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

Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4
wah_wah_wah 09/10/17 1:44:03 AM #101:	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. 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. <cite>wah_wah_wah posted [p:886334878] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote><cite>Dash_Harber posted...</cite> <quote><cite>wah_wah_wah posted...</cite> <quote> 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. </quote> 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.</quote> 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.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
omnichaos 09/10/17 2:10:21 AM #102:	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. <cite>omnichaos posted [p:886335711] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote>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.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 09/10/17 2:26:03 AM #103:	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! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:886336184] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote><cite>omnichaos posted...</cite> <quote>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?</quote> 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.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 09/10/17 2:27:44 AM #104:	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! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:886336236] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote><cite>wah_wah_wah posted...</cite> <quote>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.</quote> 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... <cite>omnichaos posted...</cite> <quote>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.</quote> You literally admitted earlier in this topic that there were decent arguments to this "indefensible" approach.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
wah_wah_wah 09/10/17 2:33:27 AM #105:	darkknight109 posted... Seeking to create an environment where people feel comfortable and striving to minimize discrimination is not in any way immoral. The intent is to create that environment. Censorship often has that rosy and lovably vague intent regardless if it is committed by corporations or government. The reality of what happens after is often much more bleak. darkknight109 posted... Demanding that GameFAQs give up their own right to free speech by making them publish whatever you say, on the other hand... lol what? Are you on PCP because I never once demanded anything. Again you fall back on getting into legal rights and not what is moral. Creepy. <cite>wah_wah_wah posted [p:886336406] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Seeking to create an environment where people feel comfortable and striving to minimize discrimination is not in any way immoral. </quote> The intent is to create that environment. Censorship often has that rosy and lovably vague intent regardless if it is committed by corporations or government. The reality of what happens after is often much more bleak. <cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Demanding that GameFAQs give up their own right to free speech by making them publish whatever you say, on the other hand... </quote> lol what? Are you on PCP because I never once demanded anything. Again you fall back on getting into legal rights and not what is moral. Creepy.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
omnichaos 09/10/17 2:44:49 AM #106:	Let's make this a little easier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#2010.E2.80.93present <cite>omnichaos posted [p:886336740] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote>Let's make this a little easier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#2010.E2.80.93present</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 09/10/17 3:05:52 AM #107:	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! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:886337270] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote><cite>wah_wah_wah posted...</cite> <quote>The reality of what happens after is often much more bleak. </quote> 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. <cite>wah_wah_wah posted...</cite> <quote>lol what? Are you on PCP because I never once demanded anything. </quote> I never said you did. Who's on PCP now? <cite>wah_wah_wah posted...</cite> <quote>Again you fall back on getting into legal rights and not what is moral</quote> My post did not even vaguely address the legality of what you were talking about. <cite>omnichaos posted...</cite> <quote>Let's make this a little easier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#2010.E2.80.93present</quote> ...you just posted a Wikipedia article with no accompanying argument. Once again, I fail to see what you're trying to prove with this.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
omnichaos 09/10/17 3:09:07 AM #108:	darkknight109 posted... 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. 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. <cite>omnichaos posted [p:886337348] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>omnichaos posted...</cite> <quote>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.</quote> You literally admitted earlier in this topic that there were decent arguments to this "indefensible" approach.</quote> 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.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
omnichaos 09/10/17 3:11:17 AM #109:	darkknight109 posted... 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. 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. <cite>omnichaos posted [p:886337401] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote><quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#2010.E2.80.93present</quote> ...you just posted a Wikipedia article with no accompanying argument. Once again, I fail to see what you're trying to prove with this.</quote> 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.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
