nephilimdj
Member
I know people were getting mass banned for spamming "fuck white people", I really hope thats not whats being referenced.
It's also apparent that this story is bigger than your run of the mill safe space story, which I would admit have been overblown by the media.The problem seems to be there is not enough pushback now. You hear more and more how Faculty and Administration go along with the insanity which just ensures the cycle will get worse. If the already bad behavior is now being encouraged and treated like it should be the new norm then its just going to escalate even further
are they liberals though? where I'm from this kind of behavior tend to be associated with hard left, marxism, syndicalism and so on.
This is all very reminiscent of what happened to off-topic for a couple months post-election. Of course, that madness turned out to be directly induced through sabotage by a now-former admin secretly banning *hundreds* of members totally outside of any justifiable grounds (not that any attempt at justification was made to begin with, being undisclosed and undocumented bans) in some 85-90% of each of those bans that were subsequently investigated after we became aware of the incident.
NeoGAF is a discussion forum; the whole point is to disseminate information and debate it, on civil terms, in an atmosphere that encourages healthy skepticism, fact-checking and credible sourcing, challenging preexisting worldviews and talking points and biases by providing a platform for a diverse audience to contribute, etc. And yes, the site does lean progressive, because it is inclusive and evidence-based and intolerant of hate speech. But while there are core values associated with this place, there's no point in discussion without providing a framework that allows for multiple perspectives to engage with each other.
I mention all this because, particularly for those couple months I mentioned when anyone trying to operate in good faith within the aforementioned parameters I've set up for this place ended up sniped en masse, Off-Topic suddenly became unrecognizable to me some 15 or 16 years after we set this side of the forum up. The place kinda turned into what this Evergreen outcome sounds like: with everyone who tried to contribute to civil discourse systematically thrown down the well, the remaining members either stayed silent or radicalized up, and we were left with a squad of polarized "progressives" unwilling to have a conversation with anyone about issues, repeating the same talking points in every thread to each other in a self-righteous echo chamber, newly confident that any non-conformity would be driven out or otherwise made to disappear. This was not just ostracizing people attempting to challenge reductive, exclusionary "with us or against us" polarized rhetoric, either (and that should absolutely be challenged), but also anyone even trying to have a conversation within that radicalized bubble. People were driven out, character assassinated, labeled traitor for "not sounding angry enough," or for not being entirely on board with ostracizing someone else for the same reasons.
There's nothing righteous, informed, or progressive about that. It's just a sanctimonious, vitriolic, self-destructive circle jerk that drives out the kind of people most valuable to discussion: not the "retweet my Side and quote it in yells or else you're The Enemy" people, but the people engaging on each individual issue with critical thought and an open mind, willingness and capacity to perform independent investigation into the materials initially presented, come to an independent conclusion and present it, and to allow the same from folks who have made similar effort but with different credible sources or different justifiable conclusions than your own.
That's the sort of thing I'm seeing here. Professor's conclusions about the event that prompted the protests should certainly be challenged, but he did justify his positions reasonably and stay civil throughout the argument he presented. Yeah, that annual event change-up is a complicated issue, as we can see by all the folks here struggling with the right and wrong of it, so it's absolutely a legitimate topic for an academic debate. And that's all he did: debate the merits of it and the campus ethics of an exclusionary event with what he felt were undercurrents of pressure to comply or end up branded a racist/traitor/whatever.
...and now we're seeing exactly that, with an aggressive push for his removal, threats against him, and even an order issued that the chief of campus police not take measures to ensure the professor's safety on campus.
Smear campaign articles posted earlier here that attribute *swastikas* being spraypainted by some apparent alt-right dickwads who have involved themselves here, and doxxing alleged to have occurred at some point along the way by third parties unrelated to the professor (alt-right again apparently latching onto this), all somehow ultimately being the the fault of this *progressive activist Jewish professor* (who as far as I can tell has sound credentials, and who one of his long-time students personally vouched for in this thread as someone who wouldn't have a disingenuous, racially motivated angle with this thing) for daring to break formation and have an academic conversation that scrutinized something on "the progressive side" that day.
Nope. Nope. Nope.
