# I have some issues with CoC 2.7's Update...



## LuxVolans (May 15, 2018)

Okay, so I try not to get too political when it comes to my furry life, because, 1: I'm in a significant minority, since I'm a heavily Conservative leaning Libertarian, 2:Really, I'm just here for porn in the first place, and politics kinda gets in the way of that.  That said, when I see something that seems to show some form of inconsistency, horrid bias, or is disingenuous, I have to call it out. 

Sadly, I've found a few issues specifically addressed in the latest CoC Handout. 



Firstly: 



> *Why did you add Alt-Right to your examples of hate groups?*
> We didn’t initially recognize the Alt-Right as a hate group since the movement was relatively new and made up of many different voices. As time has passed, it has been officially classified as a hate group by many reputable organizations who closely monitor hate and terrorist group activities. We have also identified many accounts and monitored numerous, coordinated activities rooted in spreading hate and furthering instability within the community through the use of our website - these accounts have now been closed. It has been determined that the Alt-Right majorly consists of white supremacists, neo-fascists, and other fringe hate groups. If you identify as or promote Alt-Right ideologies (e.g. Alt-Furry and Furry Raiders) on Fur Affinity, you may be permanently banned.



I'd like to know what these "Reputable Organizations" are.  I'm inherently skeptical, so I'd like to know just who it is, because "Alt-Right" has become an ambiguous term for so many on the left to use as a club to attempt to beat their opponents into submission.  It's something for the left to use for character assassination.  If we were to talk about legitimate supremacist groups, then that would be understandable(Though I myself am a free speech/constitution fundamentalist) But "Alt-right" is undefined here, and since I don't have the references nor know the "reputable Organizations" listed, I don't know just who is listed, nor if it is justified.  Many organizations seen as "Reputable" would classify individuals such as Ben Shapiro, the #1 Targeted individual on twitter for Alt-right/anti-Semitic tweets, as Alt-Right too.

When it comes to codes of conduct, law, and regulations, Technicality is EVERYTHING.  Just leaving it to "We'll decide if you are or not" is just welcoming to abuse.  




Secondly, and this is the part that I *MOST* disagree with/hate. 



> *What about Antifa, "Alt-Left" and the Alt-Light (New Right)?*
> At this time, we could not find enough evidence to consider Antifa a hate group and what was provided appeared to be of false-equivalence. There has been voiced concern about their operations on Fur Affinity and we have and will continue to monitor and take action against any user who promotes or encourages illegal activites and violence on our website as per our rules. Concerning the Alt-Left, there is no evidence one exists, and the Alt-Light or New Right has specifically distanced themselves from the Alt-Right and openly rejected hate and identity politics.



AntiFa may not be a "Hate Group," But they *ARE* Classified as a Domestic Terrorist Organization as per The Department of Homeland Security and the FBI.  It is entirely too easy to find active instances of AntiFa unprovoked/unjustified Violence against peaceful protesters.  Undercover video can be found of AntiFa infiltrations where members will hand out weapons and plan to carry out assault against/ambush protesters and rally goers.  Other examples and instances of such groups include BAMN(By Any Means Necessary), a violent leftist cult, with direct ties to AntiFa. 

I'm certain that FA wouldn't tolerate ISIS, Hamas, or any other terrorist organizational imagery(As currently stated), so I expect that this should be changed at the very least in the face of evidence. 



Lastly, just a contradiction more than anything. 



> *What about fictional content that I find offensive?*
> Fur Affinity provides a platform for our users to exchange ideas and works of art that include variety of different themes. We understand that some users may create content that is political, religious, or use themes that may be perceived as offensive. However, artistic expression that may be offensive to some users does not necessarily mean the content violates our rules. Indiana Jones would not be who he is without his greatest enemies. Maus would not be the tragic story it is without being able to show the horror.
> 
> Fictional expression should be differentiated from the committing of real life acts. If you believe that the content posted is not intended to be fictional, grossly promotes hate and violence against a group of people, or otherwise violates any of our other rules and policies, we encourage you to report it so that our staff may review it.
> ...


Now, this may just be me not quite understanding the CoC as it's currently laid out.  Does the CoC in regards to "offensive imagery" and "Hate groups" only apply to actual images/pictures/non-fictional content?

If not, then wouldn't any artwork involving fictional characters/fictional representations be represented?


----------



## Arwing Ace (May 15, 2018)

Wow, I didn't know about this until now. I just read the updated CoC. I agree, I call bullshit on this double standard.


----------



## LuxVolans (May 15, 2018)

Shane McNair said:


> Wow, I didn't know about this until now. I just read the updated CoC. I agree, I call bullshit on this double standard.



Which part in particular didn't you know about?


----------



## Arwing Ace (May 15, 2018)

LuxVolans said:


> Which part in particular didn't you know about?



All of it, actually, as I didn't read the updated CoC until after I saw this thread. But when I said "this", I was referring specifically to the apparent pass that they're giving to Antifa, BAMN, and other violent leftists here.


----------



## LogicNuke (May 15, 2018)

Can we report AltFurry and Furry Raider members?


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 15, 2018)

Any far right or white nationalist group is also classified as a terror group according to the FBI and DHS. Anyone who declared themselves alt-right (I.E. far right) is essentially declaring themselves a terrorist. 

Also, as to the ambiguous nature of the so called "alt-right", that was intentional. If you check out the Anti Defamation League's page the themselves cite the alt-right as a far right primer for white supremacy based in fascist doctrine. www.adl.org: Alt Right: A Primer about the New White Supremacy

At the end of the day, if I have to choose between a bunch of commies and a bunch of fascists, I'll take the commies because at least then I have a chance at being alive.


----------



## imperialpie (May 15, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> Any far right or white nationalist group is also classified as a terror group according to the FBI and DHS. Anyone who declared themselves alt-right (I.E. far right) is essentially declaring themselves a terrorist.
> 
> Also, as to the ambiguous nature of the so called "alt-right", that was intentional. If you check out the Anti Defamation League's page the themselves cite the alt-right as a far right primer for white supremacy based in fascist doctrine. www.adl.org: Alt Right: A Primer about the New White Supremacy
> 
> At the end of the day, if I have to choose between a bunch of commies and a bunch of fascists, I'll take the commies because at least then I have a chance at being alive.



In a just world the ADL would be considered a hate group too. The fact you think they are a good source says a lot.


----------



## Oblique Lynx (May 15, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> Any far right or white nationalist group is also classified as a terror group according to the FBI and DHS. Anyone who declared themselves alt-right (I.E. far right) is essentially declaring themselves a terrorist.
> 
> Also, as to the ambiguous nature of the so called "alt-right", that was intentional. If you check out the Anti Defamation League's page the themselves cite the alt-right as a far right primer for white supremacy based in fascist doctrine. www.adl.org: Alt Right: A Primer about the New White Supremacy
> 
> At the end of the day, if I have to choose between a bunch of commies and a bunch of fascists, I'll take the commies because at least then I have a chance at being alive.


I don't know. If Stalin's anything to look at, you're about as likely to die under communism as you are Fascism. Consider the republic of Karelia. Under Stalin's regime, they carried out what amounted to a genocide to the inhabitants. So either way, your life expectancy is not looking too bright regardless of which extreme you choose.


----------



## imperialpie (May 15, 2018)

Yeah I just activated my forum account today, and it looks like it may also be the last after seeing this trash.

I won't be party to a site that appears to actively choose to not deplatform straight up terrorists and "hate groups" such as antifa and the various other agitators we've seen in the last few years, while at the same time saying anything else is not permitted. Unless this changes somehow, of course, but I'm sure it won't.

GG


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 15, 2018)

Oblique Lynx said:


> I don't know. If Stalin's anything to look at, you're about as likely to die under communism as you are Fascism. Consider the republic of Karelia. Under Stalin's regime, they carried out what amounted to a genocide to the inhabitants. So either way, your life expectancy is not looking too bright regardless of which extreme you choose.