wah_wah_wah 09/10/17 3:15:07 AM #110:	darkknight109 posted... 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. It still isn't the right thing to do. darkknight109 posted... I never said you did. Who's on PCP now? 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. darkknight109 posted... My post did not even vaguely address the legality of what you were talking about. You again started talking about "rights" when AGAIN that has nothing to fucking do with morality. <cite>wah_wah_wah posted [p:886337498] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>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. </quote> It still isn't the right thing to do. <cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote> I never said you did. Who's on PCP now?</quote> 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. <cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>My post did not even vaguely address the legality of what you were talking about. </quote> You again started talking about "rights" when AGAIN that has nothing to fucking do with morality.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 09/10/17 3:24:55 AM #111:	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! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:886337737] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote><cite>omnichaos posted...</cite> <quote>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.</quote> It's also an incomplete list. <cite>omnichaos posted...</cite> <quote>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.</quote> 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. <cite>wah_wah_wah posted...</cite> <quote>It still isn't the right thing to do.</quote> 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. <cite>wah_wah_wah posted...</cite> <quote>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. </quote> 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. <cite>wah_wah_wah posted...</cite> <quote>You again started talking about "rights" when AGAIN that has nothing to fucking do with morality.</quote> 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.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
wah_wah_wah 09/10/17 3:31:10 AM #112:	darkknight109 posted... Sure it is. I don't want to see that sort of s* 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. So you determine what is moral based on whether you would personally stand to benefit from an action or not. Congrats, you are now Donald Trump. darkknight109 posted... 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 disagreeing with those views. You aren't but you're advocating censoring those views. Aren't you? Did you take another dab? darkknight109 posted... 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. OK then. You might understand my confusion because it was located within a reply to a post I wrote. darkknight109 posted... Demanding someone give up their rights isn't immoral? Can you point to even one instance in this topic of someone actually doing that? But again, not a legal argument! <cite>wah_wah_wah posted [p:886337872] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Sure it is. I don't want to see that sort of s* 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. </quote> So you determine what is moral based on whether you would personally stand to benefit from an action or not. Congrats, you are now Donald Trump. <cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>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 disagreeing with those views. </quote> You aren't but you're advocating censoring those views. Aren't you? Did you take another dab? <cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>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. </quote> OK then. You might understand my confusion because it was located within a reply to a post I wrote. <cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote>Demanding someone give up their rights isn't immoral? </quote> Can you point to even one instance in this topic of someone actually doing that? But again, not a legal argument!</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 09/10/17 3:39:49 AM #113:	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! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:886338060] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote><cite>wah_wah_wah posted...</cite> <quote>So you determine what is moral based on whether you would personally stand to benefit from an action or not</quote> That is not even close to what I said, but nice strawman all the same. <cite>wah_wah_wah posted...</cite> <quote>You aren't but you're advocating censoring those views. Aren't you? Did you take another dab? </quote> 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. <cite>wah_wah_wah posted...</cite> <quote>Can you point to even one instance in this topic of someone actually doing that?</quote> 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.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
omnichaos 09/10/17 4:05:00 AM #114:	A count of terrorist attacks/foiled terrorist attacks in the US and their motive since 2010: Anti-government terrorism: 7 Islamic terrorism: 23 Environmental terrorism: 1 White Supremacist terrorism: 6 Anti-cop terrorism (we can count this as anti-government terrorism if you like, though the motives are a bit different): 4 Christian terrorism: 3 Unknown/under investigation: 1 Anti-Islamic terrorism: 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#2010.E2.80.93present <cite>omnichaos posted [p:886338539] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote>A count of terrorist attacks/foiled terrorist attacks in the US and their motive since 2010: Anti-government terrorism: 7 Islamic terrorism: 23 Environmental terrorism: 1 White Supremacist terrorism: 6 Anti-cop terrorism (we can count this as anti-government terrorism if you like, though the motives are a bit different): 4 Christian terrorism: 3 Unknown/under investigation: 1 Anti-Islamic terrorism: 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States#2010.E2.80.93present</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