World isn't binary, folks. Hyper-partisan, radical, binary, "us or them" environments with constant purity tests demanding adherence to the pre-established talking point of the hour breeds ignorance, intolerance, hate, and self-destruction.
This is why we talk about things. This is why diversity of background/ethnicity/orientation/culture is important within an environment like a campus or a message board: not just as an outcome better representing the diversity of the population it's pulling its membership body from, but critically for the diversity of perspective that results from that intense microcosm you've built, and the insight and nuance of thought it can bring to each participant when they share an appropriately moderated space and each have a fair voice.
That's why we talk about things.
I know people were getting mass banned for spamming "fuck white people", I really hope thats not whats being referenced.
I mention all this because, particularly for those couple months I mentioned when anyone trying to operate in good faith within the aforementioned parameters I've set up for this place ended up sniped en masse
Say one thing that isn't completely in line with the narrative and you are immediately labeled a racist, Nazi, or white supremacist. Nothing I've seen this professor say could be characterized as racist. It's fucking ridiculous.
This is because a lot of ideas from the new left are now closer to a religion then anything else so it has become dogma and you can not criticize dogma.
Also they are way more virtuous than everybody else and have to prove an re-validate all the time. That why over the last year there were so many topics about the terrible world or who did another impossible thing. This strengthens their community like most religions also the idea that you are surrounded by racists, misogynists, transphobes, homophobes or even islamophobes. They even invent stuff like diet racism to shove more people out of the holy halls of their own righteousness.
Also that is why there is no dialog anymore, you can not argue when any other opinion is against your own religious dogma. Also why people with different opinions now need protection if they want to speak, because as I said a lot of times, they hate free speech as much as any right wing group because both sides don't want to hear other opinions. That why there are so many echo-chambers on the internet. The internet actually made people talk less with each other now.
Damn. I am glad this got said. Sorely needed.This is all very reminiscent of what happened to off-topic for a couple months post-election. Of course, that madness turned out to be directly induced through sabotage by a now-former admin secretly banning *hundreds* of members totally outside of any justifiable grounds (not that any attempt at justification was made to begin with, being undisclosed and undocumented bans) in some 85-90% of each of those bans that were subsequently investigated after we became aware of the incident.
NeoGAF is a discussion forum; the whole point is to disseminate information and debate it, on civil terms, in an atmosphere that encourages healthy skepticism, fact-checking and credible sourcing, challenging preexisting worldviews and talking points and biases by providing a platform for a diverse audience to contribute, etc. And yes, the site does lean progressive, because it is inclusive and evidence-based and intolerant of hate speech. But while there are core values associated with this place, there's no point in discussion without providing a framework that allows for multiple perspectives to engage with each other.
I mention all this because, particularly for those couple months I mentioned when anyone trying to operate in good faith within the aforementioned parameters I've set up for this place ended up sniped en masse, Off-Topic suddenly became unrecognizable to me some 15 or 16 years after we set this side of the forum up. The place kinda turned into what this Evergreen outcome sounds like: with everyone who tried to contribute to civil discourse systematically thrown down the well, the remaining members either stayed silent or radicalized up, and we were left with a squad of polarized "progressives" unwilling to have a conversation with anyone about issues, repeating the same talking points in every thread to each other in a self-righteous echo chamber, newly confident that any non-conformity would be driven out or otherwise made to disappear. This was not just ostracizing people attempting to challenge reductive, exclusionary "with us or against us" polarized rhetoric, either (and that should absolutely be challenged), but also anyone even trying to have a conversation within that radicalized bubble. People were driven out, character assassinated, labeled traitor for "not sounding angry enough," or for not being entirely on board with ostracizing someone else for the same reasons.
There's nothing righteous, informed, or progressive about that. It's just a sanctimonious, vitriolic, self-destructive circle jerk that drives out the kind of people most valuable to discussion: not the "retweet my Side and quote it in yells or else you're The Enemy" people, but the people engaging on each individual issue with critical thought and an open mind, willingness and capacity to perform independent investigation into the materials initially presented, come to an independent conclusion and present it, and to allow the same from folks who have made similar effort but with different credible sources or different justifiable conclusions than your own.