The USSR wasn't the only communist country. If you ask Antifa people, 99.9% of them will say they hate Stalin. They are radical anarcho-communists. They despise authoritarian regimes like the USSR and China


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 15, 2018)

imperialpie said:


> Yeah I just activated my forum account today, and it looks like it may also be the last after seeing this trash.
> 
> I won't be party to a site that appears to actively choose to not deplatform straight up terrorists and "hate groups" such as antifa and the various other agitators we've seen in the last few years, while at the same time saying anything else is not permitted. Unless this changes somehow, of course, but I'm sure it won't.
> 
> GG


Antifa isn't a hate group. Literally they don't meet the definition.


----------



## DeeTheDragon (May 15, 2018)

LuxVolans said:


> Now, this may just be me not quite understanding the CoC as it's currently laid out. Does the CoC in regards to "offensive imagery" and "Hate groups" only apply to actual images/pictures/non-fictional content?
> 
> If not, then wouldn't any artwork involving fictional characters/fictional representations be represented?


From the way it's worded, it looks like fictional work can be included but will need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.  It's a lot harder to determine malicious intent on fictional content.


----------



## Oblique Lynx (May 15, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> The USSR wasn't the only communist country. If you ask Antifa people, 99.9% of them will say they hate Stalin. They are radical anarcho-communists. They despise authoritarian regimes like the USSR and China


Yes but my point was that regardless of the side you choose, you're gonna have a bad time because _both _sides are quite wrought with genocide, exile and the like.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 15, 2018)

imperialpie said:


> In a just world the ADL would be considered a hate group too. The fact you think they are a good source says a lot.



How is the ADL, a Jewish anti-hate group non profit a hate group? Oh right, sorry, they're Jews. They must be behind it because... Jews! 

Your anti semitism is palpable.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 15, 2018)

Oblique Lynx said:


> Yes but my point was that regardless of the side you choose, you're gonna have a bad time because _both _sides are quite wrought with genocide, exile and the like.




Depends on the form of government.


----------



## Oblique Lynx (May 15, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> Depends on the form of government.


In your words it was communism or fascism


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 15, 2018)

Oblique Lynx said:


> In your words it was communism or fascism



Fascism is one thing. Authoritarian, military first, and ultranationalist. 

There are many forms of communist thought from Stalin and Mao (gag) to Rosa Luxemburg and Noam Chomsky.


----------



## Infrarednexus (May 15, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> Antifa isn't a hate group. Literally they don't meet the definition.


*Hate group definition*
A *hate* *group* is an organized *group* or movement that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, nation, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or any other designated sector of society.

Antifa practices violence and promotes hate against Christians, whites, Israel, Conservatives, police officers, and sometimes just men in general. They are in fact a hate group by definition. We can't decide what is and what isn't a hate group based on the convenience of our beliefs. We have to apply the same principle to everyone. No exceptions.


----------



## imperialpie (May 15, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> How is the ADL, a Jewish anti-hate group non profit a hate group? Oh right, sorry, they're Jews. They must be behind it because... Jews!
> 
> Your anti semitism is palpable.



The immediate assumption that I'm an anti-semite because I disagree with a primarily Jewish organization that regularly ruins people's lives for no reason.

Would it even make a difference if I said I don't hate Jews on the basis of being Jews? No, it wouldn't. Know how I can tell? Because that's the first conclusion you came to with zero other allusion.

Exposed.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 15, 2018)

imperialpie said:


> The immediate assumption that I'm an anti-semite because I disagree with a primarily Jewish organization that regularly ruins people's lives for no reason.
> 
> Would it even make a difference if I said I don't hate Jews on the basis of being Jews? No, it wouldn't. Know how I can tell? Because that's the first conclusion you came to with zero other allusion.
> 
> Exposed.


Calling out nazis and anti semites saves far more lives than it ruins. Plus, how am I exposed? Because you automatically hate an organization dedicated to stopping hate? Puh. Leaz.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 15, 2018)

Infrarednexus said:


> *Hate group definition*
> A *hate* *group* is an organized *group* or movement that advocates and practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, nation, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or any other designated sector of society.
> 
> Antifa practices violence and promotes hate against Christians, whites, Israel, Conservatives, police officers, and sometimes just men in general. They are in fact a hate group by definition. We can't decide what is and what isn't a hate group based on the convenience of our beliefs. We have to apply the same principle to everyone. No exceptions.




By that definition, every political ideology is a hate group because all politics is violence. Let me sort though this for ya: 

Christians are the majority in America, same with white people, Conservatives are a political group, not a sector of society. Criticizing a nation that has historically killed civilians for no reason is completely justified. Protesting police brutality is not hate speech. Men hold most of the power in society, punching up is not "hate speech".


----------



## Oblique Lynx (May 15, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> Fascism is one thing. Authoritarian, military first, and ultranationalist.
> 
> There are many forms of communist thought from Stalin and Mao (gag) to Rosa Luxemburg and Noam Chomsky.



And an overwhelming majority of the time they've flopped and ended with bloodshed from within. Secondly, in practice, communist countries have almost always been authoritarian in nature.


----------



## imperialpie (May 15, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> Calling out nazis and anti semites saves far more lives than it ruins. Plus, how am I exposed? Because you automatically hate an organization dedicated to stopping hate? Puh. Leaz.



"We must root out >members of society< regardless of who gets hurt in the process"

Okay Gulag.

You're exposed because your first response involves calling me what you're performing a witch hunt against on the basis that I don't agree with you.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 15, 2018)

Oblique Lynx said:


> And an overwhelming majority of the time they've flopped and ended with bloodshed from within. Secondly, in practice, communist countries have almost always been authoritarian in nature.



Many of which were overthrown through violence paid for and supported by heavily capitalist nations. 

Correction: communist countries YOU KNOW OF have almost always been authoritarian in nature.

The world is bigger than you think. Leave the bubble of America and realize there is more to the left than McCarthyism.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 15, 2018)

imperialpie said:


> "We must root out >members of society< regardless of who gets hurt in the process"
> 
> Okay Gulag.
> 
> You're exposed because your first response involves calling me what you're performing a witch hunt against on the basis that I don't agree with you.




Not what I'm saying at all. I actually have seen this meme floating around on 4chan. Nice one. Note for the future, don't use /pol/ as a resource for political information. 

Calling you out for openly hating an organization dedicated to stopping hate is not a witch hunt, its literally what you did.


----------



## Rant (May 15, 2018)

Oh boy another shit-fit thread! Let's see what happens!


----------



## Oblique Lynx (May 15, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> Many of which were overthrown through violence paid for and supported by heavily capitalist nations.
> 
> Correction: communist countries YOU KNOW OF have almost always been authoritarian in nature.
> 
> The world is bigger than you think. Leave the bubble of America and realize there is more to the left than McCarthyism.


If you want to enlighten me to the historical countries where authoritarianism wasn't present then I'm all ears.  And communists have instigated bloodshed in countries as well. They're not exempt from that.

Secondly I'm not from America nor do I see how that's valid to the discussion.


----------



## Yakamaru (May 15, 2018)

>Communism
>~150 million dead as a result
>0% empirical success rate

M'kay then.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 15, 2018)

Oblique Lynx said:


> If you want to enlighten me to the historical countries where authoritarianism wasn't present then I'm all ears.  And communists have instigated bloodshed in countries as well. They're not exempt from that.
> 
> Secondly I'm not from America nor do I see how that's valid to the discussion.




Every political group in history exists because of past and sustained bloodshed. Politics is violence.  Wanna know some lefty countries that aren't dictatorships? Here we go! Canada, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, India, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, New Zealand and Belgium.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 15, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> >Communism
> >~150 million dead as a result
> >0% empirical success rate
> 
> M'kay then.


Capitalism has killed over 280 Million in the same time span but pleasetellmemore.jpeg


----------



## Oblique Lynx (May 15, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> Every political group in history exists because of past and sustained bloodshed. Politics is violence.  Wanna know some lefty countries that aren't dictatorships? Here we go! Canada, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, India, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, New Zealand and Belgium.


We're talking about the extreme view of communism so I fail to see how these hold relevance to the discussion.


----------



## Infrarednexus (May 15, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> By that definition, every political ideology is a hate group because all politics is violence. Let me sort though this for ya:
> 
> Christians are the majority in America, same with white people, Conservatives are a political group, not a sector of society. Criticizing a nation that has historically killed civilians for no reason is completely justified. Protesting police brutality is not hate speech. Men hold most of the power in society, punching up is not "hate speech".