omnichaos 09/10/17 4:10:39 AM #115:	darkknight109 posted... 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. 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. 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. 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. <cite>omnichaos posted [p:886338652] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote><cite>darkknight109 posted...</cite> <quote><cite>omnichaos posted...</cite> <quote>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.</quote> It's also an incomplete list.</quote> 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. <quote><cite>omnichaos posted...</cite> <quote>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.</quote> 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.</quote> 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.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dash_Harber 09/10/17 6:20:43 AM #116:	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. Again, Dash_Harber 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 quoted it again because, evidently, you missed it. <cite>Dash_Harber posted [p:886340790] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote><cite>wah_wah_wah posted...</cite> <quote>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.</quote> Again, <cite>Dash_Harber</cite> <quote>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.</quote> I quoted it again because, evidently, you missed it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
GetMagnaCarter 09/10/17 6:30:19 AM #117:	wah_wah_wah posted... 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. 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. For proper morality you need to consider both sides. GameFAQS (and it's owners) publish what it posted on the site - is it moral to force them to publish something that they do not agree with? It's not the only place where people can state their opinions so people can easily say what they want somewhere else. --- "Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did She die in vain?" <cite>GetMagnaCarter posted [p:886340955] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote><cite>wah_wah_wah posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dash_Harber posted...</cite> <quote><cite>wah_wah_wah posted...</cite> <quote> 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. </quote> 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.</quote> 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.</quote> For proper morality you need to consider both sides. GameFAQS (and it's owners) publish what it posted on the site - is it moral to force them to publish something that they do not agree with? It's not the only place where people can state their opinions so people can easily say what they want somewhere else.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Miroku_of_Nite1 09/10/17 6:48:34 AM #118:	This isn't America, this isn't Europe, this isn't China, or Japan. This is Gamefaqs. --- http://i.imgur.com/w3fcH.jpg <cite>Miroku_of_Nite1 posted [p:886341250] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote>This isn't America, this isn't Europe, this isn't China, or Japan. This is Gamefaqs.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
omnichaos 09/10/17 6:55:44 AM #119:	It's still censorship guys. <cite>omnichaos posted [p:886341352] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote>It's still censorship guys.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dash_Harber 09/10/17 6:57:43 AM #120:	omnichaos posted... It's still censorship guys. As we all explained several times before, no, it's not. <cite>Dash_Harber posted [p:886341389] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote><cite>omnichaos posted...</cite> <quote>It's still censorship guys.</quote> As we all explained several times before, no, it's not.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
omnichaos 09/10/17 7:03:04 AM #121:	Dash_Harber posted... omnichaos posted... It's still censorship guys. As we all explained several times before, no, it's not. I'm not going to search for your post, but I assume you're synominizing censorship with violations of the first amendment. Censorship is not only government silenced speech. Media organizations silencing speech is also censorship. <cite>omnichaos posted [p:886341479] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote><cite>Dash_Harber posted...</cite> <quote><cite>omnichaos posted...</cite> <quote>It's still censorship guys.</quote> As we all explained several times before, no, it's not.</quote> I'm not going to search for your post, but I assume you're synominizing censorship with violations of the first amendment. Censorship is not only government silenced speech. Media organizations silencing speech is also censorship.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dash_Harber 09/10/17 7:08:29 AM #122:	omnichaos posted... Dash_Harber posted... omnichaos posted... It's still censorship guys. As we all explained several times before, no, it's not. I'm not going to search for your post, but I assume you're synominizing censorship with violations of the first amendment. Censorship is not only government silenced speech. Media organizations silencing speech is also censorship. No, jesus fuck, you are just making up my arguments now? It's not censorship because GameFAQs is a business. The publish people's comments. It is not immoral (or censorship) to decide not to publish someone else's work. <cite>Dash_Harber posted [p:886341569] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote><cite>omnichaos posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Dash_Harber posted...</cite> <quote><cite>omnichaos posted...</cite> <quote>It's still censorship guys.</quote> As we all explained several times before, no, it's not.</quote> I'm not going to search for your post, but I assume you're synominizing censorship with violations of the first amendment. Censorship is not only government silenced speech. Media organizations silencing speech is also censorship.</quote> No, jesus fuck, you are just making up my arguments now? It's not censorship because GameFAQs is a business. The publish people's comments. It is not immoral (or censorship) to decide not to publish someone else's work.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
