RPG.net bans posts in support of Trump

https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?835849-New-Ban-Do-Not-Post-In-Support-of-Trump-or-his-Administration&fbclid=IwAR23N1yA74ZRZVbPVS5ZZEszdRSWVAk66ReriZgxJAI9ojRRke2FnhGMrws

by matt_morgan • 8 years ago

49 134 8 years ago

forum.rpg.net

bovermyer• 8 years ago

Can't see the actual site/post because of overly eager nanny firewall at the client, so I'm just going to comment on the title.

So? It's a privately-run forum.

umvi4• 8 years ago

Why not ban just ban all political discussion? That would be more fair than calling out specific politicians you aren't allowed to support (but you are allowed to condemn)

tw04• 8 years ago

If you read the link he's explains it in great detail. I won't rehash it all, but basically: we have 0 issues with conservative ideology, we have a lot of problems with politicians who support hate groups and promote racism.

0xcde4c3db• 8 years ago

That would be a ridiculous rule for RPG.net. RPG settings and stories often have social commentary inspired by real-world issues, and occasionally even blatant stand-ins for real-life political parties and figures.

CivBase6• 8 years ago

Apparently they only want a particular flavor of social commentary.

LiterallyDoge2• 8 years ago

Because then my nerd rage can't be expressed to my 12 users.

badwolf2• 8 years ago

Privately owned and operated forum makes sensible moderation rules on how they would like to operate themselves. Now to Jim with the weather.

ryanmercer7• 8 years ago

Privately owned

Ding ding ding! A website is effectively the owner's house, if you come through their door you follow their rules or you leave.

ameister1415• 8 years ago

That's not accurate. Do you believe that an owner should be able to deny services based on political or religious leanings?

mooseburger2• 8 years ago

Hate speech laws, deplatforming, or political bans don't actually accomplish any of their stated goals. In the Weimar Republic, there were hate speech laws (https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/copenhagen-speech-v...). Relevant quote:

"Researching my book, I looked into what actually happened in the Weimar Republic. I found that, contrary to what most people think, Weimar Germany did have hate-speech laws, and they were applied quite frequently. The assertion that Nazi propaganda played a significant role in mobilizing anti-Jewish sentiment is, of course, irrefutable. But to claim that the Holocaust could have been prevented if only anti-Semitic speech and Nazi propaganda had been banned has little basis in reality. Leading Nazis such as Joseph Goebbels, Theodor Fritsch, and Julius Streicher were all prosecuted for anti-Semitic speech. Streicher served two prison sentences. Rather than deterring the Nazis and countering anti-Semitism, the many court cases served as effective public-relations machinery, affording Streicher the kind of attention he would never have found in a climate of a free and open debate. In the years from 1923 to 1933, Der Stürmer [Streicher's newspaper] was either confiscated or editors taken to court on no fewer than thirty-six occasions. The more charges Streicher faced, the greater became the admiration of his supporters. The courts became an important platform for Streicher's campaign against the Jews. In the words of a present-day civil-rights campaigner, pre-Hitler Germany had laws very much like the anti-hate laws of today, and they were enforced with some vigor. As history so painfully testifies, this type of legislation proved ineffectual on the one occasion when there was a real argument for it."

Nothing gets stopped by merely refusing to extend some small measure of legitimacy to whatever is deemed "bigoted". These policies and norms do not change minds, which is the skill these wannabe social engineers need to master.

Yoric• 8 years ago

I don't think it's about changing minds. If you look at the OP, it's about letting people participate on a specific discussion channel about gaming without being harassed, (either explicitly or implicitly) for their origin, gender, etc.

Changing people's minds, as you mention, is a different problem entirely.

beaconstudios• 8 years ago

then ban harassment, racism, etc. Banning support for a politician is not a proxy for those things.

jki2754• 8 years ago

This is really important.

Free and open debate exposes evil. Attempting to suppress debate gives it a platform and allows it to grow.

alphabettsy5• 8 years ago

Please explain why so many everyday American’s are now repeating Trump’s lies? It’s certainly not for lack of the media pointing them out. There is just much more to it than that.

I also didn’t see anyone making these arguments when YouTube and other platforms said they were going to target content the helps radicalize Muslims.

There needs to be some middle ground where we can protect those being targeted and protect free-speech.

dragonwriter11• 8 years ago

Nothing gets stopped by merely refusing to extend some small measure of legitimacy to whatever is deemed "bigoted".

The targets of bigotry being subjected to both the bigotry itself and the additional insult of the community they are participating in legitimizing it is, in fact, stopped by the community not legitimizing it.

