Inkbunny

News flash: I have no mind control powers. I can't make anyone do anything. I speak what I feel is right, and people can heed it or ignore it. Me telling people what I think they should do is not holding a gun to their head, and as you point out, they disregarded me, someone who had been in their words "one of their biggest friends and supporters" before they consistently and repeatedly made a liar out of me and anyone who assured people they weren't just going to be a pedohaven.

A person speaking what they think others should do does not mean that person thinks they'll magically be forced to do it, nor does it mean that person is oblivious to the real possibility of them ignoring him.

I do this to make a platform for others to speak up if they agree with me AND if they don't. Open discourse is the only route to ANY solutions. Silencing anyone who simply thinks "the current approach isn't solving the problems" would have us still in the dark ages using leeches on people and thinking that's healing.

They didn't silence someone for multiple rules violations. https://imgur.com/a/h7MiI They silenced a person they don't like for "almost breaking rules" too many times - which is a biased and hypocritical action when they do not have any sort of policy that enacts the same punishment to ALL people who "almost break rules too many times." There is a difference between enacting policy to enforce rules that are broken, vs using "close enough" to justify just abusing your authority and power for dick-punching people you don't like. I can explain this to you till I'm blue in the face, but I can't understand it for you.

The response of "accept whatever everyone does without complaint or argument, or go do your own" is the most vapid non-argument, and the fact of how frequently it's the one people fall back to so much only shows how baseless your position is. If person A suggests that thing can be improved, and you can't offer reason or evidence or logic to dispute their assertion besides "no shut up, take it as it is or GTFO," then you don't HAVE a position. You just don't mind how things are, and don't want people to try and make them better.

BrokenPupper

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 4 months ago by Owner

"	"before they consistently and repeatedly made a liar out of me and anyone who assured people they weren't just going to be a pedohaven.

So you're admitting that this is part of some grudge you have with the admins? Figures. Personally, I don't believe anyone even cares about this place being a "pedohaven" as most only come because of their dissent towards Furaffinity's cub banning and escalated to the point of calling it "cancerous" over the most trivial of things. I've already accepted the fact that actual pedophiles (TayFerret for example) who admit to being so are not leaving anytime soon and even without that factor doesn't make a furry website some silly utopia for topical internet discussion. Furries have made Twitter accounts for a reason.

And sorry if I'm not buying this whole "make a platform for others to speak up" nonsense because I'm busy figuring out when have you ever done such a thing. I do remember you using your platform to shame the hell out of customer of yours over a disagreement (does Donpuma ring any bells?) and from what I can see you seen to have no problem putting personal feelings above your current queue of costumers.

But sure, go ahead and start calling the administrators "fascist" while calling people who don't disagree with Pierce's muting a "regressive liberal" all you want, it's not going to do you any favors. Be honest, do you think by insulting people with popular reactionary labels is how open discourse is created or were you just banking of your status as a well-known figurehead of the furry community?

Also it's pretty funny to say how I "don't want people to try and make them better" because I cannot care less for some infantile troll you're using to demonize admins you've had personal issues with for years, yet you claimed Furaffinity for selling their souls ONLY when the admins decide to update their Code of Conduct, because apparently rewording the rules for clarity over malicious behavior is an Orwellian Nightmare now.

My "Deal With It" statement isn't my entire point, but I do really mean that if the admins put their foot down at their decision then it is what it is and no talking down at me just for shrugging at a non-issue instead of doing some virtue signalling for your sake is going to change that. Goodnight.

Aquablusari

7 years, 4 months ago

link

I'm pretty sure this journal wasn't talking about WB creating or wanting a site in 'their' image. Not sure where you got that from. He's only trying to make a point in the constant discriminant censoring of individual users who's political ideals don't fall in line with admins which is further dividing their 'community' they keep claiming to protect. -shrug-

Thatdog101

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 4 months ago by Owner

Uhh, did something like, happened here i wasnt aware of?

mairusu

7 years, 4 months ago

link

@ Thatdog101

hi Ronny, i think this is for Pierce
https://inkbunny.net/s/1467157

Thatdog101

7 years, 4 months ago

link

@ mairusu

More internet drama, got it. Thx dude.

Teko

7 years, 4 months ago

link

@ mairusu

Pierce has been a well known shitposter for years and extremely aggressive towards people in journals sitewide. I don't think removing his ability to post is a freedom of speech or political issue. It's about a single user consistently showing a pattern of harassment.

Wolfblade

7 years, 4 months ago

link

@ Teko

When they do not take the same hard-line approach with other users who exhibit the same kinds of behavior - but happen to be in line with their end of the political ideology spectrum - it does become an issue of abuse of authority for personal bias and censoring opposing viewpoints, and NOT simply enforcing the rules.

They take less action against the people attacking and harassing those with unpopular opinions than they do when people simply respond in kind after being harassed for their opinions.

When a person REacting gets a harsher response than the unprovoked instigation they're reacting to, that is a problem.

This isn't about defending Pierce. As I said elsewhere, I am not a fan of him. There is a vital distinction between opposing something that is wrong, vs defending the person the wrong was committed against. If you're opposed to Murder, and you're calling out a murderer who killed a bank robber, that is not the same as defending bank robbers.

People don't seem to be able to get this distinction anymore.

Teko

7 years, 4 months ago

link

This has nothing to do with the politics of the site owners or "balancing things out" by equally banning people on all ends of the political spectrum.

It's an individual user of the site who has been repeatedly warned about his harassing behavior and was banned when he continued to act poorly.

They don't need to ban a random left-wing furry for every right-wing furry that harasses people.

b4818529c406

7 years, 4 months ago

link

> The current regressive liberal trend of silencing and censoring through de-platforming and threats of violence of consequence RATHER THAN ENGAGING THEM is directly responsible for the ever-increasing spread and growth of damaging and harmful ideologies.

Okay, so is it better to let people continue promoting and doing their horrible things?  That is a solution how?

>  It's about the fact that you either defend all speech, or you participate in the behaviors that CAUSE the rise of far more dangerous methodologies and ideologies than the trivial shit going on with a simple furry website.

That's really just the American way of looking at it.  Elsewhere you have hatespeech laws and – lo and behold – no actual nazis marching on the streets and running people over.

Not all speech is sacred, and no, a private venue does not have to abide by the constitution of whatever random country you assume it should follow.  There is no 1st Amendment in a private website, and a private website has exactly 0 obligations to give platform to, well, really anything.  It is solely their choice in what they find acceptable (just how cub art is banned from many other furry sites, it is well within the freedoms of the site owners to decide to eg. not allow nazi or soviet or other oppressive regime symbolism in the items uploaded).

P.S.: I do not have the context, but I vehemently disagree that de-platforming would be harmful (or, more harmful than platforming it) and that Rights regarding the Government have anything to do with a private website, especially when it's not even necessarily hosted in that country.  I do agree even without context that there should be no overreach in moderator and admin use of power and people abusing power have to be reprimanded.

CuriousFerret

7 years, 4 months ago

link

@ b4818529c406

Taking the time to engage with an opponent is taxing, expecially when the general public atmosphere is as venomous as its turned into the last couple years.

But consider why you want to make your point and win the argument in the first place.

If you simply block them and avoid all contact how will they every learn they are wrong in the first place?

Are your convictions and beliefs not worth the effort to promote and debate with an adversary?

And if you happen to be mistaken on a matter yourself, won't you want it pointed out so you can correct your own theory and beliefs?

Personal interactions, not grand standing, is what builds concensus and the foundation of respect even if in disagreement.

And that takes time to develop.

Wolfblade

7 years, 4 months ago

link

@ b4818529c406

When the most unarguably, unquestionably, absolutely definitely ACTUALLY racist white supremacist people can repeatedly proclaim that the current methods of censorship, de-platforming, and threats of violence are the best recruiting tools they could ever have hoped for - doesn't that make ANYONE think to question those tactics?

The rise of the actual Nazi party was HELPED by the tactic of violent suppression of their ability to speak publicly.

When someone gets on stage and says something vile and stupid, and others stand up to dismantle their position with reason and evidence, it SHOWS them for the baseless wrong that they are. It allows people to see what these "bad men" actually want to say, and see how all intelligence and evidence says those bad men are WRONG. But when someone tries to say something and is met with violence and screaming ad hominoms INSTEAD of actually responding to what they're saying, some number of people will see the person getting punched and silenced as the victim. They'll want to make their own decisions, and hear what that person had to say for themselves.

Which means they go secretly to where they can talk to the bad men and hear what the bad men have to say, and there isn't anyone there to counter the bad men's position with reason and evidence and THAT is how the bad men get more people on their side.

At the same time, sometimes people AREN'T bad men, but just disagree with a commonly held belief when that commonly held belief is itself out of line with actual evidence. When people suppress open talk of controversial subjects we're still trying to fully understand, you can end up with actual valid facts that are taboo to speak of, and people getting labeled as bad men who aren't.

This ALSO only serves to HELP the actual bad guys - you now have people who do not support the bad guys, but just support factual accurate evaluation of evidence, and are pushed into having no place to go BUT places that accept the bad guys. You also give the bad guys easy ammo to gain credibility by simply "telling it like it is" and speaking valid facts that aren't PC, and once they have the ear of people who can see for themselves the public narrative has flaws, they then slip in all the vile falsehoods and have an audience less resistant to the false shit because they have been given evidence that the publicly acceptable narrative rejects shit that has factual basis.

If you oppose nazis and radical supremacist shit, you HAVE to oppose all the crap that HELPS them no matter how much the people doing shit that helps them insist they oppose the bad men.

But then that puts you where I am: I oppose nazis, supremacists, fascists, etc, so I attack the people that are WHY those groups are growing in number now, and people are too fucking dense to tell the difference between "I am trying to convince you to stop doing shit that helps them" and "I am defending them."

It's not about defending shit people.

It's about opposing shit that HELPS shit people, AND it's about fucking making people understand the difference between the actual shit people, and the ones who just don't agree with your position.

frogstune

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 4 months ago by Owner

"The version of Article 19 in the ICCPR later amends this by stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".[6] Therefore, freedom of speech and expression may not be recognized as being absolute, and common limitations to freedom of speech relate to libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury. Justifications for such include the harm principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill in On Liberty, which suggests that: "the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.""

Pretty sure they are keeping the "principles" of the law...

*Edit* Meant to be a reply to this comment.

https://inkbunny.net/j/295299#commentid_1709983

Makroth

5 years, 11 months ago

link

Tell that to Richard Spencer.

Wolfblade

5 years, 10 months ago

link

@ Makroth

Tell which part of it?

Richard Spencer has SAID multiple times that the current tactics of the extreme left HELP HIM.

He's a bad person. But he's using and benefiting from the bad tactics of the left. When someone like that can outright SAY 'yeah, keep it up, that really helps me,' I think that's reason to examine the tactics and oppose them if they really do help out shitty awful people like him.

Makroth

4 years, 5 months ago

link

Wolfblade wrote:

Nope.

https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/the-n...

ziggiloo

3 years ago

link

@ Makroth

It's great that you responded to a single small part of an argument with something that doesn't even dismantle his argument in the slightest and couldn't bother trying to address the rest... because you can't.  Instead you hit up Google, typed some crap in, and linked the first result you got.  Kudos to you.

Your Twitter clearly shows that all you do is antagonize people and are always parroting the same copy and paste responses over and over and going out of your way to start crap with people you don't agree with. (funny that this site links to your Twitter...)  Being a tumor of the internet does exactly what he's saying it will, it invalidates your opinion to those with intelligence and free-thinking.  I know you always think you're right (clearly) and you thrive in echo chambers but you are exactly what's wrong with pretty much everything today.  You have the right views, but can't express them like like a functional adult.  You argue against people who deserve to be called out, but you literally do nothing but strengthen their propaganda.  You are helping no one but those you argue with and are only hurting those you think you're helping.  You clearly don't have knowledge on what you're arguing about and yet post with such confident ignorance that it's almost impressive (if you didn't post and type like a typical internet troll.)  You are EXACTLY what he was talking about and you're just angry that you've been called out for being toxic.  You tell people "they can't prove" what they're talking about, but you never can or do either.

As someone who is PoC, LGBTQIA, and very much pro-vax, you are not at all someone I want fighting for me, you just make it worse.  Who wants a bigot who calls everyone else bigots on their side?  The fact that I just HAPPENED to come onto a site I've used maybe twice in the last 10 years  (I don't care much about this site), happened upon this journal for no logical reason and saw you necro a long dead journal just to say something that not only added NOTHING to the conversation, but was easily refutable simply due to your own lack of self-awareness and public post history... impressive really.  I felt inspired to necro this as well!

Congratulation, you got attention!  I'm sure it's a rarity.

Makroth

2 years, 12 months ago

link

Edited 2 years, 12 months ago by Owner

@ ziggiloo

Bla bla bla. Do you have a counter-argument?
https://medium.com/@DavideMastracci/heres-why-you-shoul...

And while you're at it, please provide me examples of Richard Spencer "owning" anybody at all in a debate. Or any other nazi managing that.

WerepupSyrus

7 years, 4 months ago

link

@ b4818529c406

1. Usually one must figure out if something is decidedly horrible before taking a response to it. There is no such thing as 'almost horrible' not really. There is a certain point, even when 'almost doing something' is equivalent to 'doing it'. Like almost committing murder but being stopped by someone else, is punishable. Almost deciding to commit murder but then coming to your senses however isn't punishable. You can only punish according to offenses. Websites do not abide by the first amendment but they should abide by their own policies/terms. Unfortunately websites such as this usually put a clause in that indemnifies them of all losses should they decide to bypass their own policies and punish someone.

B. Despite this person doing 'almost horrible things' if you read the reference material you'd know that there was worse than him and they inconsistently gave those people passes and decided to punish him thoroughly instead. Which is unfair even with even their own policies and terms. If they aren't going to do their job when they are asked to and the best they will do is give a slap on the wrist. How is it right for a person on the defense to suffer the most? This sort of thinking where the person who is in a gray area is punished more than those who are clearly in the red is the sort of thing that makes honest users really afraid to speak at all. Yeah control over negativity is ideal but at the cost of people speaking at all? Heaven forbid.

2.Pretty sure this alone corrects your second idea about it being "American only" because all businesses worldwide usually have policies and terms that they and their users abide by that are outlined ahead of time. By using those services both sides agree. So if he only 'almost' did anything, then he never actually did anything. You can't 'almost' breach a terms of service. Either you do or don't.

