Mordhau

I found out how toxic you have to be for a permanent ban

717 604

@DerFurst said:

@CocyxTheGaySkeleton said:

imagine being so low IQ that instead of considering all those kinds of theories bad, you just think the ones that originate from an opposing political philosophy is bad

imagine being so stupid that you think it's impossible for a conspiracy to exist

ugh. ofc conspiracies exist — they get outed by hard evidence. i'm glad there's a clear distinction between schizo-ing out about a pizza on a music video and actual corrupt pedo shit like epstein now, for instance

They Would Catch A Lot Of Shit For It, Is The Thing. chick fil-a is still trying to apologize. lol

since you didn't get what I meant, imagine if anti-homosexuality were the prevailing view of major tech and media organizations, and sanctioned by the government, despite homosexuality being a popular position among regular people. I'm certain you'd be a free speech advocate then.

wtf makes u think i'm not free speech. i just don't think private companies choosing what to censor is actually anti-free speech. the way we're talkin shit about eachothers views IS free speech. we're doing it now. lol

anti-homosexuality used to be a prevailing view obviously. societal movements changed that. maybe if enough rational people argued the things you're arguing and made good points then there would be a societal shift into uh, talking shit about jews i guess, but atm it seems only Crazy People have your opinions. sorry man, that's the way the cookie crumbles

Count 4205 9820
  • 1 Sep '19
 DerFurst

@SWSeriousMike said:

@DerFurst said:
you don't see the irony in calling for the censorship of hostile thoughts under the pretense of protecting people's civil rights

That's classical paradox of tolerance. It's ironic. Just like treating hyperactivity with Ritalin. Doesn't mean it's wrong.

It's also ironic that water temperature color codes conventionally use blue for cold and red for hot. In reality blue is warmer than red according to Wien's displacement law. Still no reason to get rid of those conventions.

You might think the notion of "using intolerance towards the intolerant to protect tolerance" is profound, but it's actually grossly oversimplified.

Firstly, a person attempting to debate ideas that are considered "intolerant" don't necessarily intend to use violence. Attacking or censoring people for their views alone, regardless of their intentions, and especially those asking for a reasoned debate rather than violence, creates more intolerance than anything they could be saying.

Secondly, if you censor and attack the non-violent, this will have the effect of pushing them into violence as they will believe they have been given no chance for peaceful recourse. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Thirdly, people are not all guilty by association. The same people who think it's wise to "judge people by the content of their character" happen to be the same who'll judge an entire group for the actions of the worst in or adjacent to a group, collectively, throughout all of time.

Fourthly, and most important: since you've discovered that "intolerance" isn't inherently evil as it can be a tool to maintain tolerance, you should also consider those spreading "intolerant" ideas may be doing so themselves to create a more tolerant society, not because they want to create a society of intolerance.

Count 4205 9820
  • 1
  • 1 Sep '19
 DerFurst

@CocyxTheGaySkeleton said:
wtf makes u think i'm not free speech. i just don't think private companies choosing what to censor is actually anti-free speech. the way we're talkin shit about eachothers views IS free speech. we're doing it now. lol

You can't possibly be pro-free speech with a position like that, and I'll explain to you why.

Certain platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube have become the stage for political debate. While before people would talk to each other in person, the main stage for political debate happens largely online on these platforms today. These companies themselves bill themselves as being only platforms for other people's content, but this is no longer true. They are creating new algorithms to shut out content they deem incorrect, and promote content they approve of. They routinely ban content creators whom they view as incorrect, even if none of their content violates their service policy. As well, they create new rules worded specifically to allow them to ban content they dislike. When appeals are attempted to be made for controversial decisions, no human staff are available for contact.

These companies are no longer "platforms" now but publishers masquerading as public forums. Currently these companies are being taken to court for this very reason, unions have formed, and even the President has considered legislation to regulate them to prevent this situation.

If you are for free speech then believing that it's okay for these private corporations to censor political ideas you dislike is an untenable position. If they want to be public platforms, they should not be allowed to act as publishers.

1756 1811
  • 1
  • 1 Sep '19
 SWSeriousMike

@DerFurst said:
You might think the notion of "using intolerance towards the intolerant to protect tolerance" is profound, but it's actually grossly oversimplified.

Because the whole description of the paradox is longer than just one sentence it's actually you who (over-)simplified it.

Firstly, a person attempting to debate ideas that are considered "intolerant" don't necessarily intend to use violence. Attacking or censoring people for their views alone, regardless of their intentions, and especially those asking for a reasoned debate rather than violence, creates more intolerance than anything they could be saying.

>> In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument" <<

"We should debate if we should kill all Jews because they poison the well" isn't a rational argument. There is no merit in debating that. It's just mud-smearing campaign where the goalpost is shifted all the time.

Secondly, if you censor and attack the non-violent, this will have the effect of pushing them into violence as they will believe they have been given no chance for peaceful recourse. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

When they call for violence that's no peaceful recourse. When they try to spread falsehoods you don't have to assist them by providing them a forum.

Thirdly, people are not all guilty by association. The same people who think it's wise to "judge people by the content of their character" happen to be the same who'll judge an entire group for the actions of the worst in or adjacent to a group, collectively, throughout all of time.