As that has long been a central purpose of RPG.net policy on acceptable participation, I think this particular rule is probably doing exactly what is intended.

These policies and norms do not change minds

Perhaps, but in this case they aren't intended to, so that's not an argument against the policy.

mooseburger2• 8 years ago

Still don't think it's wise to adopt a burying one's head in the sand approach. It just leaves the participants unprepared when confronting this "bigotry" in the real world, as inevitably they will.

FrozenVoid• 8 years ago

Invaluable insight: banning something you don't like reinforces its status as "something we can't handle except by censorship" which lends political weight to the ideas exposed. Without the opposition(actual debate/counter-arguments) to the idea, the idea becomes more like a "forbidden truth" to its supporters. They are in effect creating an echo chamber where the idea isn't opposed or ridiculed, but accepted as background truth and banned due being "politically incorrect".

tomp5• 8 years ago

Jesus this is terrible. People are quick to point out that First Ammendment doesn't apply, but Freedom of Speech isn't just that, it's the principle - "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Discussion is what makes peaceful progress possible, otherwise you get revolutions!

lghh4• 8 years ago

Discussions that change someone's racism or the penchant to mock the disabled generally don't happen on the internet. In person, with friends perhaps, but not on faceless forums where people are more likely to double down on opinions in the face of criticism when they are as extreme as racism.

geezerjay5• 8 years ago

Moderating discriminatory statements is fundamentally different than censoring a political oponent.

More importantly, these utter idiots don't even realize they are creating such profoundly anti-democratic precedents targetting a political rival that is actually contributing to their cause, as now they have very real and very specific examples of how they are being targettend and persecuted for their political views.

ryanmercer7• 8 years ago

People are quick to point out that First Ammendment doesn't apply, but Freedom of Speech isn't just that, it's the principle - "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

I'm sorry, if I'm paying for hosting and you come to a page I run and start saying stuff I don't care for yeahhhh I'm removing it. That's my right. It's not a public venue, domain names are usually handled as real-property as far as taxation and hosting fees are a real thing. If you come into my house and start spouting stuff I don't approve of, I'm showing you the door.

I'm all for free speech, and being allowed to support who and what you believe in but not on any given website. If you use a website, you have to play by the owner's rules. If you don't want to do that, go make your own... it's pretty easy and affordable.

ameister1415• 8 years ago

As I've pointed out elsewhere, this argument implies ownership and content control beyond what we've traditionally held forum owners/operators responsible for. By claiming such control, do you think forum owners should be liable for the content posted on their websites?

apacheCamel• 8 years ago

Agreed. Someone stated the other day on something similar and it matches up pretty well, it went something like:

"...you have the right to free speech, not consequence free speech"

tomp5• 8 years ago

I would upvote you if your arguments were better.

and hosting fees are a real thing

What's the actual marginal cost of a few extra comments?

It's not a public venue

It is.

you come into my house

Your house is a private venue. In contrast, a public forum is a public venue (even if it's privately owned).

being allowed to support

And I'm not denying you that right. I'm just saying it's morally bad, and also counter-productive (to what you or they are trying to achieve) - you'll get more Trumps elected with policies like this, not less.

go make your own... it's pretty easy and affordable

Yeah until you get censored by Facebook, Google, Twitter, PayPal, Visa, CloudFront etc. - censors / opponents of free speech have a lot of market power these days.

falcolas• 8 years ago

Not to necessarily disagree, but "go make your own... it's pretty easy and affordable" only holds so long as you can find a hosting provider, network provider, and DNS registrar.

As has been shown a few times now, this capability can be summarily revoked.

DougN7• 8 years ago

Replace “Trump” with “gay marriage” and pretty much nobody would agree with your argument. It would be viewed as hate.

dragonwriter11• 8 years ago

People are quick to point out that First Ammendment doesn't apply, but Freedom of Speech isn't just that

But it is at least that, and so includes, as does the first Amendment, the right to choose what speech to support with one's own resources, including the platform one owns.

The freedom of speech not only does not obligate anyone else to expend their resources to relay your speech, it absolutely protects their right to decline to do so.

Discussion is what makes peaceful progress possible,

RPG.net is a site dedicated to discussion of roleplaying games; it is not necessary for “peacefuk progress” for it to provide a platform for all (or even any) support or opposition to political candidates.

ameister1415• 8 years ago

But it is at least that, and so includes, as does the first Amendment, the right to choose what speech to support with one's own resources, including the platform one owns...The freedom of speech not only does not obligate anyone else to expend their resources to relay your speech, it absolutely protects their right to decline to do so.

This is an interesting argument and implies that forum owners are responsible for the content that they publish. Is that what you believe?