omnichaos 09/10/17 7:21:24 AM #123:	Publish? lol, where's my money for my posts? <cite>omnichaos posted [p:886341803] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote>Publish? lol, where's my money for my posts?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dash_Harber 09/10/17 7:26:45 AM #124:	omnichaos posted... Publish? lol, where's my money for my posts? Why would they pay you? They are publishing your words on the internet. <cite>Dash_Harber posted [p:886341900] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote><cite>omnichaos posted...</cite> <quote>Publish? lol, where's my money for my posts?</quote> Why would they pay you? They are publishing your words on the internet.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
omnichaos 09/10/17 7:29:11 AM #125:	Because it would be unethical to make money off of my words and not pay me. <cite>omnichaos posted [p:886341943] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote>Because it would be unethical to make money off of my words and not pay me.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
omnichaos 09/10/17 7:32:11 AM #126:	And what you seem to be claiming is that it's impossible for media companies to censor their products. Is it not censorship when curse words are bleeped out on music discs? <cite>omnichaos posted [p:886341998] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote>And what you seem to be claiming is that it's impossible for media companies to censor their products. Is it not censorship when curse words are bleeped out on music discs?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dash_Harber 09/10/17 7:39:15 AM #127:	omnichaos posted... Because it would be unethical to make money off of my words and not pay me. That is literally what they do. When something is entered into the internet for others to read, it is being published. The companies that publish have the right to decide on their terms of service. omnichaos posted... And what you seem to be claiming is that it's impossible for media companies to censor their products. Is it not censorship when curse words are bleeped out on music discs? Are you one of their products now? <cite>Dash_Harber posted [p:886342114] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote><cite>omnichaos posted...</cite> <quote>Because it would be unethical to make money off of my words and not pay me.</quote> That is literally what they do. When something is entered into the internet for others to read, it is being published. The companies that publish have the right to decide on their terms of service. <cite>omnichaos posted...</cite> <quote>And what you seem to be claiming is that it's impossible for media companies to censor their products. Is it not censorship when curse words are bleeped out on music discs?</quote> Are you one of their products now?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
omnichaos 09/10/17 7:51:13 AM #128:	Yes I suppose I am, and that's clearly unethical to publish my work and not pay me. <cite>omnichaos posted [p:886342350] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote>Yes I suppose I am, and that's clearly unethical to publish my work and not pay me.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dash_Harber 09/10/17 7:52:44 AM #129:	omnichaos posted... Yes I suppose I am, and that's clearly unethical to publish my work and not pay me. No it's not. You are voluntarily posting this 'work'. You still aren't one of their products. <cite>Dash_Harber posted [p:886342384] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote><cite>omnichaos posted...</cite> <quote>Yes I suppose I am, and that's clearly unethical to publish my work and not pay me.</quote> No it's not. You are voluntarily posting this 'work'. You still aren't one of their products.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
omnichaos 09/10/17 7:53:40 AM #130:	Then I'm not being published. <cite>omnichaos posted [p:886342402] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote>Then I'm not being published.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dash_Harber 09/10/17 7:55:22 AM #131:	omnichaos posted... Then I'm not being published. Literally the definition of 'publish' on google; make (content) available online. <cite>Dash_Harber posted [p:886342436] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote><cite>omnichaos posted...</cite> <quote>Then I'm not being published.</quote> Literally the definition of 'publish' on google; <quote>make (content) available online.</quote></quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
omnichaos 09/10/17 7:58:59 AM #132:	Corporate censorship is the process by which editors in corporate media outlets intervene to disrupt the publishing of information that portrays their business or business partners in a negative light,[6][7] or intervene to prevent alternate offers from reaching public exposure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship#Rationale <cite>omnichaos posted [p:886342516] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote>Corporate censorship is the process by which editors in corporate media outlets intervene to disrupt the publishing of information that portrays their business or business partners in a negative light,[6][7] or intervene to prevent alternate offers from reaching public exposure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship#Rationale</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dash_Harber 09/10/17 8:01:57 AM #133:	omnichaos posted... Corporate censorship is the process by which editors in corporate media outlets intervene to disrupt the publishing of information that portrays their business or business partners in a negative light,[6][7] or intervene to prevent alternate offers from reaching public exposure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship#Rationale I'm not sure how I can make this any simpler. They have the right to choose what they publish. You agree when you agree to their ToU. It is not immoral for them to choose what they want to publish. This is not a public service, it is a private service. <cite>Dash_Harber posted [p:886342588] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote><cite>omnichaos posted...</cite> <quote>Corporate censorship is the process by which editors in corporate media outlets intervene to disrupt the publishing of information that portrays their business or business partners in a negative light,[6][7] or intervene to prevent alternate offers from reaching public exposure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship#Rationale</quote> I'm not sure how I can make this any simpler. They have the right to choose what they publish. You agree when you agree to their ToU. It is not immoral for them to choose what they want to publish. This is not a public service, it is a private service.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
