptive.

Quite true, but that still just goes to my point: you're not allowed to say anything you want, any time, anywhere. There are some establishments that will kick your ass straight out the door if you say something they don't like.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

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.

And they would be 100% within their rights to do so.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!

Yes. One got hauled out, the other three were surgically removed.

All in all it was actually pretty painless. I was expecting a lot worse based on what everyone told me. I felt zero pain from either of them and really the only downside was that my gums oozed blood for close to three days on both occasions, so I constantly had the taste of blood in my mouth.
---

Kill 1 man: You are a murderer. Kill 10 men: You are a monster.
Kill 100 men: You are a hero. Kill 10,000 men, you are a conqueror!