1) Just because Christianity most popular does not make it the bad guy. And don't follow through with the idea that we should focus on taking down Christians when you know damn well that Islam has just as much blood on its hands and I don't see antifa complaining about that.
2) Just because whites are the majority of the country does not make them the enemy. Most white people I've met in my life were generally nice just like any other racial or ethnic group. By your argument, we should attack whites because there are a lot of them. That is a form of racism.
3)Conservatives may just be a political group, but that doesn't justify violence towards them in any way.
4) Every nation has a history of killing and oppressing people for various reasons. Israel is not alone in that field by any means.
5) Not all cops attack blacks for no reason, and in fact most of them don't. Blacks are statistically more likely to die at the hands of other blacks than with cops, according to FBI statistics.

Your argument seems to be from personal hatred towards specific groups and not from facts, statistics, or reason. I fail to see why your worthy to further debate.


----------



## LuxVolans (May 15, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> Any far right or white nationalist group is also classified as a terror group according to the FBI and DHS. Anyone who declared themselves alt-right (I.E. far right) is essentially declaring themselves a terrorist.
> 
> Also, as to the ambiguous nature of the so called "alt-right", that was intentional. If you check out the Anti Defamation League's page the themselves cite the alt-right as a far right primer for white supremacy based in fascist doctrine. www.adl.org: Alt Right: A Primer about the New White Supremacy
> 
> At the end of the day, if I have to choose between a bunch of commies and a bunch of fascists, I'll take the commies because at least then I have a chance at being alive.



Except that Communism has killed exponentially more people than fascism ever has, especially within the past century.

However, that's a discussion best left to another venue and thread.

As for the link you posted with the ADL, I was actually following with, and agreeing with it until pretty much the last paragraph of the section "Who makes up the Alt-right"  Where it says that they may say instead of "Race," they say "Culture."



> Alt Righters like to try to use terms such as “culture” as substitutes for more lightning rod terms such as “race,” or promote “Western Civilization” as a code word for white culture or identity. They do not make explicit references to white supremacy like the “14 words” a slogan used by neo-Nazis and other hardcore white supremacists. The “14 words” refers to the expression, “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.” Even though Alt Righters share the sentiment behind the “14 words” they’re more inclined to talk about preserving European-American identity.



Race and culture are completely different things, and *any *culture can be held to criticism.  By saying this, they've pretty much added anyone that holds even the slightest skepticism of other cultures to this definition of Alt-Right.  If I say something as simple as "Not all Muslims are terrorists, but The Prophet Mohamed was a woman abusing warmonger,"  something that can be easily proven by looking through the Quran, would Label me as "Alt-Right."


That said, there  is a third option, one that I choose to elect; fuck both of them!  They're both radical violent extremists, and I want nothing to do with either of them.  But let's not act as if there's nothing like this coming from the left, or that it's never come from the left.  Creating such a divisive rhetoric of "with or against," "One or the other," and "us or them" is not conductive to any kind of healthy political environment.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 15, 2018)

Infrarednexus said:


> 1) Just because Christianity most popular does not make it the bad guy. And don't follow through with the idea that we should focus on taking down Christians when you know damn well that Islam has just as much blood on its hands and I don't see antifa complaining about that.
> 2) Just because whites are the majority of the country does not make them the enemy. Most white people I've met in my life were generally nice just like any other racial or ethnic group. By your argument, we should attack whites because there are a lot of them. That is a form of racism.
> 3)Conservatives may just be a political group, but that doesn't justify violence towards them in any way.
> 4) Every nation has a history of killing and oppressing people for various reasons. Israel is not alone in that field by any means.
> ...





Oblique Lynx said:


> We're talking about the extreme view of communism so I fail to see how these hold relevance to the discussion.


You ask for examples. 

I give examples. 

You shift the goalposts. 

10/10. Totally not a serious flaw in your views. justkeepswimming.png


----------



## imperialpie (May 15, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> Not what I'm saying at all. I actually have seen this meme floating around on 4chan. Nice one. Note for the future, don't use /pol/ as a resource for political information.
> 
> Calling you out for openly hating an organization dedicated to stopping hate is not a witch hunt, its literally what you did.



You are outright insinuating I'm anti-semetic for despising a group that (on top of plenty of other things) has affected friends that don't even affiliate themselves with those groups when you don't even know me. Where's my "report for hate speech" button? Oh wait, I'm not privileged enough to have all my problems go away after simply calling (choose all that apply: anti-semetism, racism, hate speech, homophobia----)

Meanwhile, you continue to defend the ideology that killed hundreds of millions throughout the 20th century. Nice.

I really can't say much more. I mean, I could but it wouldn't change your regressive attitude would it? That's okay, I guess that's part of living in a "free world".


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 15, 2018)

LuxVolans said:


> Except that Communism has killed exponentially more people than fascism ever has, especially within the past century.
> 
> However, that's a discussion best left to another venue and thread.
> 
> ...



Christians have killed more people than religious group in history, does that make them evil incarnate? No.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 15, 2018)

imperialpie said:


> You are outright insinuating I'm anti-semetic for despising a group that (on top of plenty of other things) as affected friends that don't even affiliate themselves with those groups when you don't even know me. Where's my "report for hate speech" button? Oh wait, I'm not privileged enough to have all my problems go away after simply calling (choose all that apply: anti-semetism, racism, hate speech, homophobia----)
> 
> Meanwhile, you continue to defend the ideology that killed hundreds of millions throughout the 20th century. Nice.
> 
> I really can't say much more. I mean, I could but it wouldn't change your regressive attitude would it? That's okay, I guess that's part of living in a "free world".



Capitalism has killed more, honestly, but I guess reality really jive with #AlternativeFacts.


----------



## Oblique Lynx (May 15, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> You ask for examples.
> 
> I give examples.
> 
> ...


There was no shift. I did and still am asking for communist countries and your answers provided none of it.


----------



## Yakamaru (May 15, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> Every political group in history exists because of past and sustained bloodshed. Politics is violence.  Wanna know some lefty countries that aren't dictatorships? Here we go! Canada, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, India, Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, New Zealand and Belgium.


>Norway
>Leftist
What?

Norway is a mixed-economy. Pro-Capitalism, pro free markets and have little regulation on the markets themselves. Yes, there are some social policies such as universal healthcare and welfare, and in some strategic areas. However, that does not make Norway a Leftist country. Stop spewing bullshit, please.


----------



## Ginza (May 15, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> I see Yakamaru liking a lot of stuff here. Is he not an Altfurry? What will happen to him?



With all due respect sir, Yakamaru hasn’t said a word in this thread prior to this post. I feel your picking on him as well as other members who you dislike, is quite distasteful. If you disagree with the OP, refute the OP. However, there’s no need to drag someone in who clearly wants no contact with you.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 15, 2018)

Infrarednexus said:


> 1) Just because Christianity most popular does not make it the bad guy. And don't follow through with the idea that we should focus on taking down Christians when you know damn well that Islam has just as much blood on its hands and I don't see antifa complaining about that.
> 2) Just because whites are the majority of the country does not make them the enemy. Most white people I've met in my life were generally nice just like any other racial or ethnic group. By your argument, we should attack whites because there are a lot of them. That is a form of racism.
> 3)Conservatives may just be a political group, but that doesn't justify violence towards them in any way.
> 4) Every nation has a history of killing and oppressing people for various reasons. Israel is not alone in that field by any means.
> ...




1) Never said take down Christians, never said don't take down ISIS.
2)Never said target whites. 
3) People keep saying conservatives when I'm talking about fascists. 
4) Israel isn't alone. Antifa criticizes many nations for the same reasons but nobody on Fox likes to talk about that. 
5) I remember that statistic, it was from 2015. Its outdated. Even if it is a modern statistic, police departments don't report the people they killed. It's not required. 

Specific personal hatred towards fascists? How is that a bad thing XD I love how people are twisting my words. XD


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 15, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> >Norway
> >Leftist
> What?
> 
> Norway is a mixed-economy. Pro-Capitalism, pro free markets and have little regulation on the markets themselves. Yes, there are some social policies such as universal healthcare and welfare, and in some strategic areas. However, that does not make Norway a Leftist country. Stop spewing bullshit, please.