omnichaos 09/10/17 8:04:51 AM #134:	And it's still censorship. <cite>omnichaos posted [p:886342650] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote>And it's still censorship.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dash_Harber 09/10/17 8:05:23 AM #135:	omnichaos posted... And it's still censorship. Even if it is, it's not immoral so your whole topic is moot. <cite>Dash_Harber posted [p:886342657] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote><cite>omnichaos posted...</cite> <quote>And it's still censorship.</quote> Even if it is, it's not immoral so your whole topic is moot.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
omnichaos 09/10/17 8:06:01 AM #136:	Yes it is, and for so very many reasons. <cite>omnichaos posted [p:886342665] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote>Yes it is, and for so very many reasons.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dash_Harber 09/10/17 8:07:18 AM #137:	omnichaos posted... Yes it is, and for so very many reasons. So you think that all internet publishing companies should be compelled to publish anything, no matter what? <cite>Dash_Harber posted [p:886342689] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote><cite>omnichaos posted...</cite> <quote>Yes it is, and for so very many reasons.</quote> So you think that all internet publishing companies should be compelled to publish anything, no matter what?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
omnichaos 09/10/17 8:13:47 AM #138:	Not calls to violence, nor direct death threats, or how to create weapons of mass destruction. Stuff like that I'm ok with censoring. <cite>omnichaos posted [p:886342803] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote>Not calls to violence, nor direct death threats, or how to create weapons of mass destruction. Stuff like that I'm ok with censoring.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
omnichaos 09/10/17 8:18:09 AM #139:	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. <cite>omnichaos posted [p:886342870] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote>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.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Llamachama 09/10/17 8:20:12 AM #140:	I think it really depends. In cases of extreme prejudice yes. But I feel some of the mods are power hungry and abusive over the littlest things. About a month plus ago I posted a video in a random thread about fat people using amusement park rides and how it causes rides to malfunction more. Someone made a comment about the safety of fair ground rides so I quote replied it and posted a short clip of that ride where all the seats fell off and people went flying. There was no blood or gore or excessive violence. Just a 5 second clip that ends before it even begins. Purely a joke upon the safety and maintenance of amusement park rides mind you (or lack thereof). Next thing I know I got a raging mod down my throat arguing with me that fat people do not cause ride malfunctions and how it was offensive to fat people that I posted that video and how there is no evidence that that ride broke because of a fat person. All I can take from this interaction is that the mod was taking offense over the fact that he/she themselves is morbidly obese and decided that I was inferring that the ride failed because of a fat person riding it and I should be moderated and lose karma (projecting much?) VERY UNPROFESSIONAL! Whoever that mod was needs to be fired for taking a personal grudge against a comment that was not even directed at fat people nor had any mention of fat people. --- Strong people stand up for themselves. Stronger people stand up for others. http://i.imgur.com/AoImPRn.jpg <cite>Llamachama posted [p:886342919] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote>I think it really depends. In cases of extreme prejudice yes. But I feel some of the mods are power hungry and abusive over the littlest things. About a month plus ago I posted a video in a random thread about fat people using amusement park rides and how it causes rides to malfunction more. Someone made a comment about the safety of fair ground rides so I quote replied it and posted a short clip of that ride where all the seats fell off and people went flying. There was no blood or gore or excessive violence. Just a 5 second clip that ends before it even begins. Purely a joke upon the safety and maintenance of amusement park rides mind you (or lack thereof). Next thing I know I got a raging mod down my throat arguing with me that fat people do not cause ride malfunctions and how it was offensive to fat people that I posted that video and how there is no evidence that that ride broke because of a fat person. All I can take from this interaction is that the mod was taking offense over the fact that he/she themselves is morbidly obese and decided that I was inferring that the ride failed because of a fat person riding it and I should be moderated and lose karma (projecting much?) VERY UNPROFESSIONAL! Whoever that mod was needs to be fired for taking a personal grudge against a comment that was not even directed at fat people nor had any mention of fat people.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
omnichaos 09/10/17 8:22:04 AM #141:	Political correctness is the main reason the Left is being justifiably rebuked. And I'm on the Left. Going out of your way to be politely dishonest is deceivingly regressive. <cite>omnichaos posted [p:886342956] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote>Political correctness is the main reason the Left is being justifiably rebuked. And I'm on the Left. Going out of your way to be politely dishonest is deceivingly regressive.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