3.I agree even as an American that not all views should be protected. In my opinion there is a time and place for everything. If you are telling your boss how to run the company then you are in the wrong unfortunately. Pierce and other posters however are those who use the service and abide by the terms even if they are 'disliked' for narrowly not doing so. What happens to companies when they don't satisfy customers is that ones that feel unsatisfied leave and sometimes influence those they know to not as well. [Sorta like I am not gonna stop Denny's from running but have more than my share of problems and that's just as a spectator, I would never recommend anyone to go there after what I've experienced.]

B. I however don't think that if someone is upset that they begin to threaten someone else as logical. I don't think this would work unless you were a government figure or body. This is the only time where you might be able to get away with doing something so ludicrous. One person had the ability to not post, delete their comment, etc. The other person had the ability to mute or converse it out. This is equality, when one side jumped over the line and the other remained 'almost' [which is still not] it's pretty safe to say both were dancing close to the fire but only one person jumped into it, that person should be punished.

C. The only time I'd punish someone in example B is if they were clearly using manipulative methods to cause the individual who had violated what was acceptable to act in that manner. In that case person B would be given a equal lesser sentence as person C, but outsmarting someone or even calling them names is not the equivalent of a death threat, which someone can feel threatened about and literally track you down with the help of the police and put you in jail. A company that serves the public should be aware of this. The police will not help you imprison someone because "They hurt my feelings." but they will imprison someone based on terrorism in the form of death threats.

nobodyreally

7 years, 4 months ago

link

oh god you're a right wing nut MUH FREEZE PEACH type...why did you have to post this crap? Now I hate you and your art. Ugh.

Wolfblade

7 years, 4 months ago

link

@ nobodyreally

Well luckily, you're nobody really, so who cares what you think, right?

The fact that anyone expressing that free speech is important gets immediately labeled right wing nutjob is only displaying how fucking devoid of any critical thinking skills people who make that leap are.

I've been far left my whole fucking life. But now, just thinking that freedom of speech is important - the one thing that has set this country apart from the rest of the world more than anything else - that is all the identifier you need. You disregard the entire litany of issues that define the distinction between left and right wings, and just "think freedom of speech is important" matters more than positions on gun control, abortion, civil rights, personal liberties, government overreach, corporate influence, etc, etc.

That kind of thinking makes you an idiot.

You and everyone else who only needs to see "free speech is important" to completely dismiss someone.

You're the ones helping the ACTUAL fucking nazis by giving them the shelter and shields to not be as clearly identified as nazis when you make it like everyone defending shit that NEEDS defending is also defending the worst fucking crazies out there.

TribalDragon

7 years, 4 months ago

link

@ nobodyreally

>no icon
>is no one

OK! Good luck!

MistahToonCatUwU

7 years, 4 months ago

link

@ nobodyreally

A throw away account tho

Pulsar

7 years, 4 months ago

link

The concept of freedom of speech only applies to the government. It does not apply to individuals or businesses. People are free to say whatever they want, and society is free to shout them down. Likewise private businesses are free to disallow speech they dislike. Freedom of speech only means the government is not allowed to take sides.

Wolfblade

7 years, 4 months ago

link

@ Pulsar

There's a distinction between the law and the principle.

This counter-point of "that only applies to the government" to try and put down objection to private individuals and organizations stifling free speech is no different than people who think "it's only illegal if you get caught."

Yes, they can do whatever they want, it's their site. No shit. If they want to be hypocrites and just randomly punish users who haven't actually broken the rules but just "come close to" doing so, and only enact those punishments on people they personally dislike - they CAN do that. Obviously.

That fact is not in any way an argument against it being objectionable for them to do so.

TravisRetriever

7 years, 4 months ago

link

@ Pulsar

^This. I'm reminded of this gem from XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1357/ including the mouseover text.

Wolfblade

7 years, 4 months ago

link

There's a difference between defending freedom of speech and defending people from the consequences of their speech.

I don't believe people should be shielded from the consequences of their speech - when those consequences are disagreement, opposition, loss of support, etc. But things which put an end to a person's ability to speak in the first place DO shield them from those appropriate consequences. Banning a speaker from an open forum where they will have counter-points and opposition and an open debate only means they will go to a forum where no opposition exists. THAT is where Bad Ideas and evil think spreads - not in allowing open free discourse.

I don't understand why people have such a hard time getting this.

ALSO

If the site says "we will ban you if you hold the wrong opinions on things" they are free to do so. They have that right. I'm not arguing that they don't have the ability to do it. I am objecting to doing that but PRETENDING it is something else.

If you don't want your platform to be used by people to even speak certain ideas, say so. Enforce that. Go right ahead. But don't SAY that you're only preserving civility when you are not applying your corrective actions evenly against ALL uncivility, but just smacking people who are uncivil AND you dislike them.

I really hope people can see the distinction here. :/

Keeran

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 4 months ago by Owner

Most of these actions done are generally done in response of the Free Market. For example: if a company  allows one of their employees to post a missive promoting some controversy such as white nationalism and "ethnic purity," the backlash could end up directed to them. They could face a massive boycott or lose potential sponsors, eventually putting them in a position where it's harder for them to earn money. Popular morals hold much more marketable weight than you think, and it's not just on Left-wing views. Corporations are trying to cater to Right-wingers as well,  take for example  the Saturday Night Live suspension of the actress after she posted some defamatory words against President Trump, or the more recent ESPN suspensions of one of their hostesses, who made a tirade against white people.

At the end of the day, free speech  is about the protection of the people from the government (You know, like Vladimir Putin secretly killing people who talk against him, or Kim Jong Un executing you for saying something bad about him?). It is 100% the choice of private institutions to allow who or what they allow on their platform. Compare it to you as a host, inviting others to a fundraiser party, and your drunkard uncle Jim  is harrassing the female patrons to your event,  maybe talking about how they shouldn't be where they are, and pretty much making everyone feel miserable. You aren't forced but you have two options, (1) Keep uncle Jim, and lose your patrons becasue of that rowdy guest, but you would have protected Jim's "freedom of speech" by taking the fall for him. (2) Ask Jim to leave. Sure,  you might have had people who thought Uncle Jim was funny, and they might be upset at your decision, but you don't care, becasue you were able to avoid a bigger disaster  and gain a profit for your fundraiser.

In the free market,  companies' only obligation  is to make money. Even here on Inkbunny, there's a small aspect where the more users you have here, the more donations you can receive. Something causing trouble with you making that money? Eliminate the problem. Don't expect capitalism to be the loving parent to hold your hand because Billy said he didn't want to hear what you had to say.

WerepupSyrus

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 4 months ago by Owner

@ Keeran

I think you are missing the point of this situation that's why you didn't receive a response. If Pierce is the drunk uncle, then the people who responded to Pierce who were not punished, were like a squad of mafia who busted into the wedding and shot everything that could possibly shield the drunk Uncle. Yeah in the case of this you might think "Get rid of Uncle, get rid of bullets." but before then there's the issue of bullets. Hopefully before your uncle's drunkness which is a small concern compared to bullets... a policy about no weapons being allowed in general would come into play to get rid of the gangsters with the police. Pierce by getting into an argument he pretty much got shot [which maybe he deserved to some extent] but then also when the cops came they shot him too [since the rules were bent to punish him] and let the gangsters walk off.

WerepupSyrus

7 years, 4 months ago

link

@ WerepupSyrus

On that note they were punished, explained lower. I was just giving a correct point of reference.

Keeran

7 years, 4 months ago

link

@ WerepupSyrus

You just took my analogy, and turned it into a scene out of Scarface.
But let's actually extend that analogy into something more coherent.
So, you have a large group of sponsors who do run into Uncle Jim,  are repeatedly harrassed, etc. Some of them come to you, the host,  and ask you to do something about it (the people begging you to ban Pierce) You tell them  "he's not breaking any rules, so i'm keeping him here. Maybe i'll warn, etc." but then things start to escalate. Some of the people snap back at Uncle Jim,  maybe giving some good comebacks, or maybe getting slapped for publicly groping some people. Yeah, even the people who find it funny say "he deserved it"
then Uncle Jim gets so rowdy to the point he's actually disturbing the peace and giving your sponsors a hard time.  Pretty much, those people get fed up and leave. or they tell you kindly, "fix your shit, or you're no longer getting any money from us."

So what do you do? Do you  continue to protect your uncle's "free speech" at the cost of your business, losing people as sponsors and donators? Or do you ask him to kindly leave?

WerepupSyrus

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 4 months ago by Owner

@ Keeran

My analogy is far more consistent to the actual situation. There are so many flaws with your analogy I am going to point them out rather than even giving you an answer.

1.Uncle Jim would probably be thrown out for groping. If Uncle Jim offends people by simply being close to them however, that is a different story as he has done nothing wrong. It would be up to those people to distance themselves.

2.Uncle Jim probably wouldn't harass the business people, because that would also get him thrown out.

3. If Uncle Jim talked in a way that the big business people didn't like, I'd tell Uncle Jim and the business people to stay away from each other.

4.You are comparing Pierce? or Roarey? To the uncle. The other users are equals, where as your analogy paints them as lesser by simply making other people attending seem more important. Roarey didn't commit offense, if you scroll down below you'll see his speaking privilege wasn't taken. Pierce must've been actually breaking rules and thought that only he was being punished, when in fact both sides were.

5. Even with the situation here there are stakes to lose, whereas you really paint the Uncle as without value. Pierce leaving will have a decent effect maybe not huge.

6. It's not big enough of an issue for the entire site to lose money as what you are talking about with the big wigs.

7. Why are big wigs trying to do business at a wedding, bad place and time. At least Uncle Jim is trying to be merry.

8. A slap is not what Pierce got. Death threats aren't slaps. If Uncle Jim got slapped for merely getting to close, then the person who slapped him should've just distanced themselves. This isn't necessarily Uncle Jim's fault unless he pursued it.

9. Uncle Jim can be rude to someone who is rude to him even if it's a formal party. If the big wigs were at my wedding and were only talking shit about Uncle Jim because they didn't like how he was dressed or how he smelt, and couldn't be adults about it, they'd more likely get kicked out because at least Uncle Jim is a family member. But that's being biased. This is why both parties need to be family members. If my Father and my Father-in-law got in the same predicament at least they are both trying to follow the rules to start. If my real father got pissed off at my drunk father in law and started beating his ass or threatening to kill him, I'd kick my father out because that's beyond the rules.

10. Since they are both within the rules and the only thing that stops them from getting along is the death threat, I'd probably first force the ones causing the more severe grievances to leave first. This would be the ones on someone else's journal causing a big stank with death threats. Then I'd look back to see if one caused the current situation through manipulation. If the person didn't intend for the situation to be that way, then I'd still probably give them a look but if Drunk Father Jim for instance had a history of being bold, not only would Drunk Father Jim give it away himself in private, but I'd warn some people at the party and if they were big wigs I'd tell them to steer clear and vice versa. I'd also seat Drunk Father Jim with people who he got along with, if any.

When you have 10 features of your analogy that are extremely different from the situation it's even more fanciful than mine that is at least relevant.

I'd say mine is closer considering that if the Drunk Uncle is a form of 'hard to tolerate behavior' the gang members are a form of unacceptable behavior. Sure we can even say they were related to the family like the Uncle but just hated him, but all the same neither of them are directly savory. The drunk uncle at least is possible to tolerate, where the gang members are clearly out of line.

If you really want an answer based off your analogy...

I wouldn't invite a business to my wedding. Never mix business and pleasure together. But that isn't relevant. Pierce and Roarey are as much business as other users.

Norithics

7 years, 4 months ago

link

I'm as Liberal as an NPR tote bag full of commie hats and I'll tell you first-hand that they're not in the habit of favoring a side here. There is no special treatment- if I ask for or do something that's outside of the rules, they drop me like a sack of hot shit just the same as you. It's part of why I like them. I mean they vocally protected Roarey many times and he was very simply trying to stir shit.

I don't know this guy being referenced, but with my observation of this administration's hands-off history, if he warranted a gag order, he probably earned it.

Wolfblade

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Your opinion that Roarey's motive is to simply stir shit is incorrect.

It's an assumption based on the fact that certain opinions and positions cannot be expressed without shit being stirred.

I know him, personally, and his motive is always to oppose what he feels to be damaging and harmful bullshit. He might be wrong! He might see something as harmful when it isn't. He might see something as harmless when it isn't. But that's not the same as >intending< to be hurtful and damaging.

If I see people with cancer talking about this new cure, and I have reason to believe that cure is actually cyanide, I'm not opposing the curing of cancer or wishing for cancer patients to suffer if I speak up against the cyanide-presented-as-a-cure.

There's a lot of shit that makes people suffer. There's reason to believe some of the popular ways to help those people can actually make their suffering worse. Opposing what you feel to be a FALSE "help" that does more harm than good, and wanting people to be able to talk to find a better way to help is NOT the same as opposing help and wanting people to suffer.

Norithics

7 years, 4 months ago

link

I mean I was trying to give the guy credit, but if you say he drinks his own kool-aid and actually thinks he's helping people, then that's just sad. He's doing it the most hilariously incompetent way possible.

Wolfblade

7 years, 4 months ago

link

At every point in human history where we discovered a better cure/treatment/approach to something that causes suffering, it is because someone has said "I don't think the current approach is the best we can do."

Since we're talking about Roarey, let's look at the issue of suffering caused by a person's mental gender being disparate from their physical sex. Assuming we all share the goal of reducing or eliminating that suffering, let's look at one current approach: surgery.

The last time I looked, the statistics were that 1 in 5 post-ops report a full resolution of their dysphoria, 1 in 5 post-op commit suicide, and the remaining 3 report little or no change in their symptoms.

That is simply the data, at least at the time of the pro-reassignment study I read. Newer data may exist, I haven't checked in a long time, I am simply using this as an illustrative example for my point.

If we all want to HELP reduce or eliminate the pain and suffering the condition causes, then can you at least understand why some people feel that an approach that has little to no effect in the majority of cases, and results in as many subjects KILLING THEMSELVES as express to be cured, is AT LEAST not the most perfect ideal approach we can ever come up with?

YES, the suicides could absolutely all be due to other factors such as family rejecting them post-transition, and other valid points. They may have had entirely separate issues that led to suicidal tendencies. But we can't have the studies to look into those possibilities and gain hard data to that effect if people can't even be allowed to raise the possibility that the current approach may not be the best possible one.

If the data has changed, and only 1 in 20 post-op people commit suicide, then that would alter my position because my position is based on whatever the available facts happen to be. Anything which results in fewer patients KILLING THEMSELVES after the treatment is, objectively, a better treatment than one which results in higher numbers of suicide. But even then, that doesn't mean we can't still be considering and thinking about all avenues to maybe find an approach that has even fewer people fucking committing suicide.