It has many very socialist economic and welfare regulations. Seriously, leftist political theory is more than just full on Stalinism.

Edit: "seriously, leftist is more than just full on Stalinism." to "Seriously, leftist political theory is more than just full on Stalinism."


----------



## LuxVolans (May 15, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> The USSR wasn't the only communist country. If you ask Antifa people, 99.9% of them will say they hate Stalin. They are radical anarcho-communists. They despise authoritarian regimes like the USSR and China



No, but I've heard that from countless of them they consider themselves "Maoists," time and time again.  4.5 Million people exterminated is so much better, isn't it.



AK_Sandfire said:


> Antifa isn't a hate group. Literally they don't meet the definition.



Even if they aren't a "Hate" group, they are a Violent group labelled by DoHS as "Domestic Terrorists."  




Ginza said:


> With all due respect sir, Yakamaru hasn’t said a word in this thread prior to this post. I feel your picking on him as well as other members who you dislike, is quite distasteful. If you disagree with the OP, refute the OP. However, there’s no need to drag someone in who clearly wants no contact with you.



Missed it by *that much*   xD

That said, I don't know jack shit about Yakamaru, but what he says here:


Yakamaru said:


> >Norway
> >Leftist
> What?
> 
> Norway is a mixed-economy. Pro-Capitalism, pro free markets and have little regulation on the markets themselves. Yes, there are some social policies such as universal healthcare and welfare, and in some strategic areas. However, that does not make Norway a Leftist country. Stop spewing bullshit, please.


Is factually true


*ATTENTION GRABBING CAPSLOCK*

*However, this was not meant to be a debate on communism, socialism, or politics.  This is a thread about the blatant favoritism/bias listed by the FA CoC Update with regards to such radical leftist groups such as AntiFa.*


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 15, 2018)

Oblique Lynx said:


> There was no shift. I did and still am asking for communist countries and your answers provided none of it.


 
The failed Kibbutzes, Paris Commune, the early Duma system of revolutionary russia (post tzar, pre lenin), literally any small rural town before 1500 also operated under the principals of what are essentially communist economics.


----------



## Ginza (May 15, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> I want no contact with him either. He is Altfurry. It would be better if he was banned. Furthermore, he liked a post attacking the ADL, a blameless organization fighting Antisemitism. What is his rationale for that? Hmmm.
> 
> Have a blessed day, dear.



I see we have a lovely attitude as per usual 

If you’d like to play that argument, it would be better if you were banned. Seeing as you’ve been temporarily banned already for *harassing users *and for your constant shit-stirring. I don’t care about his rationale, nor whether liking it was right or wrong. I simply dislike name throwing and call-outs is all. 

Your ignorance and narcissism is truly hilarious.


----------



## Infrarednexus (May 15, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> I want no contact with him either. He is Altfurry. It would be better if he was banned. Furthermore, he liked a post attacking the ADL, a blameless organization fighting Antisemitism. I find that distasteful. What is his rationale for that? Hmmm.
> 
> Have a blessed day, dear.


Yakamaru would be flattered if he saw how much attention you devoted to him.


----------



## Rant (May 15, 2018)

Infrarednexus said:


> 1) Just because Christianity most popular does not make it the bad guy. And don't follow through with the idea that we should focus on taking down Christians when you know damn well that Islam has just as much blood on its hands and I don't see antifa complaining about that.


Hold on, Christianity is responsible for some of the most horrific torture devices ever created as well as the Spanish Inquisition, and the annihilation of the Native American people. The fucking Pope at that time declared Native Americans were not human and therefore it was okay to kill them off in mass. Islam had suffered so horribly in the wars with Christianity that they change their own holy book to pretty much say do unto others before they can do on to you. That's how bad it was. 

Christianity is not a perfect religion. It's not even one of the better ones. The Satanic Bible has better rules for being decent fucking human being than the Holy Bible does.


----------



## imperialpie (May 15, 2018)

Ginza said:


> I see we have a lovely attitude as per usual
> 
> If you’d like to play that argument, it would be better if you were banned. Seeing as you’ve been temporarily banned already for *harassing users *and for your constant shit-stirring. I don’t care about his rationale, nor whether liking it was right or wrong. I simply dislike name throwing and call-outs is all.
> 
> Your ignorance and narcissism is truly hilarious.



I'd say it's almost pointless to call him out TBH. Such childishness can rarely be reasoned with.

Blatant "ban him for doing things I don't like". I'd call it hilarious if it wasn't so very sad.


----------



## Ginza (May 15, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> He spammed a user with swastikas. It is telling you are defending. By the way, Yakamaru was banned.



Claim A: evidence? 

Claim B: yakamaru was banned, but unlike you, not for harassing users.


----------



## Rant (May 15, 2018)

Ladies, ladies, let's drop the Yaka issue for now.


----------



## Yakamaru (May 15, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> It has many very socialist economic and welfare regulations. Seriously, leftist is more than just full on Stalinism.


Economically leaning towards the Right-wing. Socially more towards the Left. Again. Mixed-economy. It does not make Norway Left-wing. 

~Edit~
And yes, Leftism is a lot more than Stalinism, seeing as the Left-wing got us everything from worker's rights to gay rights to equality across the board. 

Anyways, I am not here to discuss about Norway's economical policies(as it'll derail the thread anyway). Have a nice day.


----------



## Ginza (May 15, 2018)

Rant said:


> Ladies, ladies, let's drop the Yaka issue for now.



My sincerest of apologies madam, I simply dislike name calling is all. Had someone else been saying the same about Logic, I’d be there with just the same vigor.

It’s immature to call out a user is all. Alas, I digress


----------



## Rant (May 15, 2018)

Ginza said:


> My sincerest of apologies madam, I simply dislike name calling is all. Had someone else been saying the same about Logic, I’d be there with just the same vigor.
> 
> It’s immature to call out a user is all. Alas, I digress


It's fine but if we get too off topic they'll shut this down.


----------



## LuxVolans (May 15, 2018)

Rant said:


> It's fine but if we get too off topic they'll shut this down.



Hence my reply listed in the bold capslock on the last page.  xD


----------



## DeeTheDragon (May 15, 2018)

Rant said:


> Ladies, ladies, let's drop the Yaka issue for now.


So back to the matter at hand.  How about some questions to guide the discussion.

Why is the CoC update worded as it is?
What is the reasoning behind the update classifying Alt-Right as a hate group but not the Alt-Left?
Does the CoC update imply favoritism by FA?  Why or why not?
How would you suggest improving the CoC?


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (May 15, 2018)

DeeTheDragon said:


> How would you suggest improving the CoC?


Because most people running FA are also antifa supporters. :V


----------



## Rant (May 15, 2018)

DeeTheDragon said:


> So back to the matter at hand.  How about some questions to guide the discussion.
> 
> Why is the CoC update worded as it is?
> What is the reasoning behind the update classifying Alt-Right as a hate group but not the Alt-Left?
> ...


Perhaps it's over the recent upheaval over Nazi furs and the issues that come with it?


----------



## LuxVolans (May 15, 2018)

Infrarednexus said:


> Well that's actually a common misconception people have about the wars between Christianity and Islam. You see, expert professors and Historians have concluded that wars like the crusades were not a violent attack without reason, but a response to hundreds of years of Islamic aggression by slavery, murder, and conquest. It took a long time before the Christian armies finally responded with the same level of violence the Arab armies did during those times.
> http://www.clayjones.net/2014/04/the-truth-about-the-crusades/
> www.wnd.com: The truth about the Crusades





LogicNuke said:


> @Ginza Yakamaru admitting he is a member of AltFurry. I guess he won't be a mod after all.
> 
> forums.furaffinity.net: Why Do People Use Dogpatch Press As A Legitimate Source?
> 
> ...



*Please no more off topic conversation*



DeeTheDragon said:


> So back to the matter at hand.  How about some questions to guide the discussion.
> 
> Why is the CoC update worded as it is?
> What is the reasoning behind the update classifying Alt-Right as a hate group but not the Alt-Left?
> ...