So you are saying that racism and ethnic prejudice is bad?

Fourthly, and most important: since you've discovered that "intolerance" isn't inherently evil as it can be a tool to maintain tolerance, you should also consider those spreading "intolerant" ideas may be doing so themselves to create a more tolerant society, not because they want to create a society of intolerance.

If people were just honest, I wouldn't have a problem with that. But as soon as false facts are involved (e.g. anti-vaxxers), my tolerance is depleted.
Take migration for example:
"I oppose migration into my country because I'm egoistical and don't want to share my wealth" is honest and has merit. Everyone can decide if that's the how they want to be seen.
"Our nation will collapse and the migrants will pillage and rape our women. Our dogs will be eaten and earth itself will break under the pressure of migration" has no merit and shouldn't be tolerated but treated.

1241 911
  • 1 Sep '19
 esturias

Did I miss something, or why exactly are we drifting into politics and weird "what if"-fantasies again, when this is just about immature and asocial people acting like total buttholes on public forums and people not understanding what "free speech" is?

And I thought that this thread originally was about bad moderation...

This comment was deleted.
181 165
  • 1
  • 1 Sep '19
 Unlikely

Oops, double posted...

181 165
  • 1 Sep '19
 Unlikely

@esturias

And I thought that this thread originally was about bad moderation...

It still is. @SWSeriousMike and @CocyxTheGaySkeleton, bless their hearts, are debating tolerance with a Nazi sympathizer who still isn't banned despite being reported for holocaust denial to this forum. @Maci has chimed in with an explicitly racist graphic to just underline that he won't be banned for that, either.

Knight 7768 14310
  • 1 Sep '19
 ToLazy4Name

Oh no, he doesn't think the holocaust is real! Quick, ban him!!!

lmao I can understand banning furst if he was running around spamming the N word or saying he thinks all the Jews should be killed but if your reason is "he doesn't believe in a historical event" then you should find something else to be angry about

Count 3976 8336
  • 1 Sep '19
 TheDankestMeme

can we put mods into gulags and start the dictatorship of the mordhau users please

46 74
  • 2 Sep '19
 Zeratul

I also got permabanned, but i really cant find the reason why, im the most tolerant person on this good earth.

Knight 5270 7108
  • 2
  • 2 Sep '19
 Humble Staff

Aren't Cocyx and Mike new here?compared to other active forum members i mean.
Have they received a ban prior to this one? I don't think so, haven't seen them do or say anything atrocious either. You mods/devs should remove the part of the rules where it says something along the lines of "if you are a first time offender and depending of the severity of your ofence you may only get a warning" because it has been broken time and time again and i'm tired of this bullshit, either rule your forum with a hard hand or stop giving the impresion you think twice before a surprise butt rape ban.
Furst has been banned many times already for this and knew what he was getting himself into but i don't think Cocyx and Mike did, a simple warning could have gone a long way.
Yes i know it's a temporary ban, but still, feels like shit to the followers of your game, especially when it could have been avoided.

1241 911
  • 2 Sep '19
 esturias

Well. To say something positive: At least the moderation style perfectly fits the developement style.

10 2
  • 2 Sep '19
 feelslikemars

Step aside, sir!
You are a disgrace to humankind for your "awful" texts, and deserve this mighty ban hammer!
Just kidding. This was a good read.

GL and Fair Fights

957 309
  • 7 Sep '19
 Antoniokontos

@Humble Staff said:
Aren't Cocyx and Mike new here?compared to other active forum members i mean.
Have they received a ban prior to this one? I don't think so, haven't seen them do or say anything atrocious either. You mods/devs should remove the part of the rules where it says something along the lines of "if you are a first time offender and depending of the severity of your ofence you may only get a warning" because it has been broken time and time again and i'm tired of this bullshit, either rule your forum with a hard hand or stop giving the impresion you think twice before a surprise butt rape ban.
Furst has been banned many times already for this and knew what he was getting himself into but i don't think Cocyx and Mike did, a simple warning could have gone a long way.
Yes i know it's a temporary ban, but still, feels like shit to the followers of your game, especially when it could have been avoided.

Cocyx has only been here since may of 2019 a few weeks after myself wile Mikes been here since 2017

Knight 5270 7108
  • 7 Sep '19
 Humble Staff

Yea but they haven't said or done anything trespassing the rules until that day.

957 309
  • 8 Sep '19
 Antoniokontos

well maby not to the letter but atleast in Cocyx case they always seemed to push abit, guess this time it got him

Mercenary 1888 7054
  • 8 Sep '19
 ThunderDuck

I have rectal cancer

957 309
  • 9 Sep '19
 Antoniokontos

thats sad

1756 1811
  • 9 Sep '19
 SWSeriousMike

@Antoniokontos said:
Cocyx has only been here since may of 2019 a few weeks after myself wile Mikes been here since 2017

Not that it really matters. But my first post is from April:
https://mordhau.com/forum/topic/13958/howto-play-mordhau-alpha-on-linux-steam-play/#c12

https://mordhau.com/forum/user/4473/swseriousmike/?page=65

The forum is probably just reporting the time I backed the game there.