That's the sort of thing I'm seeing here. Professor's conclusions about the event that prompted the protests should certainly be challenged, but he did justify his positions reasonably and stay civil throughout the argument he presented. Yeah, that annual event change-up is a complicated issue, as we can see by all the folks here struggling with the right and wrong of it, so it's absolutely a legitimate topic for an academic debate. And that's all he did: debate the merits of it and the campus ethics of an exclusionary event with what he felt were undercurrents of pressure to comply or end up branded a racist/traitor/whatever.
...and now we're seeing exactly that, with an aggressive push for his removal, threats against him, and even an order issued that the chief of campus police not take measures to ensure the professor's safety on campus.
Smear campaign articles posted earlier here that attribute *swastikas* being spraypainted by some apparent alt-right dickwads who have involved themselves here, and doxxing alleged to have occurred at some point along the way by third parties unrelated to the professor (alt-right again apparently latching onto this), all somehow ultimately being the the fault of this *progressive activist Jewish professor* (who as far as I can tell has sound credentials, and who one of his long-time students personally vouched for in this thread as someone who wouldn't have a disingenuous, racially motivated angle with this thing) for daring to break formation and have an academic conversation that scrutinized something on "the progressive side" that day.
Nope. Nope. Nope.
World isn't binary, folks. Hyper-partisan, radical, binary, "us or them" environments with constant purity tests demanding adherence to the pre-established talking point of the hour breeds ignorance, intolerance, hate, and self-destruction.
This is why we talk about things. This is why diversity of background/ethnicity/orientation/culture is important within an environment like a campus or a message board: not just as an outcome better representing the diversity of the population it's pulling its membership body from, but critically for the diversity of perspective that results from that intense microcosm you've built, and the insight and nuance of thought it can bring to each participant when they share an appropriately moderated space and each have a fair voice.
That's why we talk about things.
Yeah, there are these weird up-moving standards of what a good person is supposed to be. What is good today might not be good enough tomorrow. And if someone is from the wrong side and says something that sounds there's some empathy and good will behind it, there is a way to spin that into the "not good enough" territory.
Like for example I've seen several times it happen that when something bad happens to a girl or a woman and someone says it's horrible and that they are our wives and children and we should protect them, someone comes and says something like "you sexist piece of shit, you should not protect them because they are wives and children but because they are human beings!"
The last time I saw something like that was in the John Oliver show said by John Oliver himself. Like, wow, you can't even give credit for a person taking steps trying to be good because apparently that's just not good enough.
It's as if people need to be so progressive that when there is nowhere to progress anymore they need to progress the progression to be able to feel they are progressive. And to progress, there of course needs to be regressive persons to compare yourself with so calling them out from something is a good way to do that. When you then have alienated the people "on the wrong side" and don't communicate with them anymore, who are you comparing your progression with then? Of course the people "on your side" and perhaps that's where the left eating left mentality begins.
In the era of social media where people can "like" things it's easy to make it look like we are good people because I just wrote something nice that got so many likes and I just liked something that sounded so nice.
NeoGAF is a discussion forum; the whole point is to disseminate information and debate it, on civil terms, in an atmosphere that encourages healthy skepticism, fact-checking and credible sourcing, challenging preexisting worldviews and talking points and biases by providing a platform for a diverse audience to contribute, etc. And yes, the site does lean progressive, because it is inclusive and evidence-based and intolerant of hate speech. But while there are core values associated with this place, there's no point in discussion without providing a framework that allows for multiple perspectives to engage with each other.
This is all very reminiscent of what happened to off-topic for a couple months post-election. Of course, that madness turned out to be directly induced through sabotage by a now-former admin secretly banning *hundreds* of members totally outside of any justifiable grounds (not that any attempt at justification was made to begin with, being undisclosed and undocumented bans) in some 85-90% of each of those bans that were subsequently investigated after we became aware of the incident.
NeoGAF is a discussion forum; the whole point is to disseminate information and debate it, on civil terms, in an atmosphere that encourages healthy skepticism, fact-checking and credible sourcing, challenging preexisting worldviews and talking points and biases by providing a platform for a diverse audience to contribute, etc. And yes, the site does lean progressive, because it is inclusive and evidence-based and intolerant of hate speech. But while there are core values associated with this place, there's no point in discussion without providing a framework that allows for multiple perspectives to engage with each other.