CivBase6• 8 years ago

RPG.net is a site dedicated to discussion of roleplaying games; it is not necessary for “peacefuk progress” for it to provide a platform for all (or even any) support or opposition to political candidates.

I doubt this would have made it to the front page of HN if they banned any support or opposition to political candidates. It made it to the front page because they specifically banned support of one politician.

lghh4• 8 years ago

I was against this until I thought about it this way: if an individual on the forums posted the opinions that they are quoting Trump as saying they would likely be banned. For example, if I actively made fun of a disabled person or sexual assault victim I would rightfully be ostracized from the space. Now they are saying that showing open support for someone who uses that as their main rhetorical tactic is as bad as saying it yourself. I'm conflicted about it, but I understand it.

gedy2• 8 years ago

It's their perogative, no problem there, but I do find it a little childish that a moderater in that thread can keep their post footer as:

"Eisenhower got elected President for overseeing a war that was ALL ABOUT killing Nazis. We should return to those days." — Cessna"

Why not just ban all political posts?

edkennedy2• 8 years ago

Because they are taking a stand.

gedy2• 8 years ago

Yeah, some real modern day Eisenhowers there.

dogma1138• 8 years ago

The infractions section is going to get interesting: https://forum.rpg.net/forumdisplay.php?138-Infractions

Tsubasachan• 8 years ago

If they ban all politics equally I'm all for it. Off topic moderation. Seeing American politics being hawked everywhere is rather tiresome. Makes me appreciate what Canada has to go through every day.

kylnew5• 8 years ago

I’m surprised by some of the response; I actually think they were pretty articulate about exactly what they were banning and it certainly wasn’t all political speech. Trump stands for so much hatred and bigotry and it’s hard to vocalize support for him without implicitly/explicitly supporting that stuff yourself. We need to stop pretending like this is political discourse.

Intolerance of intolerance is the only acceptable form of intolerance. I think that this intolerance for others through trump support is what they are banning first and foremost.

balt_s• 8 years ago

Intolerance of intolerance is the only acceptable form of intolerance.

This seems vulnerable to a meta-level attack: "who gets to decide what is intolerable?"

muzz4• 8 years ago

The answer is clear: in a privately owned business, the owners

kylnew5• 8 years ago

I wish I had the definitive answer but in my books that line has been crossed in this context. I don’t think it’s as gray as we might want to pretend it is right now. The state of discourse online seems like some level of indicator something has happened recently that is descending us into chaos. Personally I do blame Trump and RPG.net seems to share a similar sentiment.

umvi4• 8 years ago

Intolerance of intolerance is the only acceptable form of intolerance.

So now the game becomes figuring out how to label what your opponent is doing as intolerance so that you can conveniently be intolerant of it.

kylnew5• 8 years ago

Hopefully we can be more reasonable than that, but you’re right that’s it’s totally subjective.

tomp5• 8 years ago

Huh? Trump approved the space force and further missions to the moon, which will hopefully result in much more spending on space-related technologies. He's renegotiating global free trade agreements, which is definitely a good thing (I'm not entirely on board with how he's renegotiating them, but the status quo is bad, and if people are more willing to renegotiate, that makes me optimistic). He's done more progress with NK than anyone else in the last x0 years.

On the other hand, Obama invaded 2 countries and kept on waging a war in two others. He also lied about closing Guantanamo Bay.

It's easy to come up with one-sided examples for any politician. That's what politics is, really - the game of (shitty) trade-offs.

kylnew5• 8 years ago

Fair enough but personally I don’t care how many feathers are in your cap if you promote hatred the way Trump does. that’s just me though. Also I’m canadian :)

tzs• 8 years ago

It's easy to come up with one-sided examples for any politician

Except unlike with Trump, with Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, the nominees from the other major party who ran against those, most governors in the last 100 years, most of the Senate for the last 100 years, probably a majority of the members of the House of Representatives over the last 100 years, and probably even a large majority of state legislators...if you got into a tit for tat exchange of one-sided examples with a supporter of your candidate's opponent, you'd both run out at about the same time and each would have scored about equally.

PS: it may have been unclear, because I should have also quoted your next sentence, "That's what politics is, really - the game of (shitty) trade-offs", as that was actually more of what I was addressing.

The point was that the trade-offs with Trump are way beyond the normal parameters we've had to consider trading off before. Pick various politicians and go look up their records on fact check sites. They are all pretty terrible, but Trump takes it to a new level of terribleness.

throwasnakes• 8 years ago

To those who say this is OK but net neutrality is something that should be, why? If people can ban others for speech, because they're the ones providing the hosting. Should ISPs not be able to throttle whoever they'd like for the same reason?

alphabettsy5• 8 years ago

This is not even a close comparison. In one case the owner is providing a space at no cost to users where they have many choices.