Aha!  These are the conversations I wanted.  To answer in order:

I myself would like to know why it's worded as is, and why they classified it as such.  I'm sure they have a left or liberal bias, that much is obvious, but I'd much rather hear their reasoning before jumping to conclusions.  

The Current CoC definitely seems to Imply it, since they disregard the comparisons of AntiFa to the Alt-right, who has had Far fewer attacks and done far less damage than anyone in AntiFa.

My suggestions would start with either defining "Alt-Right,"  Or completely removing it.  I'm much more okay with having a list of organizations that goes on 10 pages than allowing just a sort of "Moderator discretion" for something as impactful as this with a vague definition or something completely undefined.  The next step would absolutely be labeling AntiFa, BAMN, and other such groups as such.


----------



## Infrarednexus (May 15, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> @Ginza Yakamaru admitting he is a member of AltFurry. I guess he won't be a mod after all.
> 
> forums.furaffinity.net: Why Do People Use Dogpatch Press As A Legitimate Source?
> 
> ...


Don't worry buddy. You'll still have me to keep you company. I may not be alt furry, but I'm sure we can entertain eachother non the less.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (May 15, 2018)

Trust on logicnuke to resort to personal attacks


----------



## LuxVolans (May 15, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> Trust on logicnuke to resort to personal attacks





Infrarednexus said:


> Don't worry buddy. You'll still have me to keep you company. I may not be alt furry, but I'm sure we can entertain eachother non the less.




*Please no more Off Topic conversations*


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 15, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> @Ginza Yakamaru admitting he is a member of AltFurry. I guess he won't be a mod after all.
> 
> forums.furaffinity.net: Why Do People Use Dogpatch Press As A Legitimate Source?
> 
> ...


LogicNuke: *tags people angrily*
At least you don't lie about people behind their back.
I used to be in Alt Furry.  I'm not an Alt Fur anymore.


----------



## Ginza (May 15, 2018)

LogicNuke said:


> @Ginza Yakamaru admitting he is a member of AltFurry. I guess he won't be a mod after all.
> 
> forums.furaffinity.net: Why Do People Use Dogpatch Press As A Legitimate Source?
> 
> ...



I stated I was finished. Do not tag me again.


----------



## Lexiand (May 15, 2018)

Oh great people can report the furry raiders for nothing


----------



## Yakamaru (May 15, 2018)

DeeTheDragon said:


> Why is the CoC update worded as it is?


I'd argue they are taking the easy way out instead of taking a hard stance on all the bullying and harassment going on. From all sides. Though that's only my take on it.



> What is the reasoning behind the update classifying Alt-Right as a hate group but not the Alt-Left?


I could argue political bias, considering how they handle ANTIFA members, but I could easily be wrong. They are two sides of the same coin, essentially, but one side isn't recognized for some reason.



> Does the CoC update imply favoritism by FA? Why or why not?


Quite frankly, I am not sure. I've only seen accounts here and there being taken down. If however they intend to be consistent on their idea of hate groups, then they are going to have to be consistent across the board. Or their favoritism *will* show for tens of thousands of people to see.



> How would you suggest improving the CoC?


Quite frankly I'd just directly name ANTIFA and BLM in there as well. Groups that are de facto hateful(Video evidence to go with it, which is aplenty on Youtube, all unfiltered, uncensored and unedited too).

Or none at all. Apply your rules consistently across the board, no matter what your rules are. Hypocrisy is easy to see from people's actions.


----------



## Rant (May 15, 2018)

Well this is going down in flames...


----------



## LogicNuke (May 15, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> Because most people running FA are also antifa supporters. :V


Didn't you spam Open Chat with Nazi pictures awhile back? I don't know if you'd get banned for that, but you did say this to a minor: forums.furaffinity.net: Open Chat


----------



## LogicNuke (May 15, 2018)

Infrarednexus said:


> Don't worry buddy. You'll still have me to keep you company. I may not be alt furry, but I'm sure we can entertain eachother non the less.


I look forward to it. How am I going to be entertained?


----------



## LuxVolans (May 15, 2018)

Rant said:


> Well this is going down in flames...



I like to think that I'm providing at least some kind of firefighting.  xD



LogicNuke said:


> I look forward to it. How am I going to be entertained?



*Please no more off topic conversations.  
*
Like that.  ^^


----------



## Sylox (May 15, 2018)

I only logged back in to laugh at the amount of triggered snowflakes in here. Ironic.


----------



## Judge Spear (May 15, 2018)

>Expecting competence from FA.

el em ay oh


----------



## Sylox (May 15, 2018)

What I've read is a bunch of "whataboutxyz..."

Don't like it, don't use the site. If you aren't posting politically charged content, why do you care? You just want to complain that your safe space no longer exists.


----------



## LuxVolans (May 15, 2018)

Sylox said:


> What I've read is a bunch of "whataboutxyz..."
> 
> Don't like it, don't use the site. If you aren't posting politically charged content, why do you care? You just want to complain that your safe space no longer exists.



Except it's the exact opposite.  I'm not loosing a "Safe Space" here, in fact, I loath them for a number of reasons.  More than anything, I can't stand hypocrisy, or contradiction.  

It's about principle of rule.  If rule/law is to be applied, it must be applied evenly.  It can't be enforced if it is not properly defined, and it must be consistent.


----------



## Kyr (May 15, 2018)

Oh the arrogance here, it's delicious. Almost as if people don't want to admit to themselves that every governmental system in history has been responsible for some objectively terrible shit and instead want to get into ideological pissing contests over which is the worst. Personally i'm in favour of the one that lets us argue about the merits and flaws of things like Communism and Fascism but that's by the by.

As it happens i spent some time looking up DHS reports into ANTIFA to see if they've actually stated in a public document that they consider ANTIFA to be a domestic terrorist group earlier. Was gonna make a thread about it here if i found anything but it's gonna take a while to sift through what i can find in publicly available DHS and FBI reports.


LogicNuke said:


> @Kyr admitting he is member of Altfurry.


Oh noes, whatever will i do. I dared to explore their spaces to see what truth there was to the claims levied against them and found out it wasn't black and white, truly unforgivable i know. RIP me.


----------



## Sylox (May 15, 2018)

LuxVolans said:


> Except it's the exact opposite.  I'm not loosing a "Safe Space" here, in fact, I loath them for a number of reasons.  More than anything, I can't stand hypocrisy, or contradiction.
> 
> It's about principle of rule.  If rule/law is to be applied, it must be applied evenly.  It can't be enforced if it is not properly defined, and it must be consistent.



If you aren't going to post controversial stuff, you have nothing to worry about. Its much ado about nothing. People just want something to complain about.


----------



## Judge Spear (May 15, 2018)

Sylox said:


> What I've read is a bunch of "whataboutxyz..."
> 
> Don't like it, don't use the site. If you aren't posting politically charged content, why do you care? You just want to complain that your safe space no longer exists.



It just highlights a general consistency issue this site has had for ages which is why I don't use it and make fun of it from a distance (well more like up close).


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 15, 2018)

Sylox said:


> If you aren't going to post controversial stuff, you have nothing to worry about. Its much ado about nothing. People just want something to complain about.


"Don't worry; as long as you don't have opinions or want to express them, you'll be just fine."


----------



## Kyr (May 15, 2018)

LuxVolans said:


> That said, there  is a third option, one that I choose to elect; fuck both of them!


I too embrace the third position.

Fuck both of them. Radical centralism uber alles!


----------



## Crimcyan (May 15, 2018)

Fucking hell. Again with the subjects on alt-whatever the fucks?

Why is it with this fandom people go ape shit over what thier political compass is?
Does anyone remember the time when politic groups wasn't everything in life? 

Is it so hard for people to look past these groups and just see the person for who they are? I don't care if you are a Alt-furry, Antifa, Nazi, Christian, black, white, racist, Homophobic, etc. If you are a decent person you are a decent person no matter what type of group you are with. But if you are a asshole you are a ashole.
So instead of judging the entire group and attempting to get rid of all of the group why dont you get rid of the ones who cause problems?


----------



## Kyr (May 15, 2018)

Crimcyan said:


> Fucking hell. Again with the subjects on alt-whatever the fucks?
> 
> Why is it with this fandom people go ape shit over what thier political compass is?
> Does anyone remember the time when politic groups wasn't everything in life?
> ...


