Current Events > I got modded for saying that only a weak-minded moron...

(+) Yeah! (+)

would take issue with homosexuality, in response to a user saying that there's nothing wrong with disliking gayness.
The explanation given for my mod? "Don't call people morons."
Somehow, saying it's stupid to hate homosexuality was more offensive than saying it's okay to hate homosexuality...

Just thought that was interesting.

Ok

---

tag

---

The mods probably construed your post as a personal attack on that user you mentioned, rather than just a general statement. Either that or they figure it's not fair to call homophobes weak-minded morons since there are religious individuals opposed to homosexuality for scriptural reasons. I dunno.

Josiah_Is_Back posted...

Either that or they figure it's not fair to call homophobes weak-minded morons since there are religious individuals opposed to homosexuality for scriptural reasons.

This needs to stop being socially acceptable.

Im sure youve the life experience and understanding to make such a claim, poster on gamefaq.

---

Calling users stupid, and saying a belief is stupid, are two different things. If you had just said "hating homosexuality is stupid," it would've been fine.

---

cuttin_in_farm posted...

Im sure youve the life experience and understanding to make such a claim, poster on gamefaq.

My IQ dropped 3 points from reading this.

Conflict posted...

What on Earth are you talking about

This post.

l0gic posted...

This needs to stop being socially acceptable.

Im tired of the people with bigoted views are evil or stupid mindset found in places like this. As if calling everyone with beliefs like the op stated a moron is productive in any fashion.


---

Shotgunnova posted...

Calling users stupid, and saying a belief is stupid, are two different things. If you had just said "hating homosexuality is stupid," it would've been fine.

So pretty much what I said. It was viewed as an ad hominem rather than a general statement.

Shotgunnova posted...

Calling users stupid, and saying a belief is stupid, are two different things. If you had just said "hating homosexuality is stupid," it would've been fine.

Saying "only a weak-minded moron would take issue with homosexuality" is fine. Replace "homosexuality" with "a person being black"; does the sentiment suddenly become less deserving of a mod?

Youre only half right, though.

Some people who have an issue with homosexuality are weak-minded morons. Others are just asshole bigots who should know better.

---

Please be nice to the homophobes, TC! Think about their feelings!!

Theres just so much hate on both sides

---

I was recently suspended for 1 week for saying that Christians believe that everything is gods will, even rape.

---

Imagine all the homophobes who died having never found their soulmate because they refused to even entertain homosexuality, let alone contemplate the notion that deep down they themselves may even be gay or bisexual :(

Conflict posted...

Nothing about that stance has anything to do with "life experience".

I disagree. Not meeting different types of folks with different backgrounds can definitely lead to the black and white mindset people have with bigotry.

Its tough to even talk about because... like... who wants to defend bigotry. But I definitely think people are doing themselves a disservice to actually helping the situation by being so immediately aggressive.

---

McgeesAlice808 posted...

Shouldn't this actually be moddable?

Yup. Their comment still exists. That's why the whole thing is ironic.

l0gic posted...

Saying "only a weak-minded moron would take issue with homosexuality" is fine.

Things phrased as "if you believe X, you're an idiot" are usually trolling minimum. They can verge into other deletion categories from there, too.

l0gic posted...

Replace "homosexuality" with "a person being black"; does the sentiment suddenly become more agreeable?

We don't allow racism in the forums.

---

cuttin_in_farm posted...

This post.

Im tired of the people with bigoted views are evil or stupid mindset found in places like this. As if calling everyone with beliefs like the op stated a moron is productive in any fashion.

You should stop telling on yourself like this.
---

If I call myself stupid would I get modded? I'm a gamefaqs user

---

Smackems posted...

If I call myself stupid would I get modded? I'm a gamefaqs user

You're in the clear.

---

Smackems is an idiot

---

that mod clapped ya cheeks in rhythm

---

looks like they changed fhe rules again. self flaming was moddable

---

Shotgunnova posted...

Things phrased as "if you believe X, you're an idiot" are usually trolling minimum. They can verge into other deletion categories from there, too.