Roarey's opposition to teaching gender spectrums to very young children is BECAUSE of the severe pain and mental anguish and confusion experienced by NGC people. When someone does not feel comfortable with the alignment of their physical sex and mental gender, that is a severe issue. In acknowledgement of that, any course of action which has a strong possibility of CAUSING that kind of confusion in someone who would not otherwise experience it SHOULD be objected to.

99% of the human species do not experience any particular disconnect between mental gender and physical sex, even when they do not conform to traditional societal gender roles - a girl can be a "tomboy" and that doesn't mean she's a trans male, it doesn't mean she's a lesbian. But how can children be expected to comprehend that being a girl who likes to wear jeans and watch nascar, or being a boy who likes to wear dresses and play with dolls doesn't speak to your gender any more than it does to your sexuality when ADULTS can't wrap their heads around these facts?

It isn't hate to suggest that an approach which could conceivably cause the problem of confusion or disparity between physical sex and mental gender in some portion of the 99% children who would not otherwise experience is not an acceptable proposal to address the same problem being experienced by less than 1% of the entire population.

If 1% of kids are allergic to peanut butter, but a substitute which would not harm them is potentially harmful to an unknowable percentage of the remaining 99% of kids, it isn't HATE to peanut-allergic kids to oppose replacing all peanut butter with the substitute that may be better for that 1% but could be damaging to the remaining 99%.

Does this not make sense?

Norithics

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 4 months ago by Owner

Okay look, this is like... the tiniest seed of a potential good concept, completely tarred by not having any of the facts right.

1. The post-op suicide rate thing was a study done in '99 in Sweden and the author of the study themselves states they're beyond frustrated with how their data was completely misused to... basically try to infer what you're concluding. Subsequent follow-up studies (included in the article) have shown that for the people who can get it, surgical intervention easily has a better-than-not record for reducing negative symptoms in people.

2. Kids aren't getting surgeries. Hell, most adults who want them can't get the surgeries, for many and various reasons. So whether or not that was inferred, it isn't happening.

3. 99% of the species? This is sphincter statistics at its wildest. We don't even have half the data points necessary to say one way or another how many people are affected by this, so no. If you're trying to say that most people have no problems with the way gender works in society with regards to themselves, there are so many variables you're not even close to acknowledging, like a) What societies? Which ones? b) Just sexual or behavioral? c) Are we including non-binary individuals? If not, why not? If so, then we've increased the number of grievances a hundred fold, and I'm just guessing here but 1% is not going to hold up under that metric.

4. This is the gay panic all over again, almost note for note, and the fact that you can't see it is tragic. People who just got a foothold in respected society, gatekeeping through concern-trolling for The Children, trying to make it seem like a mission of mercy. If you're worried that tearing away the veneer of "penis equals pants" is going to leave children adrift, don't- half of them want to be inanimate objects when they grow up. It's part of being a kid; you don't know how anything works, so your identity shifts with whatever you want or are interested in. It's only when we start giving them divisions that are backed up by adults- Girls are one way, Boys are another, Geeks are this, Nerds are that, That kid's dad's in jail- that they start having real ammunition to make each others' lives miserable.

Seriously, I'm not taking the piss here. People were genuinely concerned. "What if a kid thinks it's cool and thinks that they're gay?!" To which we learned the answer: a) This didn't happen with little kids, because they don't care, b) For older kids who were this way, it wasn't a disaster, because c) It doesn't matter unless everyone's an asshole about gay people.

TL;DR? I wholesale reject this entire theory because it has nothing behind it and supposes that The Way Things Work Now is the harmless alternative.

Taonas

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 4 months ago by Owner

This is perhaps a good example why free and open discourse may be a good thing though.
I didn't know about that study in Sweden, and how the results are being misrepresented. I'm assuming people like for instance Milo Yiannopoulos are referring to this when they (rather rudely) talk about these post-op suicide rates. So, hey, their argument is flawed. How would I have known that if for instance this journal was shut down?

(Also yes, don't worry, it was an example. Milo's an unproductive trolling douche.)

Norithics

7 years, 4 months ago

link

@ Taonas

I mean, my position was that the discourse has never not been open. This journal's still up. Nobody interfered in my own journals. Nobody's stopping us here. Seems to me like everything's fine. I'm thinking this whole thing is a bit of an overreaction to somebody being a tosser and getting his reward for doing so.

BrokenPupper

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Exactly.

Taonas

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Yeah you might be right. I haven’t personally seen any troubling censorship on this site.
I see someone is banned from commenting. I don’t know what they did to deserve that, but I assume there is a reason for it. I know all too well how frustrating it can be to have a member in your community stirring up trouble, skirting the lines, heck, rallying people against you as a staff member, but at the same time knowing how to play things to *just barely* stay within following the rules. I’m pretty sure people like that are why f-list.net has simply decided to disable comments on newsposts.

Taonas

7 years, 4 months ago

link

@ Taonas

In other words, I can’t really tell if this case was handled reasonable, from this site of the curtain. Heck, I probably looked unreasonable to some people.

Musuko42

7 years, 4 months ago

link

@ Taonas

A perfect example of this kind of behavior is the way the westboro baptists act: they stay carefully within the bounds of the law. Wouldn't we show them the door if they turned up here, obeying the rules but still acting like they do?

Something I've not seen mentioned in all this: inkbunny is a business, and we are it's customers. If a minority of customers are pissing off the majority of customers with their behavior, which group would it make business sense to appease? It may not be fair, and I'm not saying that inkbunny''s owners think this way. But if they do, I can see why they would.

frogstune

7 years, 4 months ago

link

By certain opinions, you mean phobic, irrational ones?  That equates to hate speech at the very least.  Roarey still can't back up any of his claims he's made about transgender people and their so-called "agenda".  He also equated the teaching of acceptance of transgender people, to teaching kids that homosexuality was okay.  Which is a conservative right-wing, irrational(being as it isn't, and will never be the case) idea that if "all" people were homosexual, then the worlds population would die off.  Completely irrational, as homosexuality is not a choice.  Neither is gender dysphoria in transsexuals.  Neither is the sex your are born as.  Gender is another subject all together, and gender non-conformity isn't a mental illness.  Roarey claims that transgender people are trying to teach children that their sex is a choice.  The link he provides, is addressing a class activity that gives you a perspective of what factors transgender use to identify a "gender"(sex is one of those factors, so clearly his idea that "gender" means sex, is contradicting).  Mind you, they are not teaching all the "genders" that transgenders have listed.  It is just a simple, class activity for better understanding transgender people.

Maybe you can figure out his other claim for me.  He still hasn't responded with any sort of rational answer.  He gave 2 links that don't even support his claim at all.

https://inkbunny.net/s/1465489#commentid_4488449

The comment thread where he actually made that claim to me has since been deleted by admins, simply because I gave him the same facts that contradict his claim and then he resorted to ad-homs and name calling, rather than address his claim at all.  Oddly enough, that same comment thread was the first time I'd ever noticed Pierce's comments, as he popped in just to egg Roarey on, as well as throw his own insults at me.  Only then did I notice that he is all over Roarey's comments, white knighting for him, and fittingly having the avatar of Zorori flipping the bird(as it fits his troll like behavior), at that time.

whitepawrolls

7 years, 4 months ago

link

And....here we go with more political nonsense even if it wasn't intended that way :p

CodyFox

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 4 months ago by Owner

I just wish the "shit posting" and bomb throwing would stop. I have been happy here at inkbunny for a long time because people are friendly. I'm not here for people creating big controversies by offending as many people as possible. There are sites for that. Do you really want that to become IB? Just another troll site where everyone is constantly at each other's throats? I just hope that will stop.

When Roarey got in trouble before I asked him what his purpose was, since he said he wasn't trying to convince anyone of anything as you'd expect in an intellectual debate. His response was that he just wanted to throw these things out there and "see what happens." He said several times that he knew what he was saying was going to make a lot of people angry, he just didn't expect the magnitude of the anger. So essentially, since he said he has no intention of having a real intellectual debate, it's more like the equivalent of pulling some pins out of some rhetorical grenades and toss them into a group of unsuspecting individuals and gleefully watch the ensuing chaos. I don't think that is what IB is supposed to be about. If pierce has been routinely breaking the rules then he has to be punished. Again, I don't understand why anyone would want our community to just have more anger and outrage and people attacking each other. We should be more caring about each other.

Wolfblade

7 years, 4 months ago

link

A person can want to express their position without necessarily being the one to convince everyone of it.

Sometimes, you just want to speak up and say what you think. Sometimes you feel like defending it, sometimes you just want to say it, and let people take it or leave it as they will.

It is false to jump to the conclusion that this means the intent is to be hurtful or disruptive.

For all the people wanting to silence and censor and dismiss it because this is a private website - you also have the tools to simply block a person and all their images and speech and never be bothered by it. So if you don't want to see controversial opinions or political statements - just block the people making them and the rest of us can engage in open adult discussion. Your wants can be met without silencing people. That's what makes it wrong for people to push to get someone else silenced when they have the option to just not see or hear what they have to say - because you can make your choice for yourself without denying other people the ability to choose differently from you.

CodyFox

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 4 months ago by Owner

That is a good academic argument but I don't think it solves things in real life. People who are in the business of creating outrage are not satisfied with just preaching to the choir. They will find ways to satisfy their need for the angry/offended reaction, even if it means going to extremes to do so. That's why the website has rules. I think as long as people are staying within the rules they will probably be okay unless they are clearly trying to exploit the rules in some fashion. For example, Roarey's offensive posts were protected by the staff despite it causing some people to leave the website. It was only when he and others started engaging in personal insults that they stepped in.

The simple fact is they need to have rules here and the rules have to be enforced. This isn't Drudge or some similar site where it's just a free for all and people are encouraged to slash and burn everyone non stop. If that's what people want I think they should go there and have fun. This is a furry art community and I feel like we want at least maintain some level of dignity about us even if we arent treated nicely by some others.

Wolfblade

7 years, 4 months ago

link

CodyFox wrote:

First, you're assuming that Roarey acts on a thirst for outrage and would work harder to seek it if people simply blocked him.

Even if that were true though, THAT is the point when action can be taken. If an existing option - blocking the person you don't want to see/hear from - is insufficient and a person actively seeks to get PAST that block - then their motives are certain and not assumed. THEN you deal with that person.

The site does not go and police every journal where people become insulting. If someone is directly personally insulting FIRST, they lose the right to complain when someone responds in kind. The admins taking action when person A throws an insult is one thing. Ignoring when person A throws an insult, but stepping in when person B throws an insult back is another thing entirely. Tools exist for any user to summon administrative intervention should they want it. But if someone can take all the insults in the world and respond of their own accord, it is excessive for administration to step in unasked-for on their behalf.

HOWEVER, even if they did that as a standard approach and policy, that would still be less objectionable than the fact that they ONLY take that route when the person insulting-in-response-to-insults is someone they dislike expressing views they disagree with. THAT uneven response and hypocrisy is the problem I am objecting to here more than anything else.

CodyFox

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 4 months ago by Owner

I do think he has a deep thirst for it. I don't think he would be doing what he has been doing, to the extent that he does it, if he didn't. This is not new to him. Provocateurs have existed for a long time. There are many reasons for it. Some people do it because it makes them feel good, maybe the attention, I don't know. But I have checked out his Twitter and his IB page for the last few months, just silently observing. There's a lot of extreme statements, a lot of rage and attacks and insults, and a lot of posts that draw upon extreme representations of hot button political issues. That's not rocket science. He wants people to respond to him, and the extreme nature of the communications seeks out a similarly extreme response or at least an angry one. This is not high school debate club stuff. Posts usually include multiple explitives, demeaning and/or dismissive language and labels that are meant to cause insult to certain groups. Personally, I don't understand it. The level of rage can only lead to more rage. It can only cause more hatred and antagonism between him and others. No rational person would possibly expect otherwise.

It's his right, as it is others. People can do as they wish, but creating such an aura if antagonism around oneself at all times is destructive in so many ways. It is not good for anyone. It might cause mods on this site to have a suspicious feeling toward the person that is greater than others. I guess it's human nature. However, I really don't think there has been any kind of systematic unfair treatment here. It might be the case that people who are creating the largest storms of controversy are getting the most mod attention, just because of resources. If you created 50 mod tickets in a day and someone else created 1, would you really be that surprised if they focused on you? I don't know if that's what has happened to anyone, but it might he something to consider.

My main point here is I don't think ANYONE should be throwing insults. I don't think that is what IB is for. IB should be better than some other places for furry art. But also, I think everyone should endeavor to be courteous to their fellow members and not seek to cause antagonism.

WerepupSyrus

7 years, 4 months ago

link

I think you are wrong, because Roarey especially does talk back with people who want to discuss the idea. Technically it's his journal, I don't see why someone cannot discuss what they want to as long as they are not directly causing anyone harm. They are just words. However threats cause direct harm. If you can say Roarey or Pierce did so then I take back my 'i think it's ok' but having an opinion about something or feelings about something is what a journal is about anyway.

It's a journal, not a business ledger, not a progress report. Otherwise I argue that they shouldn't be able to post that they are streaming either, because inkbunny doesn't run any of those and therefore has no jurisdiction at all in those cases. Whether there be commissions or anything else going on. That's dangerous right? Of course it doesn't work that way it sounds stupid because it is. Any place is fine for an non combative opinion. Offensive opinions can be non-combative. If you aren't adult enough or just don't like it, avoid it! I do that on facebook when I think that a person's opinion has been stated many times but it's off the wall and cannot be discussed with.

WerepupSyrus

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Insults happen as a result of disagreement. Adults distance themselves from the situation typically. Roarey does actually stop looking at responses and closes comments on old posts for instance. Insults happen, and they suck. Death threats however are not on the same ground as insults. So for that I feel like your comment was made out of ignorance.

BrokenPupper

7 years, 4 months ago

link

This.

TribalDragon

7 years, 4 months ago

link

And this drama was the perfect example of why left can't meme.
"I'm going to silent this monster just because he's posting things that don't go with my antifa lifestyle boohoo"

MistahToonCatUwU

7 years, 4 months ago

link

I see tokai was here trying to stir the pot

Fyi, he was kicked in less than 10 minutes from roareys group for stalking various members of the community and has vowed vengance on everyobe in the group

Stumpycoon

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 4 months ago by Owner

Although I agree in general, there is the more specific issue of who is making TOS violations.  If there is a crack-down on people making TOS violations, that is not censorship or bias.  If it is a crack-down on people for saying something admins disagree with that is a form of censorship.