When the self proclaimed stupidest fox around is making the most sense in a thread, you know something's gone terribly wrong.


----------



## Rant (May 15, 2018)

Fuck everything let's worship memes


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 15, 2018)

I'm already seeing a handful of people getting permabanned from FA.  People who are literally Capitalistic Centrists.
As far as I am aware, new moderators have been selected as well in conjunction to this.  I'm having conversations with Dragoneer about it but he can't talk much about banned individuals to me.


AK_Sandfire said:


> Any far right or white nationalist group is also classified as a terror group according to the FBI and DHS. Anyone who declared themselves alt-right (I.E. far right) is essentially declaring themselves a terrorist.
> 
> Also, as to the ambiguous nature of the so called "alt-right", that was intentional. If you check out the Anti Defamation League's page the themselves cite the alt-right as a far right primer for white supremacy based in fascist doctrine. www.adl.org: Alt Right: A Primer about the New White Supremacy
> 
> At the end of the day, if I have to choose between a bunch of commies and a bunch of fascists, I'll take the commies because at least then I have a chance at being alive.


Your logic is unfollowable, and utilizing a source that also claims that Pepe is an Alt-Right symbol (which ironically made it MORE of an Alt-Right symbol than it ever was), I find it hard to take that seriously.  Or at least as the simple, blanket covering answer.  Like, all of the Alt-Right is reprehensible but not for the same reasons as each other.  Not all of them even follow White Supremacist doctrine.  Most do, to varying degrees, some more extremist than others, so on.



AK_Sandfire said:


> Many of which were overthrown through violence paid for and supported by heavily capitalist nations.
> 
> Correction: communist countries YOU KNOW OF have almost always been authoritarian in nature.
> 
> The world is bigger than you think. Leave the bubble of America and realize there is more to the left than McCarthyism.


Here's what you're saying with these combinations of quotes:
"The Alt-Right is simply what the Anti-Defamation League defines it as."
Then proceeding to say in response to Communism,
"It's just more complicated than that, lol read a book sometime."
I can make precisely the same argument by claiming that "Only every fascist country YOU KNOW OF have been authoritarian." and make vague claims about its complexity or its future without actually making a solid point.
But of course, in both Fascism and Communism, authoritarianism is built into its core; the difference is Communism doesn't actively advertise it.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 15, 2018)

Sylox said:


> What I've read is a bunch of "whataboutxyz..."
> 
> Don't like it, don't use the site. If you aren't posting politically charged content, why do you care? You just want to complain that your safe space no longer exists.


You really are oblivious to the fundamental problems of these sorts of policies, aren't you?
I could also count on one hand how many people I've seen on Twitter post shots of them being banned despite not having posted any political or alt-right material.  Particularly Anarcho-Capitalists and Centrists.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (May 15, 2018)




----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 15, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> View attachment 32381


You're gonna get banned.
www.adl.org: Pepe the Frog
Alt-Right scum


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (May 15, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> You're gonna get banned.
> www.adl.org: Pepe the Frog
> Alt-Right scum


I love you too :V


----------



## Kyr (May 15, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> The world is bigger than you think. Leave the bubble of America and realize there is more to the left than McCarthyism.


Ohh, i've just realized something. You told Oblique to leave the bubble of America but they themselves aren't American.

Stating that you thought they existed within the bubble of America when they don't, and simply can't, implies that you yourself are incapable of seeing people outside of the bubble of America.

My advise, take your own advise. You might end up learning a thing or two.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 15, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> Capitalism has killed over 280 Million in the same time span but pleasetellmemore.jpeg


You lose all credibility as soon as you quote the "280 Million Statistic" with any sort of confidence.  280 million dead is only attributable to Capitalism because they existed under Capitalism at the time of the death.  But utilizing the same logic, that's like saying we should remove hospitals because 440,000 a year die in preventable hospital mishaps.
If we multiply that for as long as hospitals have been around, well bam, you have a good reason to ban hospitals... except that figure is based on unsound logic.  That same logic is utilized with the poor and Capitalism; it's unsound logic that assumes that Capitalism inherently causes anything.  But forget the State literally starving people to death on purpose, worry about the people who suffer from poor policy and mark it up to Capitalism.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 15, 2018)

ZeloxQuo said:


> I have some serious issues about this update.
> 
> There was no warning, and they are targeting individuals falsely.
> 
> ...


You're not the only one.  Victor was banned too.  And he's as far from a Alt-Right nazi as can be.


----------



## ZeloxQuo (May 15, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> You're not the only one.  Victor was banned too.  And he's as far from a Alt-Right nazi as can be.



I actively oppose all authoritarian rule.

Nazis, fascism, communism, etc...

I'm also not even right wing, and have never associated with the 'alt-right', and have actively argued against those ideas often.

I participated in AltFurry for a while, because I considered it a joke group (because it is), but I haven't been a part of it, nor have I associated with the label for weeks now.

And, as Dragoneer himself has stated, I'm being *REMOVED FROM FURAFFINITY FOREVER BECAUSE OF THE ACTIONS OF OTHERS OFFSITE*.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 15, 2018)

ZeloxQuo said:


> I actively oppose all authoritarian rule.
> 
> Nazis, fascism, communism, etc...
> 
> ...


But Zelox, Sylox assures you it's only your own fault if you get banned.  "Just don't post political stuff"​


Sylox said:


> What I've read is a bunch of "whataboutxyz..."
> 
> Don't like it, don't use the site. If you aren't posting politically charged content, why do you care? You just want to complain that your safe space no longer exists.


----------



## ZeloxQuo (May 15, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> But Zelox, Sylox assures you it's only your own fault if you get banned.  "Just don't post political stuff"​



Ahh I see. So it is my fault what others decide to do offsite.

And I should take responsibility for the actions of others, offsite, something that the FurAffinity mods have told me countless times is acceptable, and that offsite action cannot be held accountable for anything to do with FurAffinity.

So I should be banned for a rule that I haven't broken in any way, because of some other people who posted some things off site, which the moderation staff already confirmed is acceptable no mater what they post.

Interesting.


----------



## Attaman (May 15, 2018)

Crimcyan said:


> Is it so hard for people to look past these groups and just see the person for who they are? I don't care if you are a Alt-furry, [...] Nazi, [...] racist, Homophobic, etc. If you are *a decent person* you are a decent person





ResolutionBlaze said:


> and utilizing a source that also claims that Pepe is an Alt-Right symbol (which ironically made it MORE of an Alt-Right symbol than it ever was), I find it hard to take that seriously.





Kyr said:


> When the self proclaimed stupidest fox around is making the most sense in a thread, you know something's gone terribly wrong.


It takes a strong man to deny what's right in front of him. And when the truth is undeniable? You create your own.


----------



## RinjiPantera (May 15, 2018)

You are opening a Pandora's Box with this. People are frequently labeled alt-right, namely for openly supporting President Trump. By extension, when called out as a Trump supporter, you then arbitrarily label us as white supremacists and all those things you seek to ban people over, when you have no shred of proof that such ideologies exist in that person. You're going down a slippery slope indeed if you're going to pull what Facebook and Twitter are doing. I stay far away from those platforms as possible because I won't stand for being censored for being me...even defending my right to "hate". America is supposed to be enduring a time of being made great again, but instead everyone who hates Trump for remarks he said rather than the actions he's taken that have helped this country, have demonized conservatives.

And I'm going to say this right now. Even if me as a single person makes NO difference in the future of this website, I WILL leave FurAffinity for somewhere else if people are going to show the same bias against Trump supporters that they do on other platforms. As for Antifa, you're really naive if you're blind to them being an outright terrorist organization. I guess you haven't seen the countless clips of them disrupting "alt-right" rallies that have been nothing but peaceful...going around calling them nazi scum and attacking them. Remember Berkeley in February of last year when Milo Yiannopoulos was supposed to speak there? All those people destroying property and violently assaulting people who simply wanted to hear him speak? Yeah, that was Antifa...and the cops did NOTHING, because the mayor ordered them to stand down.