But the context was clearly about the acceptance of homosexuality. And the fact that the comment stating that it's okay to dislike homosexuality WASN'T deleted, leaves one to wonder how good the mods are at their job.

It's just some bs GameFAQs rule. How you can't insult a user under any circumstances. Even if they have views that are modable

---

Shotgunnova posted...

Calling users stupid, and saying a belief is stupid, are two different things. If you had just said "hating homosexuality is stupid," it would've been fine.

IMO

You have people and you have groups.

People can be a member of GameFAQs and people can be a member of groups, and they can be a member of both simultaneously.

Attacking a person is against the rules and it should be. Attacking a group whom people that are members of GameFAQs can reasonably belong to is equivalent to attacking the person.

Attacking a group to which no members of GameFAQs belong, for example, "Klingons" doesn't attack any people on GameFAQs and thus doesn't break any rules. You can say "Klingons are stupid" and you'll have called exactly 0 real people stupid.

Now here in lies the divide.

Certain groups have policy, activities, or beliefs that are inherently against the rules. People in those groups simply shouldn't be allowed here in the first place. Examples would be like the Westboro Baptist Church whose home website cannot even be posted on GameFAQs because of the censor (nor should it be posted).

Someone admitting to being a part of the WBC should on its own be worthy of a ban. Likewise attacking the WBC shouldn't incur moderation because such toxicity shouldn't be allowed here in the first place thus resulting in attacking 0 GameFAQs members.

So long term decisions need to be made regarding what groups get to be a part of GameFAQs. If you're trying to build a community where you allow both Gay people and people who hate gays, something will eventually give one way or another as the two can't coexist.

---

l0gic posted...

But the context was clearly about the acceptance of homosexuality. And the fact that the comment stating that it's okay to dislike homosexuality WASN'T deleted, leaves one to wonder how good the mods are at their job.

Maybe no one's assessed the mark yet? Let nature run its course.

inTaCtfuL posted...

It's just some bs GameFAQs rule. How you can't insult a user under any circumstances. Even if they have views that are modable

It's almost like users are expected to follow the rules no matter who they're talking with.

---

Youre lucky, TC. They would have modded me for making this thread and given back a note that said, its not a good idea to repost things youve already been warned for.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

IMO

You have people and you have groups.

People can be a member of GameFAQs and people can be a member of groups, and they can be a member of both simultaneously.

Attacking a person is against the rules and it should be. Attacking a group whom people that are members of GameFAQs can reasonably belong to is equivalent to attacking the person.

Attacking a group to which no members of GameFAQs belong, for example, "Klingons" doesn't attack any people on GameFAQs and thus doesn't break any rules. You can say "Klingons are stupid" and you'll have called exactly 0 real people stupid.

Now here in lies the divide.

Certain groups have policy, activities, or beliefs that are inherently against the rules. People in those groups simply shouldn't be allowed here in the first place. Examples would be like the Westboro Baptist Church whose home website cannot even be posted on GameFAQs because of the censor (nor should it be posted).

Someone admitting to being a part of the WBC should on its own be worthy of a ban. Likewise attacking the WBC shouldn't incur moderation because such toxicity shouldn't be allowed here in the first place thus resulting in attacking 0 GameFAQs members.

So long term decisions need to be made regarding what groups get to be a part of GameFAQs. If you're trying to build a community where you allow both Gay people and people who hate gays, something will eventually give one way or another as the two can't coexist.

Never forget Shokan_Warrior got roughly a half-dozen trips to Purgatory for continually stating he was a proud Nazi before finally getting banned
---

Shotgunnova posted...

Things phrased as "if you believe X, you're an idiot" are usually trolling minimum. They can verge into other deletion categories from there, too.

We don't allow racism in the forums.

Lol bigotry against LGBT is totally cool here as long as you don't add racism.

---

Bigotry against LGBT is totally not tolerated here. A recent user just got banned for blatantly being homophobic.

---

Smackems posted...

If I call myself stupid would I get modded? I'm a gamefaqs user

you used to not be able to lol

---

Self-flaming is okay on this websight.

---

Is "stop existing" moddable yet or nah?
---