Poll of the Day > Is censorship of offensive speech on gamefaqs "morally" sound?

(+) Yeah! (+)

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.
---

darkknight109 posted...

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

Usually, that means someone is just mispronouncing something on the menu, badly.

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?

This is not a restaurant. This is a place where people come to have discussions with each other. And to value advertising dollars over open discussion is immoral. Get better advertisers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xb8OZP_4sUs

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.
---

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.

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.
---

Ok, that's a sort of decent argument (unless you're calling the owner a prick in a threatening manner, which is assault). I would understand that level of censorship of offensive speech on gamefaqs, if SBAllen can't handle being called a prick I guess. That's really not a big deal, because the speaker isn't really giving much insight and is just flaming. But the level of censorship of offensive speech here goes much deeper than that. There are political discussions here that are off limits. It hinders your ability to understand what your political opponents believe, which is necessary, no matter how much people don't want to engage in it. It also encourages dishonest speaking mannerisms in order to avoid being censored.

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".
---

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

darkknight109 posted...

omnichaos posted...

There are political discussions here that are off limits.

Such as?

Discussing the massive problems that Islam has.

<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".

I'll take offensive honesty over egg-shell trodden politeness every time. The best liars in the world are masters of politeness. I don't think people being forced to behave like politicians is a good way to maintain civilization.

Dreamsaber posted...

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

Yeah, you caught me. Well done m8

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.
---

darkknight109 posted...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
---

Hate speech, such as using race, religion, sexual orientation, culture, ethnicity, disability, nationality, or gender as a means of insult.

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

Tell me what you take from this:

Gamefaqs has made a conscious choice to be a lesser choice. It's not bullshido and it's kit loverslab.

If gamefaqs chooses to be inferior it's a conscious choice and that's how it is.
---

Censorship is never morally sound except in extremely narrow circumstances.

Know what though. Despite the fact that I lost a 10+ yr accaoint to these clowns not liking my posts. Couple of years ago.

I fully and morally support their choiceZ they are not discriminating against anyone in violation of any laws and they put up the money for this shit.

I might buck the rules and will continue to do so but I respect their right to make them as they chose subject to any state discrimination laws.

So that's how it is- that's the ONLY way it is and quite frankly until you put up money to tell them how to operate. You have no say, nor do I

Still don't mean I'm not gonna break the rules. Respecting the authorita doesn't make me abide by it.


game on.
---

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.
---

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.
---

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

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

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

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.
---

omnichaos posted...

Is this hate speech?

"I don't like [epithet]s!" is free speech
"We should kill all the [epithet]s!" is hate speech.

It's that simple.

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.
---

darkknight109 posted...

Let's note that we've had seven posts of debate thus far and zero moderations to go along with it.

Wait, really?

[edit] not a single stripe of shame in the whole thread. Huh.

omnichaos posted...

Tell me what you take from this:

That that's taken from the % of Muslims that already believe in sharia law.

As you've conveniently given us the second chart, all you have to do is multiply A% by B% and get the total % of Muslims in each respective country that want to stone people for adultery.

42% * 26% = 11% of Muslims that believe in stoning in Russia.

I'm not saying much on the subject but the numbers still aren't as high as you think they are, and that religions tend to water down and domesticate as people realize modern life is easier and secularism makes it easier to get along.

Yellow posted...

That that's taken from the % of Muslims that already believe in sharia law.

If you asked Southern Baptists, about giving legal weight to Southern Baptist values, you would get amazingly similar results.

I got modded for trying to talk about tribalism with someone, the mod said it was racist.

You can't take a morally sound stance when you aren't educated enough to understand certain subjects. I get that this is an internet message board and most of the mods are probably 20-something or under but that was pretty shocking ignorance to encounter.
---

MacrossSpecial posted...

I got modded for trying to talk about tribalism with someone, the mod said it was racist.

In the end, you're both right.
Tribalism is the exact origin of racism, which is, of course, racism.

One of TC's more recent modded topics:

omnichaos created a new topic on Politics, named "If you think being against censorship makes you a Nazi sympathizer, you are scum"

The guy doesn't have any tact.
---

Sarcasthma posted...

The guy doesn't have any tact.

The entire concept of "free speech" is anti-tact, really.

Yes because, for the eight billionth time, it's not a public forum. They can set whatever fucking rules they want. There is nothing immoral or moral about it.

