Dear Random Internet Idiot who has just claimed that I 'hypocritically' ban talk of Neo-nazi RPGs on theRPGsite because I'm scared what people will think of me:
Go fuck off to stormfront.
Are you taking affront at the suggestion you're a Nazi? You want to appear to be such a badass defender of free speech as to choose Nazi-rpgs as your hill to die on but think its unfair that I suggest you're doing it for motives of sympathy to the dumbfucks who imagine themselves the 'master race'?
Well, your attempts to present me as giving a fuck what anyone other than my own conscience thinks of me are total bullshit too. So now you know what that's like.
I ban Neo-Nazi talk because:
a) It is highly likely to disrupt the site
b) It adds nothing of intellectual value to an RPG forum (or, mostly, anywhere).
c) The type of people who really really want to talk about Neo-Nazism are filth and would likely gravitate to the site so they can talk about how much they hate 'inferior races' rather than because they want to talk about RPGs.
d) I had four great-grandparents die in concentration camps, so while I defend anyone's right to say anything, I defend my own right as a human being to bash in the fucking head of every last neo-nazi I can. I would personally piss on the fresh corpse of the world's last neo-nazi cunt if I could.
None of this has anything to do with being scared of what anyone else would think of me. None of this is in any way the "proof" that complete fucking assholes with petty inferiority complexes desperately look for to 'gotcha' me with by claiming I'm actually a super-secret totalitarian who is a total hypocrite about free speech even though I run the most free-speech major RPG forum in the world.
I don't give a fuck how other people judge me. I am, however, sick of fucking morons making idiotic statements about my commitment to free speech when I've done more to defend free speech in this hobby than ANYONE involved in it.
What all that means is that by having made the argument you have made, you're one of three things:
a) a neo-Nazi who's really pissed off that he can't talk about Aryan supremacy on a site run by a half-Pole half-Latino who's been vastly more successful at life than him.
b) a Pundit-hater looking for the flimsiest of stupid fucking claims to somehow 'prove' something that will 'take me down' once and for all and end your pathetic impotent rage at my success.
c) just a general fucking moron.
So which is it?
RPGPundit
Currently Smoking: Brigham Anniversary Pipe + Image Latakia
When did discussion of Blue Rose get banned?
ReplyDeleteWhere? At theRPGsite it certainly isn't banned.
DeleteSo classic to see the torchbearers of witch-hunt again "sjw" get fucking triggered at the movement of Nazis and the like in their midst. You're claims of potential 'disruption' would not fly for another.
ReplyDeleteSo please by all means ban the shit out of worthless Nazi's just don't pretend to be operating in manner consistent with your """""""free speech"""""" philosophy.
As a bonus, you get to ban all the sjw trolls posting nazi shit on your web site so they can turn around and call you a nazi. Win-win!
ReplyDeleteIt is entirely possible to support free speech and still ban hateful nonsense. It's illegal in most places to threaten someone with violence; this is not a free speech issue but a crime issue. There are many things that cannot be defended as free speech. Also, as you have already pointed out, there is such a thing as going off the topic. Take for example some spam message trying to sell something unrelated to RPGs. Removing and blocking these does not violate anyone's right to free speech any more than I do by not allowing people to hold a Trump rally in my living room. Not that in none of these cases are you trying to stop anyone from saying whatever they want--somewhere else. But one is allowed to set rules for one's own space, whether it's a home or business or discussion board. Besides, anybody who doesn't shoot at Nazis is showing undue tolerance as they have proven themselves enemies of mankind.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet Pundit does not recognize that is exactly what Twitter was doing with the hate speech hashtag. You can't criticize another party for monitoring its web site for hate speech while doing the exact same thing on your own. That is the definition of hypocrisy.
DeleteActually, no, you can't support free speech while simultaneously banning some speech. That's contradictory. It also plays into the hands of totalitarians who determine what speech is free and what speech is "hate.". You're so full of shit I can smell it from here.
DeleteAlso funny how so many anti-Nazis are pro-Socialist and pro-censorship, two Nazi ideals.
Marty: but we KNOW Twitter is not defining hate speech as 'neo-nazis'. It's defining hate speech as "mainstream republican commentators", anyone who disagrees with any feminist ever, or people the tiniest bit critical of Islamism, Sharia law, or immigration policies.
DeleteThey are the hypocrites. If Twitter wanted to say "ok, if you post open support for ISIS or Neo-Nazi movements or the KKK; you are banned", I would find that acceptable as a policy.
Pundit writes: It's defining hate speech as "mainstream republican commentators".
DeleteCitation needed. I admit I haven't been following this as closely, but who got banned and what did they *actually* say that got them banned?
Ok, Pundit. Riddle me this.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree on neo-Nazi hate speech... But you LITERALLY just yesterday went on a rant about "I stand with hate speech" saying you plan on being as offensive as possible.
