inherit
57
0
1
Apr 19, 2024 10:39:24 GMT
32,674
SofaJockey
Not a jockey. Has a sofa.
13,126
August 2016
sofajockey
SofaJockey
SofaJockey
6000
7164
|
Post by SofaJockey on Oct 16, 2017 20:52:48 GMT
So, are we about done with the ins and outs of 'free speech'? (irony ) This is a thread about online forums...
|
|
inherit
57
0
1
Apr 19, 2024 10:39:24 GMT
32,674
SofaJockey
Not a jockey. Has a sofa.
13,126
August 2016
sofajockey
SofaJockey
SofaJockey
6000
7164
|
Post by SofaJockey on Oct 16, 2017 21:03:37 GMT
So, are we about done with the ins and outs of 'free speech'? (irony ) This is a thread about online forums...
At this point I think that separating the two is rather difficult.
As I mentioned before, when video games "grew up", politics became involved for various reasons. I sincerely wish it was all about simply making good games and nothing else, but it isn't as simple as that anymore. Fair point. It's a complex ecosystem.
|
|
inherit
ღ I am a golem. Obviously.
440
0
24,190
phoray
Dreadnaw Rising
12,573
August 2016
phoray
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition
|
Post by phoray on Oct 20, 2017 15:01:22 GMT
I have some sympathy for content creators who feel harassed. It's so hard to remain detached when some people are so personally aggressive online. I saw some posters today writing that developers should be captured and killed by terrorists because of some issue over microtransactions. Anonymity and 'free speech' seems to encourage some to say the most hideous things in public without consequence. Ouch. I'm assuming someone tagged that for your perusal to take down. You see some shit, sofa.
|
|
inherit
57
0
1
Apr 19, 2024 10:39:24 GMT
32,674
SofaJockey
Not a jockey. Has a sofa.
13,126
August 2016
sofajockey
SofaJockey
SofaJockey
6000
7164
|
Post by SofaJockey on Oct 20, 2017 15:13:29 GMT
You're not wrong...
|
|
inherit
ღ I am a golem. Obviously.
440
0
24,190
phoray
Dreadnaw Rising
12,573
August 2016
phoray
Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition
|
Post by phoray on Oct 20, 2017 15:15:42 GMT
You're not wrong... Haha Sometimes I'm like, I could be a moderator I've read 12,000+ posts voluntarily. But then I tell trolls off and realize my temper has a ways to go. Thanks for being Sofa, Sofa
|
|
inherit
Elvis Has Left The Building
7794
0
Oct 31, 2020 23:57:02 GMT
8,068
pessimistpanda
3,804
Apr 18, 2017 15:57:34 GMT
April 2017
pessimistpanda
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by pessimistpanda on Oct 21, 2017 6:01:54 GMT
Ejecting someone from your private property for being a douchebag is also free expression.
Also, a right to free expression does not guarantee you a platform for that expression.
And if we're so concerned about discrimination, what about free expression that is, itself, discriminatory?
|
|
inherit
57
0
1
Apr 19, 2024 10:39:24 GMT
32,674
SofaJockey
Not a jockey. Has a sofa.
13,126
August 2016
sofajockey
SofaJockey
SofaJockey
6000
7164
|
Post by SofaJockey on Oct 21, 2017 6:30:36 GMT
Douchebaggery has its limits of course. We've banned around 70 accounts from the forum this last year (some being alts). (less than 1% of the forum membership) It is also possible to be 'annoying within the rules' and we probably have a few of those...
|
|
inherit
Elvis Has Left The Building
7794
0
Oct 31, 2020 23:57:02 GMT
8,068
pessimistpanda
3,804
Apr 18, 2017 15:57:34 GMT
April 2017
pessimistpanda
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by pessimistpanda on Oct 21, 2017 6:42:40 GMT
Ejecting someone from your private property for being a douchebag is also free expression. No, you are confusing property rights and free expression, these are two rather different concepts.
Depends on what you mean by "platform". If you mean the right to voice an opinion in public, then it most certainly does.
If you're talking about private property and the right of the owner to set rules, well, see my earlier response on that.
Also, an earlier point I made on this subject was that due to a monopoly in the field of social media, public discourse is essentially being controlled by a handful of entities. And that can't be dismissed as easily as rules on private property, not when you look at the picture as a whole.
"We're" not concerned about discrimination. What I said was that the right to freely express oneself is not a right that discriminates between individuals.
Which means that one individual is free to say something, and the other individual is free to respond.