Recently there has been a lot of complaints of "you're persecuting me" and "you're infringing my freedom of speech" in response to an audience disagreeing, and calls of "you're censoring me" from the far right at the drop of a hat.  Like the story of the boy who cried wolf, it makes me take such claims with a grain of salt.  Especially when someone successfully uses their freedom of speech to spread their message, but then publicly claiming they are being censored in response to any disagreement or criticism.

Such people falsely claim they are being silenced and censored to shut down the very discussion (and debunking of garbage ideologies) you are advocating, Wolfblade.

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Yeah and on the other side you've got people claiming that certain views are inherently a form of harm and violence and want to see proponents of it ruined. People have already lost their jobs, careers, reputations etc over disagreeing with far left activist opinions from feminists, antifa, socialists/communists and race-baiting blm types. It's not that people on the right are being silenced, it's that people are being treated like absolute shit by far left people who label them as far right with no justification and then going on a witch hunt. Acting like an unpopular opinion is in itself an act of violence or harm is the problem to begin with. And if people weren't getting fucked over for having views leftists hate they wouldn't be able to say they were being silenced, would they? It's not the right word to use, silenced, because that isn't actually what is happening. It's abuse, slander, vilification and bullying.

Stumpycoon

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 4 months ago by Owner

Good to see you're not banned, censored or silenced there Roarey.

I do find it entertaining how many people only ever make accusations about the other side and never answer questions about their own actions. Yes, maybe someone else did something bad Roarey, but that doesn't make a bad thing you did good or virtuous. That holds for everyone, and it would be great if more people remembered it.

Yes many groups have done you wrong it seems. I wonder how many of them say the same thing about you and your group? And guess what will keep happening if all these sides keep treating others like crap and blaming the other side's crappy behaviour for everything?

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 4 months ago

link

What bad thing have I done?

Stumpycoon

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 4 months ago by Owner

Your treatment of others, if you want me to pick something. Although in my response that was a hypothetical "bad thing done by person A is not justified by person A blaming person B".

But enough side-tracking, would you like to answer the question?

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 4 months ago by Owner

My treatment of others? Oh, the people who speak to me like shit and try to disparage me, unjustifiably. Yeah, I have been shitty to them. If you're being hypothetical then fine, but that also means your point doesn't make sense. I have complained about the actions of others because I don't do what they do myself, so I'm not simply saying these people over there are bad while I'm just as bad or doing the same thing. All I do is make my opinions known via journals or cartoons. If people approach me for a discussion then I discuss, if they approach me with an insult, a snide-ass patronising remark, a lie, misrepresentation or any other dishonest, shitty behaviour then I'm not friendly to them. If people treat me with respect I treat them with respect, it's that simple.

In answer to your question, I don't have a group. I have a telegram chat for free speech but it's not a team with a set ideology. And I don't engage in the behaviour I criticise, nor do I condone anyone else doing it. Why is it you feel the need to make the assertion I've done awful things in the first place? Backtracking to saying it's a hypothetical notwithstanding. How about you don't make baseless statements about people you don't know, with not even a single bloody example to show for it.

Stumpycoon

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Perhaps some day you could try to interact with people without blaming and accusing other people of being responsible for your behaviour. If so, tell me how you find the experience.

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Haha, they're not responsible for my behaviour and I never said they were. I said o react to abuse with abuse, which is my choice incidentally, because Im not a pushover. Anyway, your avoidance of everything inconvenient about our exchange has told me enough about your attitude, fair enough and tata.

Stumpycoon

7 years, 4 months ago

link

If that is so, why does every one of your responses include a set of other people and you blaming them for causing your current actions?

Wolfblade

7 years, 4 months ago

link

One day you say something.

Someone else punches you in the face for what you said. So you simply punch back.

Over time, it becomes a regular thing that some people want to punch you in the face when you speak out, and you consistently respond in kind to any such attacks.

Then people start criticizing you for all of the violent assault you are committing against others, so you respond to that criticism with the simple fact that all of that history is being misrepresented by dismissing the crucial and critical point. The specific behavior being criticized is A: a responsive behavior, and B: a response aimed at people who initiated that level of negative interaction FIRST.

He always brings up the reason why he acts in the manner he's being criticized for, because he's letting people know how to alter his behavior in the manner they clearly desire: People stop coming at him in the hostile and insulting manner they do, then he won't respond to them in the manner he gets criticized for.

If you try to hold person B to a standard you're not holding person A to, then person B will invariably care less about your standards or expectations. If a person responding to someone speaking their opinion is not expected to "keep it civil," then you cannot hold a person to that requirement when on the receiving end of the same treatment you're inconsistently criticizing.

Even if you ARE consistent in criticizing both the initial antagonistic remarks AND the equally antagonistic responses to them, that's still ignoring a key differing factor between them: One is unprovoked, the other is with provocation. I'm sure someone will say all Roarey's opinions are provocation, but that's the problem when you let people thing that words are violence or holding/voicing an opinion is equivalent to an actual personal attack.

Child A punches child B every day on the way to class. So long as child B simply takes it, many people see no issue. But when child B punches back - it is NOT the correct response to treat the punches of child A and child B as equal in motive, intent, and appropriate consequence.

Telling Roarey he must maintain civility with people who make no effort to be civil to him is no different than telling a child if they don't want to go to the principal's office, they simply have to "keep the high road" and let the bully continue punching them.

Even if there are other courses of response available, you don't get to dictate that a person's response to outside aggression and attack must be more considerate of their attacker than their attacker is considerate of them. This notion is WHY people give such a pass to the people attacking Roarey: they feel those attacks are justifiable responses to him merely having unpopular opinions. Yet they flip that standard when he responds in kind, and expect him to be held to standards of civility beyond what the people he's responding to are being held to.

Inconsistency, hypocrisy, double standards. The more these things pile up as the accepted norm for some, the more the people who've accepted those things get disregarded and held in contempt by those who do not accept them.

Stumpycoon

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 4 months ago by Owner

That would be valid if talking about victims who are reacting and not instigators who are initiating.

In this specific case we see Roarey is consistently blaming others for causing him to react; but the truth is he is the one throwing the (verbal) punches and trolling the people responding to him to disagree or those trying to help him.

TravisRetriever

7 years, 4 months ago

link

^This. A few too many seem to believe in thought crimes.

Wolfblade

7 years, 4 months ago

link

I agree. There's WAY too much eager and passionate acceptance and promotion of the notion of thought crime being a valid tactic.

People who believe it is acceptable to treat someone like shit because they hold an opinion different than their own ARE engaging in the support of 'thought crime.'

Someone getting shit on for "thinking wrong" is someone being punished for a thought crime.

Dismissing or justifying antagonistic insulting attacks against someone in response to their speaking a thought, but then holding them accountable for merely responding in kind to their attackers - this IS thought crime. It's saying he's wrong to speak to people the way they speak to him, but they're NOT wrong for speaking to him that way to begin with because his thoughts are justification to treat him in such a way.

Donamer

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Websites are allowed to keep 'unsavory' opinions held.
I don't even think free speech applies here.
They could ban all Blue things if they really wanted, though I admit I would not remain a fan of the site.

Engage.

vicwuff

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 4 months ago by Owner

Furry was a mistake.

edit: I think your argument rests on the (wrong) assumption that the people who hold the, as you've called them, "harmful and damaging views" are a) sincere and not simply trolling b) willing to have a reasoned discussion and c) even able to have such a discussion in the first place.

edit 2: Also the appropriate forum for such a discussion of "harmful and damaging views" is not to give the person espousing said views a soapbox from which they can simply shout past anyone attempting to have a reasoned and rational discussion. The appropriate forum is for the moderators to remove said person, provide an explanation of why their conduct was inappropriate, and open THAT subject for discussion.

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 4 months ago

link

The problem is what is classified as harmful and damaging. Ideas are not inherently harmful, hurtful etc, actions are what produce harm. If the dissemination of a particular idea would lead to harm then it has to be discussed to not only combat it openly but to actually determine if it is harmful in the first place should that idea be acted out in the real world. Almost everything from the social justice lefts body of ideas is demonstrably harmful in practice and does NOTHING to help anybody, yet because nobody can challenge those ideas without being labelled far right, a nazi, a troll etc etc then there's no dialogue which can clearly show how bad these ideas are. And they are bad. Yet people hold them while feeling they are virtuous people, so virtuous that when they try to ruin someone elses reputation or career for disagreeing they actually believe this is an activity worthy of praise and celebration. Like when Richard Spencer got punched in the face.

TravisRetriever

7 years, 4 months ago

link

I take it the folks crying "Nazi" have never heard of the Streisand Effect. Or the Forbidden Fruit Effect.

vicwuff

7 years, 4 months ago

link

If those are applicable to make fascism appeal to you, you didn't need them as an excuse.

TravisRetriever

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Or of the "Boy Who Cried Wolf," now that I think about it. If you continue to lie to people, you've no one to blame but yourself for your inevitable loss of credibility.

vicwuff

7 years, 4 months ago

link

"	RoareyRaccoon wrote:
	If the dissemination of a particular idea would lead to harm then it has to be discussed to not only combat it openly but to actually determine if it is harmful in the first place should that idea be acted out in the real world.

This presupposes that history is no guide and that there is nowhere we can look for examples of what has happened when this is done.

"	RoareyRaccoon wrote:
	Almost everything from the social justice lefts body of ideas is demonstrably harmful in practice

Such as the concept of equal treatment and structuring society around the idea of a veil of ignorance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance) ? Or was that just a strawman?

"	RoareyRaccoon wrote:
	then there's no dialogue which can clearly show how bad these ideas are

It's quite difficult to have a dialogue with someone who dismisses everything you might suggest and constantly attacks a strawman built around the totem of a single loud voice that isn't supported by any of the people you choose to lump in with them.

"	RoareyRaccoon wrote:
	Like when Richard Spencer got punched in the face.

Defending Spencer is why you get labeled as a troll. People want to assume that you aren't so vile a person to actually agree with or side with him on anything but damn if you aren't trying to prove that assumption wrong...

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 4 months ago

link

If Marxist SJWs believed in equal treatment they'd not destroy the concept of free speech everywhere they went and claim to be oppressed and marginalized with no evidence whatsoever beyond vague allusions to an overriding social monster called the patriarchy or whiteness etc. It's not a straw man dude, people genuinely argue like this. I'm not a troll, I just don't punch people in the face for their opinions like the thug who punched Spencer. Do you go around smacking people in the face when you disagree with them? I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you don't.

vicwuff

7 years, 4 months ago

link

"	RoareyRaccoon wrote:
	they'd not destroy the concept of free speech

More of this "you have to tolerate my intolerance otherwise you're being intolerant" bullshit. Not interested.

"	RoareyRaccoon wrote:
	It's not a straw man dude, people genuinely argue like this

Then why are you here arguing with people who are not those people?

"	RoareyRaccoon wrote:
	Do you go around smacking people in the face when you disagree with them?

If that person is saying I ought to be killed, yeah I probably would.

RoareyRaccoon

7 years, 4 months ago

link

What intolerance have I displayed? It's not me who goes around trying to get people fucked up and ruin their reputations for their opinions, that's actually you haha. Look, dude, you came to me a while back during the whole gender thing and assured me you would own me with the extent of you biological knowledge and you did not deliver. If anyone here is empty, full of hot air and disingenuous it's you. I mean you just advocated punching someone in response to an opinion, so you are violent and don't believe in free speech, by definition. Not much else to say beyond remarking how fucked up that is. You do you.

vicwuff

7 years, 4 months ago

link

"	RoareyRaccoon wrote:
	What intolerance have I displayed?

I would characterize the ENTIRE gender identity mess you engaged in was intolerance from your end. You were met with what you considered intolerance but the point is that you were the one who acted first. So you pitched a fit about intolerance because your (whether or not you intended it to be) intolerance.

The sensible action would have been to apologize for any offense it caused instead of giving more ammo to people who are indeed overly sensitive about everything, which is what you ended up doing.

"	RoareyRaccoon wrote:
	It's not me who goes around trying to get people fucked up and ruin their reputations for their opinions, that's actually you haha

You have no idea who I am or what I stand for, my dude.

"	RoareyRaccoon wrote:
	you came to me a while back during the whole gender thing and assured me you would own me with the extent of you biological knowledge and you did not deliver.

tbh I completely forgot about that. I work nights and I believe that I was on forced overtime the night after I offered that and thus didn't have time. I've plenty tonight so if you want, I'll set some aside and write that up for ya.

"	RoareyRaccoon wrote:
	I mean you just advocated punching someone in response to an opinion, so you are violent and don't believe in free speech, by definition.

I don't really see any value in what you are considering "free speech" if there is never any consideration to the context or content of what is said or who is saying it. Richard Spencer isn't just "some guy", he's a well known neo-nazi. He wasn't punched for what he was saying in that instant, as an effort to shut him up, he was punched because he's living garbage who ought to not have a soapbox.

KichigaiKitsune

7 years, 4 months ago

link

That first point is one of the most commonly repeated arguments I hear about this, and it really bugs me. You can't just assume everyone who posts a contrary opinion is only a troll, and yet I've seen exactly that assumption being used to preemptively ban anyone who has ever espoused an opinion not congruous with the opinions of the moderators or community at large.

Case in point, every single refutation of any given Anita Sarkeesian argument is "trolling" or "harrassment" according to herself and her defenders. According to Sarkeesian - and plenty of people like her - nobody has ever seriously and honestly offered a rebuttal to her, ever. (Note that I was late to that whole bandwagon, I'm not a gamergater or whatever. She's just a dishonest woman whose arguments fail to stand up to scrutiny.)

vicwuff

7 years, 4 months ago

link

"	KichigaiKitsune wrote:
	You can't just assume everyone who posts a contrary opinion is only a troll

Oh, am I mistaken to assume that people who post about "white genocide" and "blood and soil" aren't sincere in their espoused convictions? Should I be judging them with the appropriate harshness earned by the history of such positions?

"	KichigaiKitsune wrote:
	I've seen exactly that assumption being used to preemptively ban anyone who has ever espoused an opinion not congruous with the opinions of the moderators or community at large.

Are you suggesting that the gross denizens of stormfront are simply trying to be talked out of their positions and worldview when they come along and shit up discussion boards and communities? Moderators are obliged to maintain a community that is congruent with the goals of said community, whether that is also congruent with their opinions is not up for discussion and not any of your business.

"	KichigaiKitsune wrote:
	Anita Sarkeesian

A strawman that I won't dignify with a response.