There are two sides to every story and you are pushing an agenda that I never thought I'd see get thrust onto FA, of all places. I thought FA was seperate from all that crap...a place I always thought I could enjoy and just have fun. But now you're threatening suspensions and bans under the guise of combatting hate? Unless someone is threatening actual violence or some other defined illegal threat against someone, then you better make damn certain you analyze closely, the context of what someone says, because you may very well end up with a mass exodus on your hands. And this time, they WON'T come back.

I already got a warning simply for quoting a line from Tropic Thunder. I called out the admin several times, but he wouldn't respond. I also reported the thread days ago...still no response. If there's going to be power trips and censoring of conservatives for speaking their mind, then I don't plan to wait for a ban. I'll pack up and leave right now. I already said I would delete my account from this very forum, in light of that warning. Sure, it was just a warning. But it was wholly unwarranted. Will anyone care if I leave, in the grand scheme of things? Doubtful, nor do I care if anyone cares. But I've seen enough REAL hatred since Trump got elected, and they were NOT from his supporters.

Anyone who then tries to make assumptions about myself, I say this: You don't know a damned thing about me to think you can go around assigning labels to me based on my political views alone.

I truly hope you admins reconsider this CoC update, because who are YOU to decide what is "hate" around here? If recent history is any indication, your definition of hate will include opinions you disagree with. Well I'm not going to stand for it. If you want any hope of changing my mind about any of this; instead of jumping to conclusions and scolding me for the things I said, how about trying to convince me why I may be wrong. I can assure you I won't dismiss such explanations out of hand. Otherwise, if you're just going to have a trigger-happy ban finger to silence people who speak out "against the regime", then you're in for a rude awakening when more and more people no longer see FurAffinity as the safe haven it once was.

PS: What even IS alt-right? I personally identify as simply right-wing. So before you jump to conclusions on that one...no. I do not identify as "alt-right", simply right.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 15, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> You lose all credibility as soon as you quote the "280 Million Statistic" with any sort of confidence.  280 million dead is only attributable to Capitalism because they existed under Capitalism at the time of the death.  But utilizing the same logic, that's like saying we should remove hospitals because 440,000 a year die in preventable hospital mishaps.
> If we multiply that for as long as hospitals have been around, well bam, you have a good reason to ban hospitals... except that figure is based on unsound logic.  That same logic is utilized with the poor and Capitalism; it's unsound logic that assumes that Capitalism inherently causes anything.  But forget the State literally starving people to death on purpose, worry about the people who suffer from poor policy and mark it up to Capitalism.



Then by your logic the 120 million dead from communism is also a mut and inaccurate statistic. 280 million people have died under a capitalist system that let them die. Those are deaths from starvation, lack of medical care, slave labor(post 1860's slave labor mind you, though you can include the atlantic slave trade and throw in a few hundred thousand men women and children who died as well.) , work houses, stress, ill treatment, disease caused by use of chemicals that where "profitable", over 100k dead thanks to inner city violence from impoverished communities. 

People love to use famine under communism as a figure for the casualty count but then criticize and dismiss when people turn around and do the same thing to capitalism. You say that communism is evil and doesn't work because its the cause of suffering yet turn around and say things like "unsound logic that assumes that Capitalism inherently causes anything". You sir are a hypocrite who refuses to apply the same logic to both sides because you are biased and uninformed, either unintentionally or intentionally.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 15, 2018)

Attaman said:


> It takes a strong man to deny what's right in front of him. And when the truth is undeniable? You create your own.


Think it kinda misses the point.


----------



## ZeloxQuo (May 15, 2018)

Hmm, I wonder if I should link the report from the American Intelligence Agencies, hmm.

Oh here we go: (U//FOUO) DHS-FBI Intelligence Assessment: Baseline Comparison of US and Foreign Anarchist Extremist Movements | Public Intelligence

Would you look at that... _"Our examination of anarchist extremist violence in the United States and in Greece, Italy, and Mexico revealed several prominent features that may inform strategies to counter domestic terrorism:"
_
There you go, FurAffinity, definitive evidence for you that the government references to antifa as a terrorist group, and that they need to do research to *'counter domestic terrorism'* when talking about antifa.

Boy, that was really hard to find.

I guess now they need to ban anyone who uses the antifafurs logo, or is following that group now without warning as well then.

Just to be fair, that is.

Otherwise, how else will they justify *BANNING SOMEONE FOREVER FOR THE ACTIONS OF OTHERS OFFSITE IN AN AREA THAT THEY NEVER PARTICIPATED IN DIRECTLY.*


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 15, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> Then by your logic the 120 million dead from communism is also a mut and inaccurate statistic. 280 million people have died under a capitalist system that let them die. Those are deaths from starvation, lack of medical care, slave labor(post 1860's slave labor mind you, though you can include the atlantic slave trade and throw in a few hundred thousand men women and children who died as well.) , work houses, stress, ill treatment, disease caused by use of chemicals that where "profitable", over 100k dead thanks to inner city violence from impoverished communities.
> 
> People love to use famine under communism as a figure for the casualty count but then criticize and dismiss when people turn around and do the same thing to capitalism. You say that communism is evil and doesn't work because its the cause of suffering yet turn around and say things like "unsound logic that assumes that Capitalism inherently causes anything". You sir are a hypocrite who refuses to apply the same logic to both sides because you are biased and uninformed, either unintentionally or intentionally.


I never claimed Communism was the cause of suffering.  Communism is the cause of totalitarianism because that's the inevitable result of a weak system.  Which causes the state to murder people for ideological opposition of threats to the power of the State.


----------



## ZeloxQuo (May 15, 2018)

RinjiPantera said:


> I truly hope you admins reconsider this CoC update, because who are YOU to decide what is "hate" around here? If recent history is any indication, your definition of hate will include opinions you disagree with.



Thus far, this appears to be exactly the case of what is going on.

I, for example, am banned for the actions of others offsite that I had no part in.

That is what they are doing. Guilt by association.

Not just that, but guilt by presumed association with no evidence at all.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 15, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> I never claimed Communism was the cause of suffering.  Communism is the cause of totalitarianism because that's the inevitable result of a weak system.  Which causes the state to murder people for ideological opposition of threats to the power of the State.




A) Communism isn't the only cause of totalitarianism. Seriously, Nazis anyone? Imperial Rome? Literally any 'divine right' system? Juntas? ISIS?
B) There are many non-fascist, non-communist police states that exist today that use military force to kill all those who threaten the power of the rulers.
C) The Capitalist model is structured on a authoritarian and/or totalitarianism model. Boss has all the power, employees have none. There are exceptions to every rule, but keep in mind the more successful the business, the less power the worker has.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (May 15, 2018)

If only those people who supports communism go live in North Korea :V


----------



## Kyr (May 15, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> A) Communism isn't the only cause of totalitarianism. Seriously, Nazis anyone? Imperial Rome? Literally any 'divine right' system? Juntas? ISIS?
> B) There are many non-fascist, non-communist police states that exist today that use military force to kill all those who threaten the power of the rulers.
> C) The Capitalist model is structured on a authoritarian and/or totalitarianism model. Boss has all the power, employees have none. There are exceptions to every rule, but keep in mind the more successful the business, the less power the worker has.


Now i'm curious, what are your thoughts on Anarchism?


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 15, 2018)

Depends on the type. I think both the ancom, ancap, centrist anarchism are good in theory but shit in practice. Same with any authoritarian ideology. Like sure, technically a benevolent dictator/king/whatever who provides for everyone seems nice, but it comes at the cost of personal liberties and freedoms. I believe in a well funded, efficient bureaucracy with strict limits on its power.


----------



## Attaman (May 15, 2018)

RinjiPantera said:


> [...]I won't stand for being censored for being me...even defending my right to "hate". America is supposed to be enduring a time of being made great again, but instead everyone who hates Trump for remarks he said rather than the actions he's taken that have helped this country, have demonized conservatives.
> 
> And I'm going to say this right now. Even if me as a single person makes NO difference in the future of this website, I WILL leave FurAffinity for somewhere else if people are going to show the same bias against Trump supporters that they do on other platforms.


The truth, Rinji, is that you're here because you want to feel like something you're not: A hero. 