I mention all this because, particularly for those couple months I mentioned when anyone trying to operate in good faith within the aforementioned parameters I've set up for this place ended up sniped en masse, Off-Topic suddenly became unrecognizable to me some 15 or 16 years after we set this side of the forum up. The place kinda turned into what this Evergreen outcome sounds like: with everyone who tried to contribute to civil discourse systematically thrown down the well, the remaining members either stayed silent or radicalized up, and we were left with a squad of polarized "progressives" unwilling to have a conversation with anyone about issues, repeating the same talking points in every thread to each other in a self-righteous echo chamber, newly confident that any non-conformity would be driven out or otherwise made to disappear. This was not just ostracizing people attempting to challenge reductive, exclusionary "with us or against us" polarized rhetoric, either (and that should absolutely be challenged), but also anyone even trying to have a conversation within that radicalized bubble. People were driven out, character assassinated, labeled traitor for "not sounding angry enough," or for not being entirely on board with ostracizing someone else for the same reasons.
There's nothing righteous, informed, or progressive about that. It's just a sanctimonious, vitriolic, self-destructive circle jerk that drives out the kind of people most valuable to discussion: not the "retweet my Side and quote it in yells or else you're The Enemy" people, but the people engaging on each individual issue with critical thought and an open mind, willingness and capacity to perform independent investigation into the materials initially presented, come to an independent conclusion and present it, and to allow the same from folks who have made similar effort but with different credible sources or different justifiable conclusions than your own.
That's the sort of thing I'm seeing here. Professor's conclusions about the event that prompted the protests should certainly be challenged, but he did justify his positions reasonably and stay civil throughout the argument he presented. Yeah, that annual event change-up is a complicated issue, as we can see by all the folks here struggling with the right and wrong of it, so it's absolutely a legitimate topic for an academic debate. And that's all he did: debate the merits of it and the campus ethics of an exclusionary event with what he felt were undercurrents of pressure to comply or end up branded a racist/traitor/whatever.
...and now we're seeing exactly that, with an aggressive push for his removal, threats against him, and even an order issued that the chief of campus police not take measures to ensure the professor's safety on campus.
Smear campaign articles posted earlier here that attribute *swastikas* being spraypainted by some apparent alt-right dickwads who have involved themselves here, and doxxing alleged to have occurred at some point along the way by third parties unrelated to the professor (alt-right again apparently latching onto this), all somehow ultimately being the the fault of this *progressive activist Jewish professor* (who as far as I can tell has sound credentials, and who one of his long-time students personally vouched for in this thread as someone who wouldn't have a disingenuous, racially motivated angle with this thing) for daring to break formation and have an academic conversation that scrutinized something on "the progressive side" that day.
Nope. Nope. Nope.
World isn't binary, folks. Hyper-partisan, radical, binary, "us or them" environments with constant purity tests demanding adherence to the pre-established talking point of the hour breeds ignorance, intolerance, hate, and self-destruction.
This is why we talk about things. This is why diversity of background/ethnicity/orientation/culture is important within an environment like a campus or a message board: not just as an outcome better representing the diversity of the population it's pulling its membership body from, but critically for the diversity of perspective that results from that intense microcosm you've built, and the insight and nuance of thought it can bring to each participant when they share an appropriately moderated space and each have a fair voice.
That's why we talk about things.
Maybe it's because I came from a forum where anything less than death threats was considered fair game,
LOL same here. It's quite a switch isn't it?
It'd be cool to have a "rules and guidelines" thread to have to know what we can adhere to. I'm a little worried that just saying something a mod doesn't like is a bannable offense.
Any regular users have a source that can be referenced?
LOL same here. It's quite a switch isn't it?
It'd be cool to have a "rules and guidelines" thread to have to know what we can adhere to. I'm a little worried that just saying something a mod doesn't like is a bannable offense.
Any regular users have a source that can be referenced?
What you're looking for generally is the F.A.Q. linked on the main page of the forum.