KichigaiKitsune

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 4 months ago by Owner

I bloody hate this, I have to open comments in other windows to respond to them, or quote them verbatim. It's the one thing I really hate about Inkbunny. Anyway.

"Oh, am I mistaken to assume that people who post about "white genocide" and "blood and soil" aren't sincere in their espoused convictions?"

Well, you've just said this to the wrong person. My father is a white nationalist Stormfag, and I remember posting on Stormfront and Vanguard News Network's forums as a kid/early teen myself. Don't worry, I grew out of it. Yes, they're sincere. You do know many of them were interviewed during the lead-up to the 2016 Presidential election and opined these beliefs on camera to interviewers?

More importantly, my point was more about lumping "everyone who posts a contrary opinion" in with such groups, which, yes, may contain trolls or may just be so viciously hateful that a productive discussion is impossible. You're the one who came in here trying to narrow it down to Stormfags and Kekistanis.

"whether that is also congruent with their opinions is not up for discussion and not any of your business."
Nor is it any of yours, nor did I say it was mine, nor is that relevant to the point. I never said moderators shouldn't use their discretion to shut down unproductive flaming or user harrassment, only that moderators and users themselves should also employ discretion as far as they respect or desire useful discourse. Which means not banning everyone who disagrees with them by calling them a troll. Stop sniffing your own farts there, vicwuff.

"A strawman that I won't dignify with a response."
I don't know if you understand what a strawman is. That was an example of the misuse of labels to dismiss legitimate criticism, which is perfectly appropriate to the discussion. Just because you don't like being conflated with Anita or her actions doesn't make it any less valid; again, I didn't bring up Stormfront and neither did you in your first post. Again, my point is that automatically dismissing criticism by dismissively labeling it "trolling" and assuming their motives is a tactic that has been abused in the past.

Given that your response to me was to assert that white nationalists don't actually believe what they're saying and can't be reasoned out of it, you're in clear need of having this pointed out to you.

vicwuff

7 years, 4 months ago

link

"	KichigaiKitsune wrote:
	Yes, they're sincere.

And why should those toxic individuals be allowed to spread their bullshit hate and bigotry around here? I've not seen a compelling argument as to why that should be permitted.

"	KichigaiKitsune wrote:
	You're the one who came in here trying to narrow it down to Stormfags and Kekistanis.

Who is it you think is getting the ban hammer?

"	KichigaiKitsune wrote:
	Which means not banning everyone who disagrees with them by calling them a troll.

Would a better situation be if they were banned for the assumption that they are sincere in their behavior?

Just because you don't like being conflated with Anita or her actions doesn't make it any less valid[/q]
It does because she doesn't represent me and I would be willing to bet that she doesn't represent anyone within the IB moderator community. Q.E.D. a strawman.

"	KichigaiKitsune wrote:
	Given that your response to me was to assert that white nationalists don't actually believe what they're saying and can't be reasoned out of it, you're in clear need of having this pointed out to you.

I believe I was quite clear in my phrasing when I presented it as a question. From my point of view, if you are simply trolling, you don't actually believe the vile bullshit you're spreading around. This would be far less of an impeachment of a person's character than to assert that they truly believe it. But I guess that depends on whether you think it's worse to be a troll or a neo-nazi...

KichigaiKitsune

7 years, 4 months ago

link

" I've not seen a compelling argument as to why that should be permitted."
I believe you have, but I'll see if I can explain my position. Since I doubt you'll read my recent journal on the topic (it's my most recent, if you want to prove me wrong), the reasons are:

1. In order to publicly humiliate and refute their beliefs.
2. In order to not allow them to grow and recruit others out of mainstream view.
3. Because the precedent of censoring speech (in society) deemed harmful or undesirable is a dangerous one, that has mostly been used against liberals.
4. In order to deny them the escape of claiming to be censored or elicit sympathy in any way whatsoever.

Finally, individual users can block them if they find their influence especially distressing. Nothing wrong with that.

"Who is it you think is getting the ban hammer?"
That depends very much on whether or not the moderators are actually banning trolls and flamers, or simply banning anyone they disagree with and calling them that. If you mean here on Inkbunny (my arguments were general in nature, you realize), I don't know, because I don't believe Pierce is a Stormfag. Feel free to prove me wrong.

"Would a better situation be if they were banned for the assumption that they are sincere in their behavior?"
I outlined above why I believe the answer is no.

"It does because she doesn't represent me and I would be willing to bet that she doesn't represent anyone within the IB moderator community. Q.E.D. a strawman."
It was an example illustrating the dishonest abuse of, or presumption of, labels. It's not a strawman, since I did not equivocate your position with hers, it was an illustrative example of what could go wrong when you start making those assumptions. Which you seem to be doing. In fact, you just were so keen to throw that bit of Latin at me that you forgot that you specifically said "Oh, am I mistaken to assume that people who post about "white genocide" and "blood and soil" aren't sincere in their espoused convictions?"

So, you did just imply that we should presume right off the bat that these people are trolling and to ban them the moment they reveal themselves to have a dissenting opinion. So are you in favor of immediately dismissing people who disagree with you because you presume they're only trolling and not arguing in good faith? You have NOT made yourself clear thus far.

"I believe I was quite clear in my phrasing when I presented it as a question."
You presented it as a rhetorical question, seemingly to ridicule my position. Nothing else was clear. I don't disagree that trolls are pathetic little fucks who need to get lost, but we're talking about three different things here.

The first are people who genuinely hold beliefs because they're deeply misinformed and likely deep in a cultural echo-chamber.
The second are people being collectivised with the first or third because they hold an opinion a particular party dislikes. Perhaps to conveniently dismiss their arguments, my point was that this has been done before.
The third are trolls who are seeking attention and want to disrupt discussion for their own gratification.

If you want to keep this going, I suggest picking something to focus on. The trolls, or the genuine believers. Because you seem to have a simple understanding of how and why the "believers" believe as they do; again, I need to stress that they are people who can be converted. Likewise, there are potential converts who can be pre-empted. I don't think either of us disagree that trolls need to be dealt with. I'm not in favor of arseholes, I'm in favor of publicly crushing them.

Either way, I'm off for a few ales. Have a good Friday and I'll be here when the weekend rolls around.

vicwuff

7 years, 4 months ago

link

KichigaiKitsune wrote:

1. In order to publicly humiliate and refute their beliefs.
2. In order to not allow them to grow and recruit others out of mainstream view.
3. Because the precedent of censoring speech (in society) deemed harmful or undesirable is a dangerous one, that has mostly been used against liberals.
4. In order to deny them the escape of claiming to be censored or elicit sympathy in any way whatsoever.
5. Individual users can block them if they find their influence especially distressing.

1. This is far better accomplished when they are not in the same space, shouting over everyone
2. This happens regardless, not a compelling argument
3. I can think of no example in any country or history where speech has been an absolute and unrestricted right.
4. That claim is made regardless of its veracity. It is a favorite trope of Yiannopoulos.
5. I don't find that compelling because of the ease with which such methods can be subverted (new accounts, personal army use, etc)

"	KichigaiKitsune wrote:
	That depends very much on whether or not the moderators are actually banning trolls and flamers, or simply banning anyone they disagree with and calling them that.

The answer would be all of the above. If a person is behaving in such a shitty manner that it warrants a ban, it is irrelevant if they truly believe in the shit they say.

"	KichigaiKitsune wrote:
	I don't know, because I don't believe Pierce is a Stormfag.

I don't know and don't care if he is sincere in his espoused beliefs and as a rule I don't generally belittle people by assuming they are being insincere. In the specific case of Pierce, I would suspect he is a troll and not a stormfag because he alternates between antagonizing people and publicly reveling in people's reactions rather than behaving consistently.

"	KichigaiKitsune wrote:
	I outlined above why I believe the answer is no.

I don't believe you have, at least not in any explicit way.

"	KichigaiKitsune wrote:
	It's not a strawman, since I did not equivocate your position with hers, it was an illustrative example of what could go wrong when you start making those assumptions. Which you seem to be doing.

My apologies for not being clear here. I don't lump people like Roarey (for example) in with trash like Richard Spencer, even though he defends him, because he does not parrot the guy's neo-nazi insanity. The reason why Sarkeesian is a strawman here is that her core character profile (the only thing consistent about her) is playing the victim and claiming oppression regardless of the particulars of any situation. Perhaps I am not being fair in extending this expectation to others but oh well.

"	KichigaiKitsune wrote:
	You have NOT made yourself clear thus far.

It isn't that their behavior (not just posting a journal here or there) is not simply a differing opinion. When a particular behavior is so toxic that inserting it in people's timelines is the equivalent of throwing a molotov cocktail, it is in the community's interest to not allow that behavior.

"	KichigaiKitsune wrote:
	You presented it as a rhetorical question, seemingly to ridicule my position. Nothing else was clear.

I, as a rule, do people the dignity of assuming they are sincere when presenting themselves to others. What you took as a rhetorical question was an attempt to portray the mental gymnastics to consider a person separate from their behavior or beliefs; to look at a person who is being a shithead and think "oh but he doesn't actually believe that." If that didn't come or if you disagree simply disagree with that portrayal I apologize for the confusion.

I am more than willing to entertain a discussion with someone who holds a wildly disparate worldview than my own (is that not literally what we are doing right here?) but I draw the line, personally, when the person I am engaging with does not share and is not interested in the same fundamental values that I hold.

KichigaiKitsune

7 years, 4 months ago

link

I'll respond to this quickly, since it's been so long since our last exchange. I'll start from the bottom up, since those things aren't the important/interesting issues.

"When a particular behavior is so toxic that inserting it in people's timelines is the equivalent of throwing a molotov cocktail, it is in the community's interest to not allow that behavior."
I understand your point, but at what point do we conclude that the discussion/user has become toxic? When their discussion is full of TOS violations? And at what point is it fair to just shut a user out because their opinions cause others to breach the TOS? How can we make an actionable policy?

As I said elsewhere, it's up to the mods to decide what is and isn't acceptable on the site. The main reason I'm debating anybody at all about this drama-fest is because I disagree with people saying "X topic is not appropriate to this site." Especially since what that boils down to is "X opinion is not to be tolerated on this site."

I'll admit something, btw, nobody has explained to me what Pierce does to warrant this. I haven't seen him do anything more extreme than the people disagreeing with him. I don't feel right asking, because he can't defend himself.

"If a person is behaving in such a shitty manner that it warrants a ban, it is irrelevant if they truly believe in the shit they say."
Agreed. I don't disagree here.

"I, as a rule, do people the dignity of assuming they are sincere when presenting themselves to others."
And that's really all I'm saying, so we can forget any talk about Ms. Sarkeesian. And it's your choice to not debate someone with vastly different 'fundamental values', but my point is that most people do share the same core values, at least in the West. I feel weird playing apologist for them, but a lot of alt-right persons don't think of themselves as racist. They're operating from a different framework, convinced there's actually anti-white bigotry, for example. They can be engaged and convinced on that front, if they're willing to talk honestly. Or humiliated.

"1. This is far better accomplished when they are not in the same space, shouting over everyone"
I disagree, because they find their own echo chambers and communities where they usually aren't engaged. Usually they're not even acknowledged by the mainstream and they grow and grow. There's a reason why Bill Nye debated Ken Ham publicly, why Randi has his challenge out there, and so on. And again we come down to "how do we decide what is/isn't acceptable here?" Is it opinions or behavior you want to punish, that sort of thing. I personally would rather punish obnoxious behavior, that way we can have a civil discussion.

"2. This happens regardless, not a compelling argument"
But the rate of recruitment can be affected. We won't ever be free from racism as a species for example, but we can definitely make it less common.

"3. I can think of no example in any country or history where speech has been an absolute and unrestricted right."
You misunderstood my point. The right-wing conservatives have traditionally used deplatforming and censorship, arguments from assumed moral authority, to stymie social progressives. I don't want to lend credence to these tactics. And most restrictions on speech are for logical reasons: fire, crowded theater, etc.

"4. That claim is made regardless of its veracity. It is a favorite trope of Yiannopoulos."
The claim can be made, but outside observers - potential recruits, so to speak - can see whether it's empirically true or not. I don't care what Milo says, it's also a favorite argument of Kyle Kulinski and David Pakman, and other liberal pundits with no affiliation to the alt-right.

"5. I don't find that compelling because of the ease with which such methods can be subverted (new accounts, personal army use, etc)"
I don't think there's a good answer to this issue. Unless persons can block/mute by IP. Has its own issues.

I hate the character limit for replies. :s

vicwuff

7 years, 4 months ago

link

"	KichigaiKitsune wrote:
	The main reason I'm debating anybody at all about this drama-fest is because I disagree with people saying "X topic is not appropriate to this site." Especially since what that boils down to is "X opinion is not to be tolerated on this site."

I don't know of anyone on the moderator side of things who has said or even suggested that any of the issues at hand (or any topics/issues for that matter) are simply not appropriate. I'm not sure where that sentiment is coming from.

"	KichigaiKitsune wrote:
	nobody has explained to me what Pierce does to warrant this.

Long story short, he cropdusts "controversial" posts and intentionally rials people up. Kinda like the guy in youtube comments on a video about cats who posts some bullshit about politics.

"	KichigaiKitsune wrote:
	a lot of alt-right persons don't think of themselves as racist. They're operating from a different framework, convinced there's actually anti-white bigotry, for example

This goes to what I mean when I use the word "value." A person who believes those things to be true does not fundamentally value truth or objective reality. And I swear to christ if I have to explain one more time to someone that "privilege" doesn't necessarily mean a benefit but that you lack a certain detriment...

"	KichigaiKitsune wrote:
	they find their own echo chambers and communities where they usually aren't engaged.

Again, I feel this happens more readily for people who find themselves dragged into the public space by the false promise of acceptance of any and every grotesque idea.

"	KichigaiKitsune wrote:
	We won't ever be free from racism as a species for example, but we can definitely make it less common.

That won't be accomplished by inviting racists to the public podium as if their racist ideals have merit, doing so grants them legitimacy they do not deserve.

"	KichigaiKitsune wrote:
	I don't want to lend credence to these tactics. And most restrictions on speech are for logical reasons

Perhaps I wasn't clear in my position then. Consider this article for some of my reasoning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel

"	KichigaiKitsune wrote:
	outside observers - potential recruits, so to speak - can see whether it's empirically true or not

But they can't... In the end it comes down to a case of "he said, she said" and when a venue cancels an appearance because someone like Yiannopoulos fails to provide what is needed for the security of the event they turn around and claim to have been censored. Because the minutia of such events are difficult for the majority of people to dig up, the face value facts support the false claim of the person whose event was canceled.