In the other, a company is proving you a connection to the network and nothing more, but in exchange for payment and often with no other choices.

mreome• 8 years ago

This is actually an argument that is sometime raised in regards to net neutrality. The difference between an ISP and a web host is that the former functions more as a utility (the debated common carrier classification). If they are a common carrier, the analogy would be the ISP is the power company and the web host is a land lord. The land lord can choose not to rent to someone for any reason other then the person belonging to a protected class. But the power company can't turn off their power as long as they keep paying.

The distinction makes sense because you can find another land lord to rent from, or buy your own house (as you can find another web host, or become a web host). But you still have to get power from the, usually one, local electric company (as you have to get a connection to the internet from your, usually one, local ISP).

tlackemann2• 8 years ago

One moderator wrote:

"No. You know what? Fuck that noise. Ethnic cleansing is not "different views." Racism is not "different views." White nationalism is not "different views." Dogwhistling that attacks against your political enemies will continue if the media doesn't stop saying things you don't like is not "different views." Putting children in cages is not "different views."

This is not an argument over tax rates or the proper role of government in education. This is an argument about who will be allowed to exist in America.

Get the fuck out of this thread. Don't post here again."

Whether you agree with their decision to ban Trump support on their (privately owned) forums, you have to agree we are in a pretty grim state here in America.

repolfx• 8 years ago

That is indeed very grim, given the number of angry straw men that moderator came out with.

Has Trump ever supported "ethnic cleansing"? No. Has he even supported racism? As far as I know, no, despite attempts to cast his criticism of illegal immigrants as generalised racism.

Those claims are absurd and extreme. This person appears to believe any sort of functioning immigration system at all is the same thing as mass murder.

It looks to me from my vantage point abroad like a section of American society has become so totally swamped in righteous anger, that they have concluded - but are unwilling to explicitly say - that US immigration controls and borders should be entirely abolished. The Democrats are not campaigning on that platform though. So what happens next?

tlackemann2• 8 years ago

This person appears to believe any sort of functioning immigration system at all is the same thing as mass murder

Where is that coming from? It seems completely out of context with what was said.

Trump has been consistently proven to be racist, xenophobic, misogynistic - none of which are a crime - but should be considered seriously when at command of the United States.

These aren't straw men points. There are real victims out there suffering real consequences because of the hate and regression Trump has promoted. Children ARE being locked in cages. To say it's all Trump's fault would be careless and wrong however, but at the same time we wouldn't say the civil rights movement happened without Martin Luther King. Trump happens to be the leader of a hateful movement no one can hide from. It is indeed very grim.

LiterallyDoge2• 8 years ago

Eh it's their website. Personal property. They're idiots though.

CivBase6• 8 years ago

They have the right to do this.

I still think this is terrible.

Echo chambers are becoming more common with the wide-spread adoption of the internet and people are increasingly worse at handling disagreements. It is so easy to immerse yourself in communities that validate your ideas. Many online services push you into these echo chambers because, in general, people engage more with groups that express ideas they are comfortable with.

The internet is a never-ending record of the adverse effects of echo chambers. Politics, religion, game consoles, programming languages, frameworks, operating systems, browsers, text editors... they exist for just about everything and the effect is always the same. People immersed in echo chambers gradually stop being able to show empathy to those outside their group. Perceived public opinion is a powerful thing and we love to point to popularity as justification[1].

Humans need to be challenged in order to grow. Maybe RPG.net isn't the right place for people to be challenged politically. Then the mods should just ban discussions about any real-life politician. Targeting one politician just creates another echo chamber.

Again, I know they have the right to do this. They should be allowed to do it.

I think it's bad.

[1] Apparently it's called "argumentum ad populum". Cool! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

muzz4• 8 years ago

Not sure if a gaming forum is an apt comparison to a politcal echo chamber

CivBase6• 8 years ago

You don't have to be a politically-focused website to be a political echo chamber. Clearly politics are a common discussion point on that forum.

gus_massa• 8 years ago

The part that is terrible is that they are not banning all political discussion, they are just banning the part they don't like. The rule says:

New Ban: Do Not Post In Support of Trump or his Administration

If they want to keep the gamming forum on topic they can ban all political discussion.

(As a comparison, HN has a ban in political discussion. It's difficult to ban all political discussion because the is an spectrum between 100% political and 100% technological, and some posts are both political and technological, and in some case there is not clear threshold.)

edkennedy2• 8 years ago

I am fully in support of this, and actually quite surprised by the negativity in this thread about this decision. All the major hold outs online, like the Donald, already do the reverse of this and ban anyone who challenges their viewpoints.