Dash_Harber posted...

it's not a public forum

Wasn't aware this is a private forum tbh.
---

wwinterj25 posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

it's not a public forum

Wasn't aware this is a private forum tbh.

You do understand that GameFAQs is a private business, right? The reason they let anyone in the door is because we are customers, not because they legally have to. Case in point, they have the ability to ban any user they feel like.

Free speach means the Government can't (legally) have you beaten up, imprisoned, tortured or killed because you voiced a dislike of them or their policies.
(Other people can't do such things legally anyway)
It's a wonderful thing to have - ask someone in a country that doesn't have it and they probably won't tell you (in case the secret police are listening in).

Owners have rights regarding what they own.
If someone walks into your house starts and writing on the walls you can insist they leave and remove what was written.
If someone stands in you front garden making a speach you can insist they do it somewhere else.
The internet works the same way.
Owners of a website can dictate what may or may not be said and remove anything they want to. If you don't like it then post your remarks somewhere else.
This is not really censorship - censorship is when someone over-rules the owner and demands something be removed when the owner does not want to remove it.
---

Dash_Harber posted...

wwinterj25 posted...

Dash_Harber posted...

it's not a public forum

Wasn't aware this is a private forum tbh.

You do understand that GameFAQs is a private business, right? The reason they let anyone in the door is because we are customers, not because they legally have to. Case in point, they have the ability to ban any user they feel like.

There are many things a person can do that are immoral that are not necessarily against the law. The law is not the same as morality.

Depends on the nature, if it's just swearing or mildly controversial or dirty talk then no.

If it's hate speech of any kind, it absolutely must be censored.
---

KamariaK posted...

Depends on the nature, if it's just swearing or mildly controversial or dirty talk then no.

If it's hate speech of any kind, it absolutely must be censored.

Why?

Questionmarktarius posted...

omnichaos posted...

Is this hate speech?

"I don't like [epithet]s!" is free speech
"We should kill all the [epithet]s!" is hate speech.

It's that simple.

I would agree with that, but most proponents of hate speech do not. If that's the definition we go with, it should just be called "death threats."

darkknight109 posted...

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 f***ing monsters who deserve every bit of our scorn for preying on society's most vulnerable.

I'm not saying that at all, we obviously can and should condemn both. And just caring about the stuff that hits close to home exclusively is immoral. I understand valuing the impact somewhat more of stuff that hits close to home. But to completely ignore the atrocities that are happening abroad because your political ideology claims that "Muslims are top-tier victims" is abhorrently immoral.

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.

Yes we do. It's important to be realistic about which problems are worse. I'm not saying we should only focus on that problem at all.

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

Sarcasthma posted...

One of TC's more recent modded topics:

omnichaos created a new topic on Politics, named "If you think being against censorship makes you a Nazi sympathizer, you are scum"

The guy doesn't have any tact.

Anyone who thinks that has already decided that being unreasonable is a virture and truly are scum.

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.
---

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?

wah_wah_wah posted...

There are many things a person can do that are immoral that are not necessarily against the law. The law is not the same as morality.

GetMagnaCarter explained it best.

It's not censorship. The law doesn't force every business to publish anything that customers want them to. Censorship is when the government or equal authority uses force or the threat of force to force you to not publish something. GameFAQs is a business that publishes people's messages (along with guides, cheats, etc). It is not censorship for them to decide not to publish something. It is also not immoral because businesses that publish things are not morally compelled to publish everything put before them.

I don't think I can make it any clearer.

Dash_Harber posted...

You do understand that GameFAQs is a private business, right? The reason they let anyone in the door is because we are customers, not because they legally have to. Case in point, they have the ability to ban any user they feel like.

---

Dash_Harber posted...

wah_wah_wah posted...

There are many things a person can do that are immoral that are not necessarily against the law. The law is not the same as morality.

GetMagnaCarter explained it best.

It's not censorship. The law doesn't force every business to publish anything that customers want them to. Censorship is when the government or equal authority uses force or the threat of force to force you to not publish something. GameFAQs is a business that publishes people's messages (along with guides, cheats, etc). It is not censorship for them to decide not to publish something. It is also not immoral because businesses that publish things are not morally compelled to publish everything put before them.

I don't think I can make it any clearer.

Censorship is not a term that is limited to government quelling of speech, you're confusing it with freedom of speech. For example, Muhammad was censored on South Park.