RagnarArcano

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Completely off topic but

I KNEW IT... WOLFBLADE ISNT DEAD

Stumpycoon

7 years, 4 months ago

link

@ RagnarArcano

That is great, isn't it.

LukaBun

7 years, 4 months ago

link

woohoo! Amen Wolfy! :D

lilraccoon

7 years, 4 months ago

link

I wish you cared about over-a-year-overdue commissions as much as you do moderator fascism. 😕

Ryuun

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Oh snap

HellDoradoLion

7 years, 4 months ago

link

He offered refunds a while ago for anyone who wanted their money back....

Maybe just ask him

lilraccoon

7 years, 4 months ago

link

@ HellDoradoLion

From a May 18th, 2017 email: "If you would prefer to be moved to a refund queue instead, I can do so, and I'll do my best to get your money back to you as soon as spare funds are available. In all honesty though, it's most likely I would be able to get to your spot in a work queue sooner than I'd be able to refund you."

HellDoradoLion

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Like i said, i would just talk to him

lilraccoon

7 years, 4 months ago

link

@ HellDoradoLion

After 39 emails and 18 months, I think I've exhausted that option! It's a shame. It's not personal.

HellDoradoLion

7 years, 4 months ago

link

wow 39 emails in 18 months? thats about 2 per month >.< i mean he did say it would take time..... i feel like 1 email every 2 months would have been more appropriate

lilraccoon

7 years, 4 months ago

link

@ HellDoradoLion

👍

whitepawrolls

7 years, 4 months ago

link

This is why the only commission I have ever bought is wiggling at everyone right now (my icon), The whole "pay me now and wait till I'm ready to do the art" thing has always made me stay away, and 99% of the artists do this. People need to push more for "you get paid when its finished" things and make artists actually do the work in a timely manner.

DAleda

7 years, 4 months ago

link

There's a very distinct line between "we should protect the principles of free speech even when someone says something with which we disagree" and "it is wrong for a social website to ban someone who is espousing viewpoints and political stances which have a direct, overt, and well-documented association with violence, suppression, and extreme bigotry."

I don't know what this person said, and certainly I'm no big fan of Greenreaper. However, as a card-carrying SJW, it's hard not to notice that when people bring up "freedom of speech", it tends to be in defense (and implicit support) of people whose "unpopular opinions" are hateful and bigoted.

Clunkymunk

7 years, 4 months ago

link

@ DAleda

I'm pretty much with you on your stance, here. As soon as I see the "free speech" argument, I'm like, "Oh, boy, here comes the part where we have to let fascists spout hate speech or be deemed fascists ourselves in a false dichotomy."

But, I also don't know what the fuck is going on. I just logged on to fap, tbph.

Wolfblade

7 years, 4 months ago

link

@ DAleda

"	Cuix wrote:
	it's hard not to notice that when people bring up "freedom of speech", it tends to be in defense (and implicit support) of people whose "unpopular opinions" are hateful and bigoted.

Because if nobody has a problem with what is being said, then there's nothing to protect. "Freedom of speech" only gets invoked when someone is trying to say "no, you aren't allowed to say that" because if nobody is trying to silence what is being said, then there's no need for anyone to protect it.

The reason people defend the freedom to speak - even when they do NOT agree with or defend what is specifically being said - is because if you allow some authoritative body to determine what speech is or is not allowed, even if it starts as only banning speech no decent person would object to being silenced, it will INEVITABLY become corrupted and misused. First the easy, indefensible shit gets silenced, nobody really cares about that because fuck anyone wanting to say that shit in the first place, right? Then something a little less clear-cut 100% evil gets shut down, but you know what, that probably does more harm than good anyway, so better safe than sorry. Eventually though, something YOU think and believe gets deemed "wrong" and now if you speak it, you'll face some negative consequence.

If you never object to something until it happens to YOU, you don't get to stand on a foundation or principle or reason, you're simply mad that you were personally inconvenienced. Which makes it easier for others who have not themselves been silenced yet to dismiss your objection, just as you dismissed the objections of others.

There ARE no "principles of free speech that we should protect" if you aren't protecting the right to speak in and of itself. The principles of free speech are utterly and entirely divorced from WHAT is being said - that is the whole point. Once you start deciding what is or isn't okay to say divorced from direct and measurable indisputable harm (like shouting FIRE! in a crowded theater or BOMB! in an airport), then there is no freedom of speech left.

The conflation of "he's defending that guy's right to speak, so he's defending what that guy wants to say!" is the most infuriatingly transparent tactic to convince people to relinquish their rights to free speech. It's deeply concerning that it's so fucking successful and people fall for it so easily.

And it only helps the actual Nazis all the more.You're not stopping the spread of their bad ideas. You're just ensuring the bad ideas are only spoken in whispers in out-of-sight places. All you're stopping is the public dissection and refutation of those bad ideas, so that when they do get whispered in private to someone who was just curious what a person possibly had to say that warranted a punch in the face before they got one word out - there's nobody there to speak the counterpoints that might keep that curious person from thinking "oh... I never knew that, he might have a point."

THAT is how the actual bad ideas of these people get spread. Silencing public discourse HELPS them.

DAleda

7 years, 4 months ago

link

"	Wolfblade wrote:
	Because if nobody has a problem with what is being said, then there's nothing to protect. "Freedom of speech" only gets invoked when someone is trying to say "no, you aren't allowed to say that" because if nobody is trying to silence what is being said, then there's no need for anyone to protect it.

Plenty of people take issue with statements like "there are more than two genders" or "feminism is not a dirty word", but nobody even pretends to defend those with "but it's free speech". Let's not put on a front here; the "free speech" defense is being used entirely as a tactic to defend, maintain, and legitimize the things being said by the right (and especially the far right, the bigoted, and those proudly against social progress/justice, the sorts of people who use SJW as a slur).

"	Wolfblade wrote:
	...it will INEVITABLY become corrupted and misused....

I'm not even a little shocked to see the slippery slope get pulled out here.

"	Wolfblade wrote:
	Eventually though, something YOU think and believe gets deemed "wrong" and now if you speak it, you'll face some negative consequence.

This is already the case. "Hey, can we maybe not portray women like that every time?" has gotten me more than my fair share of harassment. But not a single person steps in to say "hey, come on man, free speech" about that.

"	Wolfblade wrote:
	If you never object to something until it happens to YOU, you don't get to stand on a foundation or principle or reason, you're simply mad that you were personally inconvenienced. Which makes it easier for others who have not themselves been silenced yet to dismiss your objection, just as you dismissed the objections of others.

On this, we fully agree. It's important to stand for a principle before it becomes personal, because once it's personal a lot of that integrity is dissolved.

"	Wolfblade wrote:
	The conflation of "he's defending that guy's right to speak, so he's defending what that guy wants to say!" is the most infuriatingly transparent tactic to convince people to relinquish their rights to free speech. It's deeply concerning that it's so fucking successful and people fall for it so easily.

Then maybe folks who rail about free speech should try for a little diversity in the things being defended, rather than always falling back onto "these darned militant SJWs" language.

"	Wolfblade wrote:
	And it only helps the actual Nazis all the more.

Oh, god, not this, christ. Giving them a platform helps them. Defending them helps them. Calling their genocidal desires "just an uncomfortable opinion" helps them and legitimizes them. Equating white nationalism with "maintaining our culture" helps them. Telling them to get the fuck out of our god damned fandom IS NOT helpful to them.

LadyFuzztail

7 years, 4 months ago

link

I want you to understand one thing, Kadm is not this way normally. Kadm had cracked under the pressure of the screeching "antifascist" social totalitarians who invaded this website and are more than willing to let it burn to the ground if they do not get their way.

lucashoal

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 4 months ago by Owner

Regressive lib...what are you on about? Especially with Roarey in your comments stroking his ego over everything.

Clunkymunk

7 years, 4 months ago

link

uh oh...

lucashoal

7 years, 4 months ago

link

@ Clunkymunk

I don't bother reading what Roarey has to say since it's long screeds. But "regressive liberal" is REALLY suspicious and sounds like far right wing nonsense. Especially since it's an oxymoron.

Clunkymunk

7 years, 4 months ago

link

this whole thing feels like bad juju, man. largely because it doesn't seem to actually address anything concrete.

lucashoal

7 years, 4 months ago

link

@ Clunkymunk

Sure it does! Some...vague... "don't be something...vague, Green?"

Hey

Wolfblade

? There's no liberal agenda.if a months old comment, where I call a *KNOWN* altfurry a neonazi gets deleted. Yeah, that's definitely not a liberal agenda if that gets deleted.

Blazingpelt

7 years, 4 months ago

link

My two biggest issues with these mod actions are
1. All users are provided the tools to block people within this context, but I rarely ever see it. Generally the arguments continue on the consent of both parties, so for moderation to step in and admonish both for almost or barely breaking rules when each was totally fine with responding to the other seems overbearing. Arguments are going to happen.

2. Punishing action and reaction equally (or reaction worse, even) is going to disproportionately hurt the most popular users on the site when they are controversial. 20 people slinging shit at 1 person is 20 single incidents, but the 1 person responding in kind to them is a 'period of bad behavior'. Not everybody wants to pull the block and ignore shit and end up with a list of a hundred usernames, as stated above, but if targets don't, they'd earn an undeserved reputation.

bencoon

7 years, 4 months ago

link

@ Blazingpelt

Judgements are made with the context considered. When a user is banned or muted, it is with the context or repeated, documented abusive behavior, not 'arguments'. If the decisions had been made on personal feelings, Wolfblade's account would've been forcibly banned the third or fourth time he was 'leaving forEVAR' because wahh wahh, he doesn't get to dictate policy on the site just because he's popufur.

(Fun fact: the last time I talked to him, that was exactly a reason he put forth why he has such a vitriolic hate-on for IB staff)

Wolfblade

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Continue misrepresenting things, sure.

As our last talk covered, again, which I do not expect you to magically understand now, but in case anyone else who sees this can parse it for you; here is the breakdown of my entire beef with InkBunny for anyone curious:

My "popufur" status was only relevant to establish the point that I personally contributed to a not-insignificant degree to the initial influx of users to IB at launch. It wasn't an ego-stroke. Merely a statement of fact that the person who, at the time, had more followers than any other user was, at least arguably, playing a notable part in bringing users to the site at launch.

Whatever portion of users I brought to the site were brought here significantly on the premises of A: No, despite the detractors, IB is NOT going to just cater to the pedos, they're making a place for everyone to be welcome, and B: unlike any other site at the time, IB is giving you the option to filter out content you don't wish to see.

Meaning any users I brought to the site who weren't keen on cub stuff were satisfied with just not having to see it.

When FA banned cub, and the flood of new cubs users and submissions hit IB, it was an example of the kind of situation I had talked with Jery about before IB existed: That if you want to prove your detractors WRONG about you, then you HAVE to NOT do exactly what they claim you would do.

When cubs intentionally refused to tag their work - some even stating they did so for the purpose of making the site inhospitable to non-cubs - if your detractors were WRONG about you, then the correct course of action would have been to immediately greet the new influx of users with welcome, but a strong assertion that they MUST tag their work.

What happened instead was shrugging, and arguing about whether tagging should even be mandatory (a filter system means nothing if tagging ISN't mandatory), users proclaiming their intent to thwart a basic site function for the purpose of antagonizing other users did not meet administrative consequence, and users noting the administration about the sudden huge amount of untagged submissions getting past the filters that were a big part of their reason to give the site a chance got told "if it bothers you that much, perhaps your needs would be better served elsewhere." Essentially 'don't like it? leave.'

Each subsequent case of me "trying to dictate policy" was a similar instance of you, InkBunny, being faced with a decision which would either validate the people like myself who defended you from detractors, or, make liars of us and prove your detractors were right about you. I argued for the courses of action that would prove the detractors wrong, and uphold what I and others had assured people about your intentions, and I argued against courses of action that would just prove the haters were right about you from the start.

Every time you proved the haters to be right, and that I had been wrong about you, thus making any assurances I'd personally given people into a retroactive lie, yes, I got increasingly upset and distressed at you all.

I did not turn from supporter to detractor. I said good things about you all because I believed them, and that was me supporting you. You continuously proved me to be wrong, and proved the detractors were valid, and so to you, I appeared to "change" to a detractor when I was no longer telling people the nice things you made into lies, and instead spoke what you decided to make truths that happened to be what the haters had said from the start.

I can explain this to you a hundred times over, but I can't understand it for you.

Maybe someone else can.

bencoon

7 years, 4 months ago

link

I am presenting exactly the words you provided to me. If you don't want to be identified as being a sanctimonious narcissist with an overblown ego, perhaps you should display some other personality traits.

You hated that you thought we were being too permissive. Now you hate that you think we're being too strict. Perhaps you just want to hate something. After all, the list of grudges and feuds you maintain is pretty much legendary by this point, yet you don't seem to recognize the irony of your own comments. 'Pedobait'. From the guy whose entire fanbase was developed by being fandom's most prolific cub porn provider. Accusations of misrepresentation.. from the guy who gets called out again and again for blatantly lying about other people. I guess that's why you're supporting Pierce so passionately; he hates almost as emphatically as you do.

I'm really not going to bother with the rest of your post. If you can't make your point in a clear and concise manner, you don't have a point. You just expound endlessly for the sheer pleasure of seeing yourself type, and seem to confuse verbosity for authority. You aren't 'winning' because you have proven the superiority of your ideas, you're just 'winning' because the other person has given up in disgust.

Cy says hi. :)

Wolfblade

7 years, 4 months ago

link

"	bencoon wrote:
	I am presenting exactly the words you provided to me.

This is simply false. You didn't present a word I said: only your interpretation of them.

"	You hated that you thought we were being too permissive. Now you hate that you think we're being too strict. Perhaps you just want to hate something.

I'm sorry the nuance escapes you between being permissive to people intentionally invalidating a basic function of the site for the purpose of bothering other users, vs allowing someone to submit opinion pieces, allowing people to attack him for them, but then smacking people who do nothing more than what was done to them >first.< This is exemplary of you misrepresenting things.

"	Accusations of misrepresentation.. from the guy who gets called out again and again for blatantly lying about other people. I guess that's why you're supporting Pierce so passionately; he hates almost as emphatically as you do.

Where's a blatant lie? Tell me what I have said that was a blatant lie, and show the proof that A: what I said was false and B: I knew it to be so when I said it. Anything that I've said about InkBunny that has proven to be outright false has all been the POSITIVE shit I said BEFORE you guys repeatedly chose to prove that your detractors had been right.