CivBase6• 8 years ago

/r/The_Donald isn't exactly a community I would hold up as an example of this sort of policy working out.

I have a general distaste for communities like this and it's always disappointing to me when I see any community voluntarily turn itself into an obvious echo chamber.

archagon2• 8 years ago

Frog boiling. “Trump is president, and a third of our country supports him, so he’s gotta be at least sort of mainstream and acceptable. And we can’t go around banning mainstream and acceptable things.”

The underlying premise is wrong, but many people no longer seem to recognize it. This is how the fringe builds power until it’s too late to stop them.

kangnkodos3• 8 years ago

The title is a little misleading. RPG.net is banning PEOPLE who publicly support Trump on their forum.

Look at these 5 videos. People on the left are allowed to bring their whole selves to RPG.net. People on the right are not welcomed to do the same.

https://www.wsj.com/news/types/voices-from-a-divided-america

danaris5• 8 years ago

If your "whole self" wants to dehumanize and kill entire classes of people because of their perceived race, sexual orientation, gender, etc, then I don't think it should be welcomed. Anywhere.

And if your "whole self" actively supports others who espouse such views, even if you do not directly do so yourself, then while I won't go so far as to say you're as bad, you're certainly bad enough that you should also not be welcomed in that way.

unbroken2• 8 years ago

1. Conservatives and even Trump supporters don't want that. 2. Thanks for pushing normal people even further to the right.

kangnkodos3• 8 years ago

@danaris - Thank you for stating out loud what many people think a Trump supporter is. You summed up the stereotype very well. That's important.

Now please take a few minutes and look at the people in the videos (see my previous comment) who are Trump supporters. Those are real people who support Trump. Please let me know specifically which ones are bad enough that they should not be welcomed.

nisuni2• 8 years ago

A question for all the “my business, my rules” crowd: do you also support a cake shop refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple?

muzz4• 8 years ago

What was the legal outcome of the court challenge in that situation?

danaris5• 8 years ago

I'm honestly not sure of my answer to that question, but there's a huge difference between refusing service to someone because of their sexual orientation and refusing service to someone because of active support of white supremacists and other hate groups.

Not only is one discriminating because of what you are and the other because of what you do and say, but the "do and say" side in this case is doing and saying things that are unquestionably morally repugnant, and in many cases actively inciting (or at least condoning) violence against classes of people...mainly because of what those people are.

zimpenfish2• 8 years ago

their sexual orientation

Which I believe is considered a "protected class" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group - whereas being a racist/white supremacist/alt-right (currently) isn't. That's the difference.

nisuni2• 8 years ago

Your are conflating two different things: speaking in favor of one particular policy of President Trump is NOT speaking in favor of supremacist or hate groups.

I am myself in favor of a couple of Trump’s policies, and I am pretty sure I am not a white supremacist or part of a hate group.

bliblah• 8 years ago

Hate to be the one that says this...Why is this being posted on Hacker News? A privately operated forum is using moderation tools in ways that not everyone finds agreeable, how is this news in 2018?

We have a lot of discussions on free speech but do we really need to post every single site that uses these tools to reiterate the same points?

Pro:Free exchange of ideas is being threatened and is creating an echo chamber; i don't agree with the ideas but will die for you to say it Con: They are privately operated and the first amendment isn't a catch all for all speech; XKCD comic showing you the door...

Maybe i'm cynical but most discussions just devolves to the same conversations being repeated with nothing interesting to add to the already long list of FB, Google, Go Daddy, Twitter posts/groups that have been censored/deplatformed. At this point it seems everyone already has their opinions firmly placed and nothing will really convince them otherwise.

archagon2• 8 years ago

Trump literally proclaimed himself a nationalist a few weeks ago. As far as online communities go, these bans are long overdue.

I’m not interested in sharing an online space with people who are more than happy to tear my country down.

Algurnon• 8 years ago

In post-ww2 Germany, they essentially adopted the policy of suppressing Nazi ideology and it was regarded as a good thing, thought every German except post-war Nazi holdouts. They came to find out its not all that much dif't in fx than shouting "fire! in a crowded theater. Not just those who went throught he war, but especially all those who were born afterwards. This here is just doing what Germany did except pre-emptively. Like Woody Guthrie's guitar. The 1st Amendment is a great step forward in democracy, but Rupert Murdoch has a ) day exploit on the constitution and pretending he doesn't = owned

RPG.net bans posts in support of Trump

Related Stories