omnichaos 09/10/17 8:25:08 AM #142:	Llamachama posted... I think it really depends. In cases of extreme prejudice yes. But I feel some of the mods are power hungry and abusive over the littlest things. About a month plus ago I posted a video in a random thread about fat people using amusement park rides and how it causes rides to malfunction more. Someone made a comment about the safety of fair ground rides so I quote replied it and posted a short clip of that ride where all the seats fell off and people went flying. There was no blood or gore or excessive violence. Just a 5 second clip that ends before it even begins. Purely a joke upon the safety and maintenance of amusement park rides mind you (or lack thereof). Next thing I know I got a raging mod down my throat arguing with me that fat people do not cause ride malfunctions and how it was offensive to fat people that I posted that video and how there is no evidence that that ride broke because of a fat person. All I can take from this interaction is that the mod was taking offense over the fact that he/she themselves is morbidly obese and decided that I was inferring that the ride failed because of a fat person riding it and I should be moderated and lose karma (projecting much?) VERY UNPROFESSIONAL! Whoever that mod was needs to be fired for taking a personal grudge against a comment that was not even directed at fat people nor had any mention of fat people. LOL, the mod that I'm laughing at right now needs to grow thicker skin. <cite>omnichaos posted [p:886343026] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote><cite>Llamachama posted...</cite> <quote>I think it really depends. In cases of extreme prejudice yes. But I feel some of the mods are power hungry and abusive over the littlest things. About a month plus ago I posted a video in a random thread about fat people using amusement park rides and how it causes rides to malfunction more. Someone made a comment about the safety of fair ground rides so I quote replied it and posted a short clip of that ride where all the seats fell off and people went flying. There was no blood or gore or excessive violence. Just a 5 second clip that ends before it even begins. Purely a joke upon the safety and maintenance of amusement park rides mind you (or lack thereof). Next thing I know I got a raging mod down my throat arguing with me that fat people do not cause ride malfunctions and how it was offensive to fat people that I posted that video and how there is no evidence that that ride broke because of a fat person. All I can take from this interaction is that the mod was taking offense over the fact that he/she themselves is morbidly obese and decided that I was inferring that the ride failed because of a fat person riding it and I should be moderated and lose karma (projecting much?) VERY UNPROFESSIONAL! Whoever that mod was needs to be fired for taking a personal grudge against a comment that was not even directed at fat people nor had any mention of fat people.</quote> LOL, the mod that I'm laughing at right now needs to grow thicker skin.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
wah_wah_wah 09/10/17 9:13:55 AM #143:	Dash_Harber posted... 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. Again, Dash_Harber 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 quoted it again because, evidently, you missed it. This is not a newspaper where things are "published" - this is a public form where things are discussed. If you put limits on that, undoubtedly you are providing censorship. You can keep screaming it is not censorship. But it will never not be censorship. <cite>wah_wah_wah posted [p:886344062] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote><cite>Dash_Harber posted...</cite> <quote><cite>wah_wah_wah posted...</cite> <quote>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.</quote> Again, <cite>Dash_Harber</cite> <quote>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.</quote> I quoted it again because, evidently, you missed it.</quote> This is not a newspaper where things are "published" - this is a public form where things are discussed. If you put limits on that, undoubtedly you are providing censorship. You can keep screaming it is not censorship. But it will never not be censorship.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
wah_wah_wah 09/10/17 9:18:00 AM #144:	GetMagnaCarter posted... For proper morality you need to consider both sides. GameFAQS (and it's owners) publish what it posted on the site - is it moral to force them to publish something that they do not agree with? It's not the only place where people can state their opinions so people can easily say what they want somewhere else. The only other alternative is not "forcing" them to publish something. They can certainly engage in censorship, there can be benefits for their organization to engaging in censorship (just like there can be benefits in engaging in other forms of immorality like lying or possibly even killing people), but that doesn't mean that censorship becomes a good thing. It becomes a pragmatic action to protect their brand and nothing more. And it is still censorship, even if those being censored can speak somewhere else. That has nothing to do with whether censorship took place. Time and place are part of free expression. <cite>wah_wah_wah posted [p:886344166] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote><cite>GetMagnaCarter posted...</cite> <quote>For proper morality you need to consider both sides. GameFAQS (and it's owners) publish what it posted on the site - is it moral to force them to publish something that they do not agree with? It's not the only place where people can state their opinions so people can easily say what they want somewhere else. </quote> The only other alternative is not "forcing" them to publish something. They can certainly engage in censorship, there can be benefits for their organization to engaging in censorship (just like there can be benefits in engaging in other forms of immorality like lying or possibly even killing people), but that doesn't mean that censorship becomes a good thing. It becomes a pragmatic action to protect their brand and nothing more. And it is still censorship, even if those being censored can speak somewhere else. That has nothing to do with whether censorship took place. Time and place are part of free expression.