And again, misrepresenting: Objecting to a wrongful action against a person because the action is wrong regardless of who it is done to IS NOT THE SAME THING as simply defending that person. As I've said elsewhere, I don't even LIKE Pierce. But, because you clearly can't understand this: right and wrong isn't about whether you LIKE the person or not. I objected to you guys when I LIKED ALL OF YOU and thought we were friends because what you were doing was wrong. I object to the treatment of him even though I don't like him because if your morals can't see beyond "do I like them or not" then you HAVE none.

I'm really not going to bother with the rest of your post. If you can't make your point in a clear and concise manner, you don't have a point. You just expound endlessly for the sheer pleasure of seeing yourself type, and seem to confuse verbosity for authority. You aren't 'winning' because you have proven the superiority of your ideas, you're just 'winning' because the other person has given up in disgust.

"	Cy says hi. :)

Ask him if he appreciates you dropping his name, and if he DID ask you to say that, then ask him how he'd feel about me stating right here exactly what HE did to get on my shit-list, since you/he bring up here in public a personal dispute that I, up to this point, have respected his request in not throwing out into the public's view.

bencoon

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 4 months ago by Owner

Also, you owe a lot of people money or porn. Perhaps you should actually work rather than endlessly posting on a forum that you clearly hate so much.

Wolfblade

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 4 months ago by Owner

Yay, ad hominem, I'm not perfect, therefore fuck responding to anything I actually say.

If you want to resort to personal character attacks, I'd be happy to state right here the kind of shit you were doing that I let slide leading up to our last face-to-face. The things you admitted to my face that you were doing intentionally to try and provoke a confrontation with me through my boyfriend. That's the difference between us. You want to make vague, hand-wavey generalizations of how I'm a bad person, I will state exactly the what and when and why of shit you have done that I have a problem with.

Sorry that precise and clear accounts aren't as easily digestible as concise yet informatively empty trash-talking.

BangBadger

7 years, 4 months ago

link

when will they add a favorite button to journals?

nakiekitsunepuppy

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 4 months ago by Owner

This wouldn't be a problem if people would learn to debate civilly instead of yelling at and insulting whom they disagree.  This applies also to debates about cub art on other fur sites where it ends up the same as if it were a political debate.  (And to some extent it is.)

Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy for a reason.  Using insults only makes yourself looks stupid, and depending on the intensity of the debate can cause an escalation where a moderator has to step in, which is a problem.

Back in the late 90s, I used to have civil debates with others about things where we would use constructive criticism and listen to others to come up with potential solutions to things.  Nowadays when I try to have a discussion I get called a racist, idiot, etc. which pisses me off, so I don't bother much.  I'd rather not deal with the extremism that is prevalent nowadays.  They prevent naturally occurring free speech and civil debate.

smokenhearse

7 years, 4 months ago

link

@ nakiekitsunepuppy

Heh yes I know what you mean.
In my line of work, I often have to debate the positives vs the negatives of an isssue with stakeholders. I've noticed that those who have educated themselves about the topic at hand feel secure and confident, which allows them to act civil and achieve results in a productive debate. Those who just try to wing-it tend to get frustrated, emotional, and irrational; and well, we know what happens then.

Fortunately with online community forums we can always employ what is possibly the greatest mentality ever conceived: Don't feed the trolls. It's great, it allows freedom of speech while making trolls opinions completely irrelevant. Ignore, delete, block and brush them aside, and they will ooze back down into that hole from whence they came.

nakiekitsunepuppy

7 years, 4 months ago

link

@ smokenhearse

Ignoring trolls works works when they are independently trolling, but the problem that has occurred is that the trolls have organized and banded together which makes it hard to just ignore them. They also attack in mass and cause trouble that is hard to ignore.

Teisu

7 years, 4 months ago

link

@ nakiekitsunepuppy

^ this. You definitely clarify the main issue here.

GrandAngel

7 years, 4 months ago

link

I remembered when I cared about furry drama and thought it was interesting to partake in.

Then I grew the fuck up.

It's sad to know that the furry community, as a whole, will not follow suit ... no matter how many years pass.

Gobby

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Inkbunny hasn't been the same since the pink unicorn. :(

smokenhearse

7 years, 4 months ago

link

@ Gobby

What's the pink unicorn?

whitepawrolls

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 4 months ago by Owner

@ smokenhearse

You don't want to know. Trust me. That...thing needs to be forgotten about.

lucashoal

7 years, 4 months ago

link

@ whitepawrolls

I've been here for years, not long after the Great FA Cub Purge, and I have no idea what this pink unicorn is. Then again, I'm only here for the content, I don't care about the community of IB really.

KichigaiKitsune

7 years, 4 months ago

link

It's a thing Roarey posted in response to the "gender spectrum unicorn". Really, all this argument about much loftier subjects, this storm in a teacup... comes down to the reaction to this one image.

I find it amusing, and I've been here over a decade by now.

lucashoal

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Oh, THAT crap. I thought it was something else. That's why I have the dude blocked in the first place, don't need to see any of his "I'm so smart look at me masturbate at my ego and intellect" after that.

Wolfblade

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 4 months ago by Owner

If people chose to block that which they decide they do not want to see - instead of trying to deny others that choice by trying to make it so NOBODY can see it - this whole issue wouldn't be a problem.

Everyone has the ability to make Roarey's submissions no longer exist in their little pocket of the universe. They block him, they don't have to see them. If you made use of that tool, AWESOME, good on you. The point of filters is to make it so people don't have to see something they'd prefer not to.

But others see it, react to it, post on it with insults and hostility and severe lack of the civility people keep acting like REactions need to have - and so we get this mess. Because others aren't satisfied with choosing for themselves to not see a thing - they want to deny choice from anyone who may choose to want to see it and make their own decisions for themselves.

THAT'S the problem here. IB isn't telling the people attacking Roarey and expressing such frustration and upset at his submissions "just block him, then." They're letting those people CHOOSE to seek things to be upset about, to dump all their anger and upset and lack of civility on Roarey, then when Roarey only responds on the same level as what he's getting - THAT'S what they view as the mis-step needing action.

It's allowing a thing you don't like to become a powder keg so you can take action to remove it - instead of just telling people to use the tools already available to them to satisfy every objection they have SHORT of dictating what choices are available to OTHER people.

lucashoal

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 4 months ago by Owner

Tell all that to Roarey then, not me. If he'd taken the criticism and gone "oh, I didn't realize it came across as me being a complete asshole, my bad." Nope, he kept digging and digging deeper and deeper. That's no ones fault but his own. So you go tell Roarey. Don't write a short story to me, because I don't give a shit what he has to say if he's going to keep being the same asshole he's proven himself to be so far.

Also, yknow. When you say things like

"	"hahaha yeah, that would be so retarded, nobody would choose that route!"

That doesn't reflect well on where you want us to think you're coming from. That makes you look like the same sort of asshole to me. Especially when it's to a guy who thinks calling Liberals "regressives" super witty and original. Context matters my man, and the context of what you're saying... doesn't add up.

BrokenPupper

7 years, 4 months ago

link

THAT'S the problem here. IB isn't telling the people attacking Roarey and expressing such frustration and upset at his submissions "just block him, then." They're letting those people CHOOSE to seek things to be upset about, to dump all their anger and upset and lack of civility on Roarey, then when Roarey only responds on the same level as what he's getting - THAT'S what they view as the mis-step needing action.

It's allowing a thing you don't like to become a powder keg so you can take action to remove it - instead of just telling people to use the tools already available to them to satisfy every objection they have SHORT of dictating what choices are available to OTHER people.

No. Contrary to what you believe, people didn't flock like a bunch of "sheep", nearly everybody acted on their own volition as soon as they saw what was posted and unlike those that use a telegram chat to say how "triggered" or "autistic" people are behind everyone's back, those who had issues and concerns with Roarey's actions confronted him directly. People saw, shook their heads and responded, not gathered together to make some elaborate plan to kick him out. And hearing this whining about how some responses are just "insults and hostility and severe lack of civility" is very hypocritical considering that such behavior is encouraged everytime Pierce posts a journal shaming whoever he wants, yet this is taken as "light trolling" for some reason. Were you just paying attention to knee-jerk reactions specifically against Roarey or what?

Nightdancer

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Hm, I don't know what you are talking about.
So, it would have been nice, if you would had used some facts and less general blame.

Clunkymunk

7 years, 4 months ago

link

the fuck are you even talking about?

AxleFurret

7 years, 4 months ago

link

I remember back in the day when I was still on the left, back when it actually favored freedom of speech and facts to prove a point, now the left is all about emotions over facts and censoring or "cry-bullying" anyone they don't agree with.

Seriously, they lose instantly when they start calling gay jewish guys "nazis".

What I really hate is how extreme left the furry fandom has become, to the point people that are technically centrists have to show up to conventions with bodyguards because they dared to disagree with said leftists and said leftists sent death threats.

I miss the fandom from the late 90s and early 2000s when it was truly "diverse". Now it seems to be "Believe the same way we do or you are a nazi and must be censored!"

Yes freedom of speech is protected from government intervention in America, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to have free speech everywhere.

Wolfblade is right, by censoring and threatening people over what they say, it just ends up making things worse... If they are wrong about what they are saying, then let them leave that supposed stupidity out there for everyone to laugh at, as that is how the religious right was brought down, because in most cases, historically, the people DOING the censoring are the ones in the WRONG... So if the left keeps censoring people, people that were on the left are more likely to leave the left and even go to the right as the right becomes more fact and free speech based (this is something that is actually happening).

I don't know what the hell happened, but in around 10 years, the bad that was the "religious far right" suddenly became the loony moonbat left, and even worse like proud social-marxists/communists.

What I don't get is why the admins feel the need to ban people when the people already have the tools to block and ignore anything that hurts their "poor wittle feewings". And even if a person doesn't agree with someone, just "agree to disagree" and move on, seriously, it is that freaking easy.

TravisRetriever

7 years, 4 months ago

link

I'm reminded of that one furry leftist chat log leak where they said they could just "use the centrists as target practice." I'm still surprised we haven't had a mass shooting at a furry convention yet.

lucashoal

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Cuz we don't worship guns. Leftist Furs, that is.

AxleFurret

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Yeah, what is more scary is there are more and more on the far left arming up because they think there is going to be some sort of civil war or revolution or some other antifa bullshit like that. *chuckles*

TravisRetriever

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Agreed. It's true. Many leftist furs don't like guns. But the ones on the far left (i.e. ANTIFA) sure seem to adore them. Given the whole "We can just use the centrists as target practice" that was leaked out of one of their chats a few months back.

lucashoal

7 years, 4 months ago

link

That bit was hyperbole fyi, not in any way serious. But that goes against the narrative.

TravisRetriever

7 years, 4 months ago

link

If that really is true, and not an after-the-fact back-pedal or white-washing, I will concede the point.

lucashoal

7 years, 4 months ago

link

It's the same sort of hyperbole as "ANTIFA super soldiers will behead all white grandparents on Nov 4th" or however that tweet went. That twitter Nazis cried about and went on a reporting spree. Which is the same sort of hyperbole, taken to a ludicrously obvious point.

Jerlinn

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Furry was never entirely diverse and open.. I recall the Burned Furs in the mid 90's.

KichigaiKitsune

7 years, 4 months ago

link

@ Jerlinn

THAT is a term I'm familiar with. Had a few older furs tell me about that. Can you elucidate, if you have the time? I'm curious what all that was about; I was a kiddo at the time.

Joeyboy

7 years, 4 months ago

link

It was a high speed livejournal garbage fire. There was a fur named Squee rat who posted a 'manifesto' about how the fandom was getting dragged down because of all the porn, bad elements etc. I used to argue all the time with em. They were Hangdog, Eric Blumrich, etc. fun to debate with. Then Ralph Hughes Jr ( Think that's his name) joined them, brought all of his bullshit baptist hate with him and they imploded.
I'll never forget meeting Hangdog at FC one year. He saw my badge, got up and ran like a coward. I followed him and essentially cornered him. He looked terrified. I held out my hand, smiled and said "pleasure arguing with you" he smiled sheepishly shook my hand and left.

bencoon

7 years, 4 months ago

link

@ Joeyboy

Ralph E Hayes Jr.

Y'know, it's funny. I ran into Charla several years later at Comic Con. She had chilled way the fuck out after leaving furry fandom and joining the indie comics scene. I guess it finally occurred to her that sex is everywhere and she should stop freaking out so much.

Joeyboy

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Ya don't say. :) Gee whiz.

Joeyboy

7 years, 4 months ago

link

I had a feeling she’d mellow out. My conversations with her were always civil.

Joeyboy

7 years, 4 months ago

link

http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/Burned_Furs

AxleFurret

7 years, 4 months ago

link

@ Jerlinn

The furry I was in may have been different than the furry you were in. In person I met all kinds of furs on the left and right and got to experience all kinds of opinions and situations I otherwise might not have. Hell one of my first commissions was by a religious christian furry... Hell, burned furs just added more to said diversity and I knew and still chat with some of them.

TravisRetriever

7 years, 4 months ago

link

@ Jerlinn

^This. Ah, the Burned Furs. AKA the group of furries made infamous by trying to call up the employers of other furs who engaged in (harmless) sexual practices like mursuiting that they didn't like, in order to shame them into stopping and/or getting them fired. I'm surprised more people don't remember them. Or that I seem to be the only one who noticed that a few of the older members of altfurry (not gonna name names) were actually a part of that and still advocate it to this day. While they complain of themselves having the same stuff thrown at them, only instead of being a mursuitter; it's claims of being a Nazi, without a shred of self awareness, or irony.

KichigaiKitsune

7 years, 4 months ago

link

There's so much to say here, but all I can say is that, as a former libertarian, starting to find myself (gasp!) moving more to the left, I have to say that the mainstream left doesn't really agree with these authoritarian, neo-Marxist lunatics. One can still identify as left-wing or liberal and vehemently disagree with them. I've said - in a lot of the journals related to this exact shitfest, actually - that all of these tactics and techniques of silencing others were traditionally a right-wing thing, this is what I'm used to seeing from the right.

It's very troubling to see people who call themselves "progressives" or "liberals" pushing values or precedent that is not only antithetical to their supposed ideology, but would've killed it long ago had they prevailed in political discourse. :s

AxleFurret

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 4 months ago by Owner

I know what you mean, I have to constantly correct people that liberals are not the same as leftists every time some right-winger goes on about the liberals being the scum of the earth, just like I have to correct left-wingers that "constitutional conservatives" are not the same as "religious" far-right conservatives when they start calling every right leaning person a "nazi" or "racist" or "whatever-ist".