The point is that neither individual can simply decide that only their just and politically correct form of discourse is acceptable, and proceed to silence the other, physically or otherwise. (well, not if one values liberty and democracy anyway)
Well if you actually care about "free expression" (a vague term that could be argued to cover nearly everything that any individual says or does), then you should care about discrimination. "Free expression" has never been truly unfettered, in the US or anywhere else. Pre-existing laws and structural power imbalances have stifled the free expression of particular groups, and continue to do so. It's not enough to declare "free expression for all". To truly create such a utopia, you would need to carefully scour all your laws to remove anything that could potentially be interpreted as a limit on "expression", while also putting new laws and practical measures in place to protect the expression of those who are most at risk of being silenced. Luckily for me, I don't support unfettered free expression.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
49
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 21, 2017 8:05:41 GMT
Im just going to make a general and maybe off-topic statement: On the internet, in lots of (but not all - dont worry Laughing Man!) cases, the people who talk about freedom of speech and how they think its being infringed constantly are also the people who make me most afraid to speak my mind, because theyre the most likely to insult me for that from what ive seen
|
|
inherit
57
0
1
Apr 19, 2024 10:39:24 GMT
32,674
SofaJockey
Not a jockey. Has a sofa.
13,126
August 2016
sofajockey
SofaJockey
SofaJockey
6000
7164
|
Post by SofaJockey on Oct 21, 2017 11:19:50 GMT
Meaning that a group could survive without moderation. Theoretically yes. But good luck with that... Because a polite insult is often very difficult to pin down This is a wise observation. The erudite or educated can get away with insults that those with more rudimentary communication skills cannot. It's easier to bury an insulting insinuation when cloaked in polite observation than when telling someone to 'fuck off'... (the latter is also much easier to spot and moderate.)
|
|
Guts
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 788 Likes: 779
inherit
8463
0
779
Guts
788
May 17, 2017 21:57:52 GMT
May 2017
gatsu66
Mass Effect Trilogy, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Guts on Oct 22, 2017 18:59:17 GMT
I think some Devs are frustrated. A lot of gamers rely on emotion and as a result are irrational. I still remember the Jennifer Hepler debacle apparently because she wanted games to focus on less combat. Really? I must be misremembering it. I thought she said "If I had my way, there'd be a little button that said 'skip combat'..." And all the puppies in the world were killed. Or some bullshit. Will stand to be corrected, of course - I just thought it was even less confrontational than wanting less focus on combat.
I certainly understand why people would be concerned to by something like this.
Most games do not include branching paths and actual choices, because in the eyes of the developers, content that is only seen by some players is in some sense a waste.
Apply that to the design of combat in games like Mass Effect, which is very much a central thing to these games, can you honestly say with confidence that the developers would invest the same amount of effort and resources if they thought that a significant portion of their player base was going to ignore this part completely?...
I doubt it.
Personally? I think that there are enough games out there for people that do not enjoy the combat aspect, by all means, I'm sure Hepler would be able to join telltale or someone similar if she wanted.
Now, did some people overreact? I'm sure. But then people overreact about anything these days.
Also, the term "harassment" can practically mean anything at this point, even merely addressing someone and objecting to something they said. It's a favorite defense of those that like to restrict free expression and encourage political correctness and "safe spaces".
"Gamers" don't really have a "toxicity" problem, not to any significant degree above other groups of fans of other types of products (or anything really). It's just, gaming "grew up" in a sense, it became something that's not merely a niche activity, and subsequently many people tried to define or redefine what games and gamers "should" be.
And when politics entered this business, it all became highly volatile. It's merely another political battlefield at this point, and the constant escalation means that if you want to be heard you need to shout louder than those you disagree with. And not just in regard to politics either.
The well is poisoned at this point, it was poisoned by screeching ideologues that decided to use gaming as a platform for their ideology, it was poisoned by fans with no sense of proportion or restraint, and it was poisoned by dishonest and highly cynical practices which are rather common in this industry at this point. (which is to be expected, after all, when gaming "grew up" big money became involved)
Gaming is just another mirror, and the issues people are attributing to it in particular, are merely a manifestation of the deep political divide and the high level of cynicism that's present in western society as a whole.