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 09/10/17 2:58:34 PM #145:	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! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:886358597] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote><cite>omnichaos posted...</cite> <quote>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.</quote> 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. <cite>omnichaos posted...</cite> <quote>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.</quote> 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. <cite>omnichaos posted...</cite> <quote>Media organizations silencing speech is also censorship.</quote> 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. <cite>omnichaos posted...</cite> <quote>Because it would be unethical to make money off of my words and not pay me.</quote> 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. <cite>omnichaos posted...</cite> <quote>Yes it is, and for so very many reasons.</quote> 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. <cite>omnichaos posted...</cite> <quote>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.</quote> 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.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Dash_Harber 09/10/17 6:55:53 PM #146:	omnichaos posted... Not calls to violence, nor direct death threats, or how to create weapons of mass destruction. Stuff like that I'm ok with censoring. Oh, so it's okay to censor some things, but not other things? Also, you didn't answer my question. If I go to a publishing house with a picture book of cat's assholes, are they morally obliged to publish it for me? wah_wah_wah posted... This is not a newspaper where things are "published" - this is a public form where things are discussed. If you put limits on that, undoubtedly you are providing censorship. You can keep screaming it is not censorship. But it will never not be censorship. You fundamentally don't understand how this works. Yes, you are, by definition, being published. Also, I'm not screaming anything. You are struggling to ignore the points I'm making and are trying to discredit me by making it seem like I am having an emotional response. I actually pointed out that even if it is censorship, it's not immoral. I even stated that directly. <cite>Dash_Harber posted [p:886371737] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote><cite>omnichaos posted...</cite> <quote>Not calls to violence, nor direct death threats, or how to create weapons of mass destruction. Stuff like that I'm ok with censoring.</quote> Oh, so it's okay to censor some things, but not other things? Also, you didn't answer my question. If I go to a publishing house with a picture book of cat's assholes, are they morally obliged to publish it for me? <cite>wah_wah_wah posted...</cite> <quote> This is not a newspaper where things are "published" - this is a public form where things are discussed. If you put limits on that, undoubtedly you are providing censorship. You can keep screaming it is not censorship. But it will never not be censorship. </quote> You fundamentally don't understand how this works. Yes, you are, by definition, being published. Also, I'm not screaming anything. You are struggling to ignore the points I'm making and are trying to discredit me by making it seem like I am having an emotional response. I actually pointed out that even if it is censorship, it's not immoral. I even stated that directly.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Sarcasthma 09/10/17 9:00:41 PM #147:	How many times have you been modded in this topic, TC? --- What's the difference between a pickpocket and a peeping tom? A pickpocket snatches your watch. <cite>Sarcasthma posted [p:886378053] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote>How many times have you been modded in this topic, TC?</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
omnichaos 09/11/17 1:09:42 AM #148:	95+% of terrorism on the planet is still committed by Muslims. White nationalists have a ways to go to catch up. ^ I've been modded for claiming that. The mods refused to look at any evidence themselves, and just assumed it wasn't true. It could be that some facts are offensive, and you have to decide whether you care more about what is true, or if you care more about being dishonestly polite while the inconvenient truth eats away at the foundation of civilization. <cite>omnichaos posted [p:886389290] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote>95+% of terrorism on the planet is still committed by Muslims. White nationalists have a ways to go to catch up. ^ I've been modded for claiming that. The mods refused to look at any evidence themselves, and just assumed it wasn't true. It could be that some facts are offensive, and you have to decide whether you care more about what is true, or if you care more about being dishonestly polite while the inconvenient truth eats away at the foundation of civilization.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
darkknight109 09/11/17 1:30:15 AM #149:	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! <cite>darkknight109 posted [p:886389850] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote><cite>omnichaos posted...</cite> <quote>The mods refused to look at any evidence themselves, and just assumed it wasn't true</quote> An assumption that happens to be correct.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
omnichaos 09/11/17 1:36:34 AM #150:	There are Islamic terrorist attacks happening on the planet every day darkknight. <cite>omnichaos posted [p:886390040] in Is censors... [t:75743225]...</cite> <quote>There are Islamic terrorist attacks happening on the planet every day darkknight.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4

Poll of the Day > Is censorship of offensive speech on gamefaqs "morally" sound? (+) Yeah! (+)

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