One cannot be "progressive" or "liberal" if they are censoring, want the removal of rights, or calling for violence on anyone they don't agree with.

But now we see the moderates of either side and even centrists getting labeled as "the enemy" by the loony leftists.

Like I've said before to many people... It feels like at one point in the last 10 years, I went to sleep in the regular world, and woke up the next day in some reversed bizarro world. *chuckles*

Wolfblade

7 years, 4 months ago

link

We're in the playthrough where the person is choosing all of the worst options that the devs only put there for shits and giggles and never expected people to actually pick. -_-

"haha wouldn't it be funny if we had a movement proclaiming to be against a thing, and then do exactly every single thing they're objecting to?"

"No, no, what would be REALLY funny was if damn near EVERY movement gave themselves a pass for exactly what they scream about anybody outside their movement doing!"

"hahaha yeah, that would be so retarded, nobody would choose that route!"

@_@

AxleFurret

7 years, 4 months ago

link

What is scary is how true that is.

I was just watching a video not more than a few hours before seeing your comment here talking about how so many "male feminists" end up getting in legal trouble for sexual harassment and rape, or anti-2nd amendment leaders that happen to be felons, or people claiming to be anti-racists and get arrested for race based crime, or anti-fascists that act exactly like fascists.

What is even more scary is how much of this stuff has been predicted nearly 30+ years ago. Yuri Bezmenov, an Ex-KGB Defector to the USA warned us of exactly what is happening now and it seems no one listened https://youtu.be/y3qkf3bajd4 this is one of those eye-opening videos that answers a lot of questions that are out there now.

ArionEquus

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Sigh... somehow I saw this coming. Or, at least expected something to happen that wouldn't be pretty.

Krechevskoy

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Not much to add here, just popping in to let you know I'm glad to hear this said. Thanks, Blade!

BullseyeBronco

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Thank you for saying this. I'm sorry that this place has turned into a political crack down of someone you don't agree with. Silencing people for having an opinion is just wrong. I appreciate you for standing for what is right Wolfblade, hopefully changes will be made positively, if not... I will be far disappointed in this site, and I think it will start to sink quickly if it continues on this trend.

Wolfblade

7 years, 4 months ago

link

@ BullseyeBronco

Thank you for understanding that defending someone from something I think is wrong doesn't mean I agree with them on everything they think or do. I wish that was something more people had the capacity to see.

Yoshiba

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 4 months ago by Owner

Yes and no.

Legosi

7 years, 4 months ago

link

It's nice to see a reasonable adult speak for once, thank you <3

JakeDaMaus

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 4 months ago by Owner

It's such a breath of fresh air to see something like this. Too many furries act so immature and try to remove they don't like. Don't like something? Look away or block. That simple. I think many feel the way I do where the trans community doesn't need a hornets nest of outraged citizens attacking a goddamn cartoon

GreenReaper

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Edited 7 years, 4 months ago by Owner

Newsflash: I run a site for furry journalism. This isn't it. Nor is it an "engagement platform".
It's a place for people to post furry art for their friends, fans, and customers.
Anything which isn't that is here on sufferance… as shown by our policy on human content.

As it happens, Inkbunny has been very open to civil discussion of controversial topics; and remains so. However, those who can't resist calling those they disagree with 'faggots', 'autists', 'spergs' or 'niggers' need to do it elsewhere - because that's not seeking engagement, but enragement.

Members who delight in stirring shit up and then fanning the resulting flames risk losing their ability to do so, because we get tired of having to clean up after them, and watching people leave the site because of them.

Lastly, name-dropping the owner only works to your advantage if you capitalize their name correctly.
Getting it wrong is like summoning a demon after scuffing out your pentagram - it's not gonna end well.

TravisRetriever

7 years, 4 months ago

link

@ GreenReaper

Well said, GreenReaper.

whitepawrolls

7 years, 4 months ago

link

@ GreenReaper

I second this (or third it...:p). I come for the art and writings not the drama like whats been stired up lately.

lucashoal

7 years, 4 months ago

link

@ whitepawrolls

Agreed. Removing the serious trouble makers. Who know what they're doing, and are doing it specifically to cause problems. They can fuck off.

BrokenPupper

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Fucking this, a thousand times.

lucashoal

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Of which there are a few. A certain frog comes to mind.

Wolfblade

7 years, 4 months ago

link

@ GreenReaper

Apologies for the mis-capitalization. It wasn't intentional. Noted for future reference.

Thank you for responding.

Is it at least a point worth considering that since users have the tools to filter content and even entire artists' galleries should they decide they don't want to see them; perhaps the more direct and equitable administrative approach would be to look at the first sparks of flame - the people responding to opinion pieces with venom and hostility - and instruct those users to make use of the tools available to them for the express purpose of sparing them such upset?

If the administrative approach was "if you don't want to see what he posts, block him" and then taking action against users who forego that option to instead launch lack of civility in the first place, this wouldn't be an issue. If that were to happen, and Roarey or others were responding to perfectly civil discourse with the initial lack of civility, then action against them for doing so would be very hard to argue against, wouldn't it?

But when initial incivility is not deemed a breach of community guidelines, it makes it far more ridiculous to pick up that standard and hold it to someone merely responding-in-kind. The inconsistent application of administrative response complicates the whole mess needlessly. Person A insults person B. Person C reports it: the response (should be) "we'll take action when person A requests us to do so." I feel that third-party reports do get dismissed, right? In general, you don't babysit or handhold, you intervene when you're asked to do so. If someone wants to express a viewpoint, and they get someone screaming at them and they don't want to deal with it, they can block the person and/or ask for you to step in. If they don't believe in silencing dissent or punishing someone for disagreeing, then why should the site get involved unasked-for? When the point of contention is "people just need to be civil" then you can't just hand-wave away that NOBODY will stay civil for long when met with a severe lack of civility from someone else first. It's crap to see someone as the problem for being willing to let people be as uncivil as they want towards him and do no wrong to them that they haven't done to him first.

So it becomes a double standard when person A jumps in being insulting and uncivil when they have tools to just hide whatever they're mad about - person B doesn't feel the need for Big Brother to come save him and simply holds his own, responding in kind, but then you step in unasked-for - not to address the INITIAL breach of community guidelines that would be the people PROMPTING the less-than-ideal REACTIVE behavior from someone else - no, you step in and validate the hate-mob by taking action against the person simply withholding civility that was withheld from them first.

The whole thing becomes a non-issue with the approach of "if you don't want to see it, block it. If you don't want to be insulted; don't be insulting. Should you choose to step outside the harbor of civility, you don't get to cry about it if they accept your established tone of discourse and give you back exactly what you gave them first."

That approach encourages people who DON'T want civil discourse to simply not be bothered by other people who DO want to discuss things. It focuses on the INITIAL breach of civility that is the CAUSE of reactive lack of civility, removing the unprovoked behavior which is the provocation and reason the subsequent behavior exists. Thus drastically reducing all the venom and drama but WITHOUT the chilling effect of silencing unpopular opinion, without suppressing open expression of beliefs and feelings on important topics, without letting the loudest mob weaponize the administration to silence those they want silenced, and without getting into all this crap that nobody wants - but can be addressed in a far more ideal and effective manner than the approach currently in practice.

Albythederg

7 years, 4 months ago

link

I've tried to make this point a dozen times on several platforms to no avail. The people who agree with me readily support me, but I don't think I've changed the mind of a single person who was on the other side. As a society, we've reached a point where admitting you were wrong and working towards change isn't seen as an opportunity for growth, but as a personal failure, and shameful. People would rather keep their heads firmly buried in the sand and ignore any and all logical arguments than admit that maybe they're going about things the wrong way. I appreciate what you're trying to do here, but I advise you to have absolutely no expectations, lest you be disappointed like I was.

Wolfblade

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Yeah, me speaking up and saying what I think is right is not the same as expecting to change anybody's mind. I have to try, because nothing ever gets better from people sitting silently, but more often than not, I speak out not to change the mind of who I'm talking to, but to show others who have been frightened into silence that they're not alone - and to hopefully keep anyone who hasn't made their mind up already from choosing what I believe to be the harmful and detrimental ways of looking at things.

Because most people just pick up whatever they see laying there. If nobody gets to see the counter-arguments, then they have no basis to claim their position is the correct one. If someone wants to argue with me, I'll hear their side of the argument, and present my own. That's the only way I'll ever find out if I AM wrong about something - and the same applies to them. We're all lessened by anything that stifles open discourse. It weakens us, and strengthens those who should be EVERYONE'S enemies.

That's what's happening right now. Because public discussion of certain topics are silenced, masses of people don't know the actual counter-arguments to the Bad Ideas - so if they can only hear those Bad Ideas in places where nobody is there to counter them, and they've never actually heard the arguments of why those Bad Ideas are wrong, those Bad Ideas are exponentially more likely to be able to take root. And the more free ammo the peddlers of Bad Ideas are given in the form of easy observable facts that you're just not allowed to say - the easier it is for the peddlers of Bad Ideas to establish legitimacy and credibility by just "telling it like it is" with the off-limits-but-valid-points before slipping in the actual evil invalid fucked up shit.

I'm against racism, sexism, fascism, nazism, racial/gender supremacy in ANY form, anything which imprisons people in the endless loop of their pains and traumas by enshrining those damages as the foundation of their identity - I am against shit that hurts people. ANY people. ALL people. So I'm against all this crap that just feeds into those things and makes them worse - and that usually ends up being the shit coming from people CLAIMING to be against these things but unable to see how they're DOING these things themselves. >_<

AvogadroToast

7 years, 4 months ago

link

I'm unconvinced that IB staff treat right wing trolls any differently than left wing trolls.

whitepawrolls

7 years, 4 months ago

link

@ AvogadroToast

All the trolls need to be sent under the bridge where they belong and forgotten :p

Wolfblade

7 years, 4 months ago

link

@ AvogadroToast

My objection is to the approach taken, regardless of which political wing it's aimed at. The appearance of inconsistency in application is an additional objection, but even if that is proven entirely false, and they take this approach completely consistently, I'm still against this approach.

Posting a submission with a controversial opinion is not against site rules.

Commenting to someone with hostility, insults, "lack of civility," etc, IS against the rules.

So crack down FIRST on the people who are doing that in reaction to the submissions themselves OR if making a "shit-stirring" submission in the first place is to be treated as justifiably provoking the hostile comments, then amend the rules to reflect that. As much as I don't want them to ban submissions that "could be controversial," that would still be a more fair and just approach than allowing people to speak their mind, allowing people to react to that with hostility, but not allowing someone to respond in kind to hostility provoked only by them doing something the site allows them to do.

Side note: A troll is someone who says something inflammatory JUST to get the reaction: Not someone who simply believes something is important to speak out on even if it also happens to be highly inflammatory. It is invalid application of the term to just slap it on anyone who says something that turns out to prompt a shitstorm.

AvogadroToast

7 years, 4 months ago

link

I guess I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter to have an opinion on it. I read the inflammatory remarks and agree that they're bad enough to warrant some action. I also read some of the comments regarding the inflammatory remarks and agree that many of THEM are bad enough to warrant action too. But what I don't know is how many people have had action taken against them. It's not site policy to inform me whenever someone is banned, warned, or barred from comments for a period of time.
Are you sure that no or substantially less action has been taken against the people throwing flame back? If so, how can you tell?

Maou

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Dude, shut up. You talk too much.

Albythederg

7 years, 4 months ago

link

@ Maou

If you don't like what's being said, it's incumbent upon you to either not read it or to make a valid counter-argument, NOT to just try to silence the dialogue.

BrokenPupper

7 years, 4 months ago

link

"Rather than focusing on that which divides us and demonizing those who don't fall in line, we need to focus on that which we have in common and start working together."

Stop using reactionary rhetoric to talk someone down and follow your example, for once.

Albythederg

7 years, 4 months ago

link

In what way was I focusing on something divisive or demonizing anyone?I don't recall saying anything reactionary or using rhetoric either. Maou told Wolfblade to shut up, which is neither constructive or legitimate criticism, so I invited him to do one of either and stop acting like Wolfblade's journal is intruding on him in some way. If you need me to break down and explain exactly what my quotes mean before you erroneously use them against me, I'll happily do so.

BrokenPupper

7 years, 4 months ago

link

You seriously want (or need) an explanation while you continue talking down t- sure okay. Well one your opinion about what is "constructive or legitimate criticism" matter less when most of the comments are neither of those, so if you want to pick apart one for that reason then you'll have to do that with the several others. There's always the option of not being condescending over what is just a typical callout journal and talk to and about people normally. If you want for what you've quoted elsewhere to be a thing (assuming that's true) then start with you, because saying that everyone would rather "keep their heads firmly buried in the sand" means jack when you shove your own pretence and assumptions on those people's faces. That clear enough for ya?

Albythederg

7 years, 4 months ago

link

Stop using reactionary rhetoric to talk someone down and follow your example

You failed to show where/when I did that.

Well one your opinion about what is "constructive or legitimate criticism" matter less when most of the comments are neither of those, so if you want to pick apart one for that reason then you'll have to do that with the several others.

I'm not required to police the entire comment section of this journal to earn the right to reply to one person who I feel was being immature. The very thought that I would be is ludicrous in the extreme.

There's always the option of not being condescending over what is just a typical callout journal and talk to and about people normally.

That's exactly what you did in replying to me. The only thing I did was tell Maou that simply telling someone to shut up without indicating what he disagreed with was counter-productive. Issues are solved with a dialogue. "Shut up" is specifically designed to kill dialogue, thereby solving nothing.

If you want for what you've quoted elsewhere to be a thing (assuming that's true) then start with you, because saying that everyone would rather "keep their heads firmly buried in the sand" means jack when you shove your own pretence and assumptions on those people's faces.

I don't shove anything on anyone. I give my point of view. If people agree, great. If they disagree, then we have a civil debate and gain a greater understanding for each others' viewpoints and pinpoint the areas where we disagree and any areas where we may actually agree, then we can work from there. I also don't force anyone into a dialogue they don't want. If they say they aren't interested in a discourse, I leave them alone. The comment about people firmly burying their heads in the sand applies across the whole spectrum, and wasn't simply targeted at people who disagree with me on this one issue. Being open-minded is a virtue very few people have, and I'm not afraid to comment on, bitch over, complain about, and otherwise bemoan the issue.

That clear enough for ya?

Since you failed to substantiate any of your accusations, no, clearly not.

Maou

7 years, 4 months ago

link