Its interesting how people are dogpiling this person in the name of “freedom of speech”…because they don’t like what he said?
There is nothing I care less about than the rules in some tiny forum I don’t plan on visiting. Brigading him because someone is in love with the term “bro” and can’t live without it is weirdo behavior.
Its interesting how people are dogpiling this person in the name of “freedom of speech”…because they don’t like what he said?
To be clear, they don’t like that he’s threatening to ban people from somewhere over speech. That is, first of all, not mere speech - that’s an action they’re threatening to take.
Second, it’s not some kind of gotcha or contradiction that some speech might be disapproved of in the defence of free speech. You might espouse the principle of peacefulness, yet no-one would suggest that responding violently in self-defence was in contradiction to that. Being in favour of free speech doesn’t mean being in favour of all speech; many and varying exceptions are made, for example for hate speech, threatening speech or indeed speech which has the effect of restricting or chilling the speech of others. And we’re not talking about a violent or legal response here but rather dogpiling - and while that does chill speech in general, it’s not on the same level so deservedly has a lower bar.
You can escape the software architecture. You can’t escape the people.
People like this existed before reddit, back then you just say fuck that guy and go to a different forum.
But it was a friendly warning.
Its interesting how people are dogpiling this person in the name of “freedom of speech”…because they don’t like what he said?
There is nothing I care less about than the rules in some tiny forum I don’t plan on visiting. Brigading him because someone is in love with the term “bro” and can’t live without it is weirdo behavior.
To be clear, they don’t like that he’s threatening to ban people from somewhere over speech. That is, first of all, not mere speech - that’s an action they’re threatening to take.
Second, it’s not some kind of gotcha or contradiction that some speech might be disapproved of in the defence of free speech. You might espouse the principle of peacefulness, yet no-one would suggest that responding violently in self-defence was in contradiction to that. Being in favour of free speech doesn’t mean being in favour of all speech; many and varying exceptions are made, for example for hate speech, threatening speech or indeed speech which has the effect of restricting or chilling the speech of others. And we’re not talking about a violent or legal response here but rather dogpiling - and while that does chill speech in general, it’s not on the same level so deservedly has a lower bar.
Friendly censorship of an inoffensive word. With the threat of being banned for flavor. SO friendly.
Funnily enough that’s exactly what this post here is for. It animates people to ignore that instance.
Nothing can replace somethingawful tho, or gaiaonline or gamefaqs
Isn’t the software architecture supposed to promote certain ways to interact? The medium is the message kind of thing?