Does pseudointellectualism also play a role with this mirror. I'm namely referring to the idiots who accuse other who give praise as "shills". I'm not saying everyone is like this but the pseudointellectuals stand out like a sore thing.
|
|
Guts
N3
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Mass Effect Andromeda
Posts: 788 Likes: 779
inherit
8463
0
779
Guts
788
May 17, 2017 21:57:52 GMT
May 2017
gatsu66
Mass Effect Trilogy, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Guts on Oct 23, 2017 8:35:38 GMT
Does pseudointellectualism also play a role with this mirror. I'm namely referring to the idiots who accuse other who give praise as "shills". I'm not saying everyone is like this but the pseudointellectuals stand out like a sore thing. I don't really know what specifically you are referring to, or why it's connected to what I wrote, but there are people of every type out there. I was primarily thinking of the people in some of the youtube comments or youtubers, and there are a couple people on here, who accuse SJW's of ruining ME:A. (There aren't many of those people here on BSN, we virtually all agreed that "SJW's" had little to no influence on the game) There are also those that call others who praise the game "shills", again, not many, if any, of those people here on BSN. (Again, thank god) There are also those that say stuff like, "Oh you gave ME:A praise yet you haven't played the OT, you're opinion has no value." or, "Only true fans like ME:A", or better yet, "You guys call yourselves 'fans', yet you praise ME:A." These were the kinds of people who I was referring to when I was talking about pseudointellectuals. (Primarily on youtube, comments and some youtubers) (If anyone reads this and you know you don't classify as the listed people, don't be offended.) In regards to how it relates to what you said earlier, you stated that gaming was a mirror of the political divide and cynicism in modern day western society, I was asking if pseudointellectualism played any sort of role, no matter how small, in this metaphorical mirror. (Man this was a long one)
|
|
inherit
57
0
1
Apr 19, 2024 10:39:24 GMT
32,674
SofaJockey
Not a jockey. Has a sofa.
13,126
August 2016
sofajockey
SofaJockey
SofaJockey
6000
7164
|
Post by SofaJockey on Oct 23, 2017 9:32:36 GMT
Nothing wrong with 'fanboys' (and 'fangirls' for that matter). This is, after all, a 'fan forum'...
|
|
inherit
265
0
11,980
Pounce de León
Praise the Justicat!
7,910
August 2016
catastrophy
caustic_agent
|
Post by Pounce de León on Oct 23, 2017 17:50:33 GMT
I don't really know what freedom of speech has to do with forums that are run by private companies. Freedom of Speech is just that, being allowed and able to voice oneself publicly without being hindered by the authorities. It doesn't mean that its a tool to coerce others to endure obnoxious ideas or enforce them to be "published" in private spaces. Nor is it meant as a tool to shout down others who disagree.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
49
0
Deleted
0
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2017 18:17:53 GMT
Im just going to make a general and maybe off-topic statement: On the internet, in lots of (but not all - dont worry Laughing Man!) cases, the people who talk about freedom of speech and how they think its being infringed constantly are also the people who make me most afraid to speak my mind, because theyre the most likely to insult me for that from what ive seen Fair enough. I think it's just the nature of you being on opposite sides of the political spectrum with the people you are referring to. The political discourse is so... harsh at this point that it's hard to remain rational and polite. (I know I often fail in that, despite trying otherwise)
Personally, I think that it's tragic that it's the political right that needs to defend the right of free speech, when this right is so basic when it comes to liberalism and democracy. (and no, I'm not actually right-wing surprisingly enough, more of a centrist overall)
I think that it's even more tragic that so many on the left fail to grasp the importance of this right. (and a proof that the horseshoe theory is real, at least when it comes to authoritarianism)
My point wasnt about whatever side or place people are on a spectrum, not at alllllllll. So erm
I guess I was trying to say that its possible to work backwards and create an echo chamber where people cant express opposing views under the guise of 'freedom of speech'.
On a forum like this, things are like... an enclosed system. If forums were ponds, even though a few new fish would be added and some of the dead ones removed, most of the time there would be like the same fish in the same space swimming around and interacting with all the other fish. Real life isnt like that, real life is more like a river than an pond, where the fish are constantly moving and only in a few situations do you ever really see the same fish more than once.
My point is, real life carries on no matter what, just keeps flowing. People have freedom of speech, its protected, everything is great. But in an enclosed space like an internet forum, for the sake of the forums longevity to prevent the pond from becoming stagnant and to keep the fish happy... the fish would have to have some rules to prevent the fish from eating each other. In reality, that would translate to: to keep an internet forum where people are free to speak their mind, a small amount of rules need to be added which protect that. Because as I said at the start, its possible to work backwards and create an environment which is an echo chamber where people cant express opposing views. Total freedom of speech on a populated internet forum while keeping people being able to express opposing views would only work if people already agree, which defeats the point of having a forum which isnt an echo chamber, or if the people on the forum are actually nice to each other, which is rare, especially on bsn
That viewpoint is different from the one I hold on freedom of speech in reality because im a huge supporter of that, but it isnt that I wouldnt support total freedom of speech on an internet forum because it would be lovely in theory but I just dont think it would WORK.
|
|
Cyberstrike
N4
is wanting to have some fun!
