0
40

[–] Nobodyimportant 0 points 40 points (+40|-0) ago 

It's a No Platform Policy.

Essentially, it's the notion that certain views don't deserve a platform to be expressed, at all.

It's intended to be used for seriously dangerous things, like a populist fascist movement. In recent times, SJWs have got fond of invoking No Platform for extremely frivolous reasons. It's arguably the creepiest thing about them and fortunately it creeps out normal people, too.

0
13

[–] julian 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Out of all the irritating and duplicitous attributes and activities the ultra-progressive left engages in; the racism veiled as benevolence, the on-the-fly redefinition of words, the hateful intolerance of anything masculine, the complete rejection of enlightenment values because they came from white Europeans--the censorship of debate is probably what I find most repugnant. All of those other things are terrible ideas, but if we are allowed to have open debate on them, their weaknesses and harmful nature will be revealed. These ideas can only be successful if they are never questioned, if they are never required to be proven or defended.

The entire progressive platform needs censorship to work. It is a tissue of lies, deceit, bad-ideas, and hatred, and when it's forced to interact with moderate and tolerant forms of political thought it reveals itself as such immediately. They know this. Debate cannot even be allowed to start on these issues because, once started, it inevitably results in loss and humiliation for them.

And simply put, the biggest crime of "no platform" policy is perpetrated not against those denied the right to speak, but against those who are denied the right to listen. If an idea is truly terrible or wicked I trust in my capacity to recognize that. I extend to others the courtesy of the same assumption.

0
12

[–] Nobodyimportant 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago 

It's more than just censorship of debate. When people got sick of 4chan and Reddit going "Nope, you can't talk about that" for increasingly frivolous things, they left for other places like 8chan and Voat.

And what happened? 8chan and Voat got hit by DDOS and frozen out of payment systems for refusal to participate in an overzealous No Platform Policy. The people who did this were very open about that being their motivation. They're happy to vilify and attack anyone for even permitting an increasingly broad range of opinions and perspectives from being expressed at all.

It's more than just trying to make "Safe Spaces" on the internet, it's the aggressive denial of the right of any kind of "Unsafe Space", even one that clearly marks itself as such, to exist.

0
4

[–] ThisIsCathartic 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

invoking No Platform for extremely frivolous reasons

That sums up the issue perfectly. Humans deciding they're allowed to tell other humans what they're allowed to talk about...man, fuck the fuck off. It's so bad, it makes me bad...I can feel myself wanting to yell and scream at people like that (or even lay down the smack in some cases, which I assume would be brutal for them to experience), and that desire feels fairly justifiable, given they've assumed what is literally the most arrogant of all possible social views. Fuck.

Anyway, not sure why but that was probably my favorite comment on this site so far. Thanks, badass.

0
4

[–] Nobodyimportant 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago  (edited ago)

The desire to lash out is a tempting one and most likely part of their strategy. These people are keyboard warriors and you're very unlikely to ever meet them face to face.

Losing your temper and lashing out online just plays into their whole "Look, I'm the victim and therefore right because reasons" frame. We've seen AGG e-celebs repeatedly and blatantly run into the line of fire just to raise their profile. Attacking someone who wants to be attacked is a dumb move.

Instead, always keep asking the questions they don't want to answer, things like "What is your limiting principle - where do you stop?" and "How can anyone else here be sure they won't be next?". Do your best to frame things in such a way that SJWs look like dangerous people, because they are dangerous people.

Most SJWs and anti-gamers have values that are incredibly out of step with the mainstream population. Often the most effective tactic is to convince them to damn themselves with their own words by clearly articulating the beliefs they hold dear.

0
3

[–] JakeWasHere 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

The authoritarian left has been invoking No Platform for a long time, too, mostly in the wake of Herbert Marcuse. Marcuse basically argued -- with complete sincerity -- that the liberal traditions of free thought and free expression are, in the end, only helping to prop up a corrupt system (by allowing bad ideas, such as capitalism, to be expressed), and need to be replaced by something more selective.

Here's a relevant link, if you can stand to read something from National Review.

Relevant quotes:

Marcuse argued that, because of the radical repressiveness of Western society, a tolerance for all viewpoints actually contributed to social oppression.

The fact that society is so radically unequal means that we should be intolerant and repressive in the name of tolerance and liberty. He rejected what he termed “indiscriminate tolerance” — a tolerance that accepts all viewpoints — in favor of “liberating tolerance” or “discriminating tolerance.”

Or, if you'd prefer to hear Jonathan Chait say it:

It is true that liberals and leftists both want to make society more economically and socially egalitarian. But liberals still hold to the classic Enlightenment political tradition that cherishes individuals rights, freedom of expression, and the protection of a kind of free political marketplace. (So, for that matter, do most conservatives.)

The Marxist left has always dismissed liberalism’s commitment to protecting the rights of its political opponents — you know, the old line often misattributed to Voltaire, “I disapprove of what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it” — as hopelessly naïve. If you maintain equal political rights for the oppressive capitalists and their proletarian victims, this will simply keep in place society’s unequal power relations. Why respect the rights of the class whose power you’re trying to smash? And so, according to Marxist thinking, your political rights depend entirely on what class you belong to.

The modern far left has borrowed the Marxist critique of liberalism and substituted race and gender identities for economic ones.

0
26

[–] Sragwaven 0 points 26 points (+26|-0) ago 

It's only a threat when we do it.

0
11

[–] ThisIsCathartic 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

Because dumb people do dumb things?

0
6

[–] LimonLime 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Sickening, isn't it?

0
5

[–] OnlyToExcess 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Okay so 2 parts here:

This guy is just making a stupid comment, it's not a serious threat. Yes I know that they routinely categorize stupid remarks as harassment but we can do better then that.

Second point though, is that they can't not make a comment about stuff like this. I spend a lot of time in environments where these people are, and you have to realize it's a moral imperative to them to basically bully anyone they see as undesirable. It's a cult mentality where once you show a different view on a major issue, you're outcast from the group and, if they had their way, from society. That's the level of gross thinking we're routinely dealing with here.

0
1

[–] Not_for_consumption 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Second point though, is that they can't not make a comment about stuff like this.

A bit of a need to be seen by others to be loudly denouncing the unacceptable people? It's not the opposition that is important, it is being seen to oppose the undesirables.

0
1

[–] OnlyToExcess 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Yes, exactly. It's social signaling as well.

0
0

[–] JakeWasHere 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

The easiest way to defend oneself is to wave the NOT THE BAD GUY flag as furiously as possible.

0
5

[–] mnemosyne-0000 [S] 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Archive links for this post:


I am Mnemosyne, goddess of memory. I remember so you don't have to.

0
3

[–] Chivalry_Bitches 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I hate to be that guy, but what is a GG?

0
1

[–] dinglederp 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I'm under the assumption that you are new to all this, so i'll try to explain it in the most basic sense. A GG is a person who would identify themselves (or be identified by others, falsely or otherwise) as being on the side of wanting a better ethics standard in games journalism on the whole "gamergate debacle", they are what is called gamergater which GG is an acronym for. On the side bar of the subverse you can read more about it under the "our mission" section.

While I may not be a huge wealth of information on gamergate, feel free to pm me if you have anymore questions.

0
1

[–] dinosaurdynasty 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

GamerGater? What else would it be...

0
0

[–] Qikdraw 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Great Goats?
Green Giants?
Great Gatsby?

0
2

[–] MC_Yggdrazil 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Because they are a powermad cult?

load more comments ▼ (17 remaining)