The Left certainly has been changing rapidly in the recent years. I've become sceptical of labeling myself a progressive because progressivism is becoming more and more exclusionary and "purity" based. It has lost that core value IMO. People are being pushed into groups and generalised labels; the exact thing progressives should be fighting against.
I've been called an idiot and condescendingly mocked just because I had something different to say, just after my 1st day of posting here. Not that I felt insulted, but it takes something away from the discussion.
I've been lurking on these forums for half a decade and it's evidently happening.
EviLore said everything there is to be said. Perfectly summed up my thoughts.
And it is an issue. A lot of GAF haters and even people outside Neogaf observed and said about such things.
This is because a lot of ideas from the new left are now closer to a religion then anything else so it has become dogma and you can not criticize dogma.
They even invent stuff like diet racism to shove more people out of the holy halls of their own righteousness.
This is because a lot of ideas from the new left are now closer to a religion then anything else so it has become dogma and you can not criticize dogma.
Also they are way more virtuous than everybody else and have to prove an re-validate all the time. That why over the last year there were so many topics about the terrible world or who did another impossible thing. This strengthens their community like most religions also the idea that you are surrounded by racists, misogynists, transphobes, homophobes or even islamophobes. They even invent stuff like diet racism to shove more people out of the holy halls of their own righteousness.
Also that is why there is no dialog anymore, you can not argue when any other opinion is against your own religious dogma. Also why people with different opinions now need protection if they want to speak, because as I said a lot of times, they hate free speech as much as any right wing group because both sides don't want to hear other opinions. That why there are so many echo-chambers on the internet. The internet actually made people talk less with each other now.
Edit: Just to add something. I think this is very sad, because discussion is one of the most fun things you can do and even if you can not change somebody's opinion the whole process is really fun, because it makes you think, makes you angry or happy. And there is no prize for winning a discussion on the internet anyway.
Very well put, Trokil.
One thing I use to joke with my friend group is ask them if they remember when actual right wing evangelicists would be the ones on campus, doing their bible thumping and finger wagging, telling is how wrong we are.
Claiming "diet racism" is something made up in order to be self-righteous undermines your entire argument. There are plenty of obnoxious self-righteous behaviors on the left. That concept isn't one of them.This is because a lot of ideas from the new left are now closer to a religion then anything else so it has become dogma and you can not criticize dogma.
Also they are way more virtuous than everybody else and have to prove an re-validate all the time. That why over the last year there were so many topics about the terrible world or who did another impossible thing. This strengthens their community like most religions also the idea that you are surrounded by racists, misogynists, transphobes, homophobes or even islamophobes. They even invent stuff like diet racism to shove more people out of the holy halls of their own righteousness.
Also that is why there is no dialog anymore, you can not argue when any other opinion is against your own religious dogma. Also why people with different opinions now need protection if they want to speak, because as I said a lot of times, they hate free speech as much as any right wing group because both sides don't want to hear other opinions. That why there are so many echo-chambers on the internet. The internet actually made people talk less with each other now.
Edit: Just to add something. I think this is very sad, because discussion is one of the most fun things you can do and even if you can not change somebody's opinion the whole process is really fun, because it makes you think, makes you angry or happy. And there is no prize for winning a discussion on the internet anyway.
And it is an issue. A lot of GAF haters and even people outside Neogaf observed and said about such things.
Claiming "diet racism" is something made up in order to be self-righteous undermines your entire argument.
Edit: Just to add something. I think this is very sad, because discussion is one of the most fun things you can do and even if you can not change somebody's opinion the whole process is really fun, because it makes you think, makes you angry or happy. And there is no prize for winning a discussion on the internet anyway.
Claiming "diet racism" is something made up in order to be self-righteous undermines your entire argument. There are plenty of obnoxious self-righteous behaviors on the left. That concept isn't one of them.
Also yeah I just noticed the diet racism part. You need to get a fucking grip.
Oh like virtue signallingMy interpretation of what they said is that "Diet Racist" is a stupid buzzword that people shout at others to make themselves feel better.
Oh like virtue signalling
I've never heard of "diet racism" until I lurked here.
i think it's the gaf version of casual racismI've never heard of "diet racism" until I lurked here.
i think it's the gaf version of casual racism