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
XBL Gamertag: cyberstrike nTo
PSN: cyberstrike-nTo
Prime Posts: 1,732
Prime Likes: 467
Posts: 1,874 Likes: 3,041
inherit
634
0
May 14, 2017 17:50:43 GMT
3,041
Cyberstrike
is wanting to have some fun!
1,874
August 2016
cyberstrike
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
cyberstrike nTo
cyberstrike-nTo
1,732
467
|
Post by Cyberstrike on Nov 5, 2017 22:44:40 GMT
My point wasnt about whatever side or place people are on a spectrum, not at alllllllll. So erm I guess I was trying to say that its possible to work backwards and create an echo chamber where people cant express opposing views under the guise of 'freedom of speech'. On a forum like this, things are like... an enclosed system. If forums were ponds, even though a few new fish would be added and some of the dead ones removed, most of the time there would be like the same fish in the same space swimming around and interacting with all the other fish. Real life isnt like that, real life is more like a river than an pond, where the fish are constantly moving and only in a few situations do you ever really see the same fish more than once. My point is, real life carries on no matter what, just keeps flowing. People have freedom of speech, its protected, everything is great. But in an enclosed space like an internet forum, for the sake of the forums longevity to prevent the pond from becoming stagnant and to keep the fish happy... the fish would have to have some rules to prevent the fish from eating each other. In reality, that would translate to: to keep an internet forum where people are free to speak their mind, a small amount of rules need to be added which protect that. Because as I said at the start, its possible to work backwards and create an environment which is an echo chamber where people cant express opposing views. Total freedom of speech on a populated internet forum while keeping people being able to express opposing views would only work if people already agree, which defeats the point of having a forum which isnt an echo chamber, or if the people on the forum are actually nice to each other, which is rare, especially on bsn That viewpoint is different from the one I hold on freedom of speech in reality because im a huge supporter of that, but it isnt that I wouldnt support total freedom of speech on an internet forum because it would be lovely in theory but I just dont think it would WORK.
Freedom of speech is not defined by everyone being nice to you even when they disagree. It has nothing to do with niceness or making someone feel welcome. (although, in theory, it certainly would be nice, and isn't AGAINST the idea of free speech)
Basically, free speech is not about feelings, but about the sheer basic ability to actually say what you have to say. And that is an ability that you most certainly have, even if you decide not to exercise it out of fear of someone ridiculing you, or being mean to you.
Likewise, freedom of speech has nothing to do with naturally occurring echo-chambers, they certainly can form when a certain community attracts only people with a particular mindset, although, in reality, when there is nothing that stops other opinions in a technical sense, usually you WILL have other voices there.
So no, you can't be against freedom of speech by advocating it.
The First Amendment ONLY protects your right to speak from the government (unless you make serious threats against elected officials and civilians) and that is it. It does NOT give you the right to be heard. It does NOT give you the right to be agreed with. It does NOT give you the right to speak on the platform of your choice. It does NOT give you the right to make money from your speech. It does NOT give you the right to keep your job and/or get a job because of your speech. It does NOT protect you from the consequences of your speech. It does NOT protect you from others challenging your speech. It does NOT protect you from others shouting you down in the marketplace of ideas. Someone can call your opinion "stupid" or "naive" and they are excising their First Amendment rights. The NFL players kneeling during the National anthem is them excising their First Amendment rights. A peaceful protest against police brutality is the protesters excising their First Amendment right. The problem with the term "political correctness" is that is so overused by Conservatives (mostly) in this country is that it is meaningless and any true cases of real political correctness is like UFOs or the Loch Ness Monster sure there is sightings but no real proof and/or it gets buried because of some one saying something that some conservative finds offenive, (you want to talk about special snowflakes it's conservatives that are the snowflakes) or it gets buried because there are some students protesting a conservative speaker which by the way is NOT being political correctness it is again the student protesters excising their First Amendment right. In the case of comedy where guys like Bill Mahr and Dennis Miller made their careers being "anti-PC" has gotten to the point where they use the claim of someone being "political correct" as an excuse to justify their bad jokes and that they don't know their asses from a hole in the ground on the issues that constantly go on about. IMHO Mahr is one of the most political correct comedians out there when he is not trying to stay relevant and Dennis Miller seems to be hanging out with that sick sexual harasser Bill O'Reilly. I'm for free speech but I also want Americans to understand that freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom of consequences regardless if they're good or bad.
|
|
inherit
57
0
1
Apr 19, 2024 10:39:24 GMT
32,674
SofaJockey
Not a jockey. Has a sofa.
13,126
August 2016
sofajockey
SofaJockey
SofaJockey
6000
7164
|
Post by SofaJockey on Nov 8, 2017 7:39:32 GMT
A few posts removed because we're not re-running the politics thread here.
|
|