So basically, you are saying hate speech is awesome (under the guise of freedom of speech), unless it happens to be hate speech that offends you.
That makes you as hypocritical as shit.
To be fair on Pundit he is refering to none hate speech that SJWs declare as hate speech. Like say you simply disagree with a feminist online.
DeleteNow this never touch on actual hate speech.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteYou are correct but Pundit is often hypocritical so why is that a riddle?
DeleteThe "hate speech" I was talking about was all that the Regressive Left has co-opted into that term. Which I think we need to differentiate from ACTUAL LITERAL "KILL THE JEWS" TYPE OF HATE.
DeleteBecause we are the ones who aren't insane or criminally opportunistic. Or at least I am. Don't know about you.
ReplyDeleteBaloney.
He criticizes Twitter for taking down a hashtag when all kinds of nasty crap was being broadcast under that hashtag as "Free Speech". Twitter made the decision that the hashtag was being used primarily as a vehicle for hate speech and decided to take it down. And yet he made the same decision about neo-Nazi speech on his website and does not see it as equivalent. That is hypocrisy.
When OneBookShelf decided to take down content it felt was not good for its site, pundit and his posse metaphorically lynched OBS, publicly condemning their "censorship". There are pages upon pages of his comments on social media decrying how wrong it is for OBS to police content on their own site... and yet he has rules policing his own site. That is utter bullshit hypocrisy.
He can't have it both ways. He can't condemn others for policing speech on their website while doing the same on his. Hypocrisy.
You're so full of shit, Walser. Twitter wasn't censoring the Aryan Brotherhood, they were censoring people who write for Breitbart. OBS wasn't censoring "Racial Holy War: The RPG", it was censoring mostly innocuous products with a slightly stupid kind of perviness.
DeleteI can very much have it both ways in this case because they are engaging in CENSORSHIP for political motives in the service of a small group of would-be rulers of the hobby, while I'm engaging in policing my site to keep out fucking LITERAL NAZIS.
"it was censoring mostly innocuous products with a slightly stupid kind of perviness."
DeleteThat doesn't fucking matter. It's the same thing. He made a decision to protect his business reputation. You made a decision to protect your site's forum reputation. It's the god damn same decision.
So you're saying the harm represented by James Desborough or Venger Satanis is exactly equal to the harm represented by LITERAL NAZIS?
DeleteIf your going to make your defense of the Harm principle?
DeleteSo your a utilitarian right?
DeleteWhat I'm saying is that WE ALL KNOW why I'm banning Nazis, and WE ALL KNOW why your side is banning anyone they feel the slightest bit offended by, and the two reasons are not the same. I don't obtain power over the hobby by banning Nazis.
DeleteSo you agree with public tobacco smoking bans too right? And bans on smoking in private spaces with those who do not or cannot consent, right?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSeriously, what kind of imbecile are you? You're only proving my point!
DeleteSi which is it? Are you a neo-nazi or just such a rabid pundit-hater that you'd promote neo-nazi ideology just to try to stop me?
Never mind, we all know the answer to that. Cunt.
Where have I promoted Neo-Nazism?
DeleteYour lashing out because your caught in a demonstration of ethical hypocrasy.
I doubt you even realise that your making the same argument about the ethics of preventing Neo-Nazis posting on the RPG site, as I woould. I.E. the Harm Principle, as set out by John Staurt Mill.
It represents you moving from your apparent rights based ethics position on free speech to a Utilitarian ethics position on free speech.
DeleteYou can no longer just hide behind absolute right to free speech.
In fact you have even given a bench mark for how harmful speech has to be before you believe it is acceptable to prevent it being spoken in a space you control.
If say carnival of the rapists can be shown to be more harmful than the speech you banned, you should agree that DTRPG had every right to stop selling it, right?
Also, just so we are clear, the term for what your doing by not allowing them to participate in your boards, is 'no platforming.'
Again, we all know what you're doing here. Unless you want to admit to being a neo-nazi, it's pretty clear the only reason you're making this argument at all is not because you believe in it (having come out as pro-censorship already) but because you are so anti-Pundit that you will in this case defend the Nazis right to speech.
DeleteIt's Ok, on theRPGsite I once had a guy come out in a strenous defense of child-rape because I'd mentioned I was against it. There's something about me that drives some of my opponents to a certifiable level of deranged obsession.
So, what yesterday? you were going all #Istandwithhatespeech and then you banned some folks pretending to be Neo Nazis from your site ?
ReplyDeleteLooks like you fell into someone's trap, Pundit.
"I run the most free-speech major RPG forum in the world"
ReplyDeleteI believe that would be 4han's /tg/. They have considerably more active posters and fewer restrictions.
A Chan is not a forum. You might as well be comparing theRPGsite to twitter or to a tv show or whatever.
DeleteFor one thing, the format of chans are great for cheap shots and stupid memes, but really shitty for long-term serious discussion.
No true Scotsman.
Delete