_I'm _here because you can't accept what you've done. It broke you.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 15, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> If only those people who supports communism go live in North Korea :V



North Korea isnt communist, not even self declared. It was at the beginning but it gave all that up and just went full Juche. 

www.reuters.com: North Korea drops communism, boosts

You can thank old HTML for the &quot;quot;


----------



## RinjiPantera (May 15, 2018)

Attaman said:


> The truth, Rinji, is that you're here because you want to feel like something you're not: A hero.
> 
> _I'm _here because you can't accept what you've done. It broke you.



What are you even talking about? Accept what? Nothing broke me. You're making ZERO sense.

And furthermore, you're proving my point. Putting words into my mouth, trying to tell me what I am or am not...that's fascism, the very thing groups like Antifa go around accusing conservatives of being, when they themselves are the fascists.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 15, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> A) Communism isn't the only cause of totalitarianism. Seriously, Nazis anyone? Imperial Rome? Literally any 'divine right' system? Juntas? ISIS?
> B) There are many non-fascist, non-communist police states that exist today that use military force to kill all those who threaten the power of the rulers.
> C) The Capitalist model is structured on a authoritarian and/or totalitarianism model. Boss has all the power, employees have none. There are exceptions to every rule, but keep in mind the more successful the business, the less power the worker has.



Nothing to argue against A or B.  I should have said 'a' instead of 'the' I'll be sure to be careful with my words next time.

Also, no, Capitalism doesn't inherently create authoritarianism.  It inherently creates business hierarchies, which are already inherent in humans and animals alike.  Saying that anyone below the boss has no power is simplified.  Besides, inflating Corporitism with Capitalism is a big mistake.  There is no such thing as a pure Capitalist system.  Thank God.  But that doesn't mean it is an inadequate foundation.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 15, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Nothing to argue against A or B.  I should have said 'a' instead of 'the' I'll be sure to be careful with my words next time.
> 
> Also, no, Capitalism doesn't inherently create authoritarianism.  It inherently creates business hierarchies, which are already inherent in humans and animals alike.  Saying that anyone below the boss has no power is simplified.  Besides, inflating Corporitism with Capitalism is a big mistake.  There is no such thing as a pure Capitalist system.  Thank God.  But that doesn't mean it is an inadequate foundation.



"There is no such thing as a pure Capitalist system. Thank God." Well at least we agree on that XD

Honestly though, I have to disagree with  business hierarchies being natural. Social hierarchies? Sure, to a degree, but then again, we aren't animals. We have the ability to ask why we are here and question our surroundings. Failing to be sceptical of our own nature can lead down some dark paths. The issue with so called "Corporatism" is that is that the venn diagram overlap between capitalism and "Corporatism" is vague at best and amorphous at worst.


----------



## RinjiPantera (May 15, 2018)

Okay, I took a few minutes to calm down. For the record, I seldom get political on my FA page. One of my friends told me that this shouldn't affect me if I simply continue with that status quo and just have fun like I usually do. But I'm still alarmed at the decidedly left-wing tactics being employed by FA. Rather than use common sense, they talk of things that have sewed the very hatred that they claim to fight against. By not acknowledging Antifa as a hate group, when there are piles of video proof showing their hate and fascism, you risk alienating a lot of people in the furry community.

I believe in the philosophy, "Live and let live." I've actually been told I'm more libertarian than right-wing, based on things I've said. But I don't like where this is going at all. Even if it may not even affect me personally, it still worries me that I'm going to start seeing more people get unfairly tossed out of FA for things they either didn't do or were wholly unwarranted.


----------



## LuxVolans (May 15, 2018)

Goddamnit, I leave for an hour and this happens. 

*THIS IS NOT A CAPITALISM VS SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM DEBATE.  

THIS IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE FurAffinity CODE OF CONDUCT!  PLEASE LEAVE OFF TOPIC DEBATES TO A SEPARATE THREAD AND/OR VENUE.  *

I'm looking at you @AK_Sandfire, @Attaman, @ResolutionBlaze @Kyr.  

Hell, I'd be more than happy to host a thread on this website myself on that topic, but that is NOT for this thread!


----------



## distendedpolygon (May 15, 2018)

I'm going to throw my hat in the ring, as I have gotten to watch the fallout of this rule change and the banwave that came along with it. 
In short, this new set of rules and actions of the administration by enforcing bans _for offsite offenses _is one of the most hostile things they could have done to the entire community. Every single person here can be banhammered under this rule set at any time, content creators are especially at risk because apparently _interacting_ with these groups can result in one too. 

I'm encouraging staff to look at what happened to Digg - What the Internet is talking about right now and take heed of the lessons, but seeing that AntiFa gets a free pass makes me suspect the staff has instead decided politics are to rule the site now. Meaning the rules will bend as they see fit, and bans can be handed down for no reason at all.

Either way if nothing changes I'm encouraging everybody here to move to inkbunny or a platform that doesn't censor like this, there is an easy tool to transfer your FA gallery to inkbunny too: fa2ib.welcomefur.net: Fa2IB - Furaffinity to Inkbunny Migrator


----------



## RinjiPantera (May 15, 2018)

distendedpolygon said:


> I'm going to throw my hat in the ring, as I have gotten to watch the fallout of this rule change and the banwave that came along with it.
> In short, this new set of rules and actions of the administration by enforcing bans _for offsite offenses _is one of the most hostile things they could have done to the entire community. Every single person here can be banhammered under this rule set at any time, content creators are especially at risk because apparently _interacting_ with these groups can result in one too.
> 
> I'm encouraging staff to look at what happened to Digg - What the Internet is talking about right now and take heed of the lessons, but seeing that AntiFa gets a free pass makes me suspect the staff has instead decided politics are to rule the site now. Meaning the rules will bend as they see fit, and bans can be handed down for no reason at all.
> ...



Weasyl is, in my opinion, the most FA-like alternative. I'm actively monitoring the situation. But if FA continues down this dark path, then I'm not going to wait around for a ban. I'm trying to hold out hope, but history has taught me not to get my hopes up.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (May 15, 2018)

distendedpolygon said:


> there is an easy tool to transfer your FA gallery to inkbunny too: fa2ib.welcomefur.net: Fa2IB - Furaffinity to Inkbunny Migrator


Very useful script.
I'll need to go with a bang before I do that :V


----------



## antonrai18 (May 15, 2018)

Unrelated political debates aside Antifa has been classified as a domestic terrorist organization and i have been attacked by them 2 times so far for having the white privilege of getting ganged up by a hate based movement. This website endorses a movement known for assaulting people based on political belief and in some cases skin tone. I no longer feel safe and i will NOT fuel the very same people that assaulted me. As people have stated earlier Dragoneer decided that politics are going to be dominant here and this website is going to turn into one of those furry "but its okay when we do it" websites where you not only get harassed for believing that everybody deserves the right to express themselves freely but banned if the administrators don't agree with you. So far the way things are written down on these community guidelines labeling the alt right as "terrorists" outright sounds pretty much like defamation considering under "alt right" there are alot of ideologies and national socialism is not one of them which might sound funny to you but natsoc stays in the center. This is like saying all Abrahamic religion followers are terrorists which is pretty stupid  if you ask me. Antifa is built to the core with the intent of assaulting civilians with different political beliefs.


----------



## JakeCWolf (May 15, 2018)

I'm fully disappointed in how this matter was handled. I expected so much better from FurAffinity. You guys took a sledgehammer to a problem that needed a scalpel, I can't help but think you got pushed to acting so rashly. A friend of mine lost her account for being _*formally*_ associated with The Furry Raiders. A group she distanced herself from a long time ago, after their trolling and acting like Nazis to make people realize how uptight they are became full tilt nazism, atleast for some of it's members.

But I guess once associated with a hate group, always associated with one? What is this, the medieval ages? I'm thoroughly and utterly disgusted with the current state of affairs, and hope you lot takes a _*big*_ step back and consider the consequences for the fandom this rash, blunt, hamfisted excuse for a "solution" will have. I thought the furry fandom was better then this.

At this point, if you ban me for speaking out, I don't really care, I don't put it past you guys to do it at this point, the innocent are guilty of wasting your time, or something stupid.


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (May 16, 2018)

A. I believe there is a time and place for political violence, when it comes to groups that think genocide and oppression is cool. I also think that all other options should be exhausted first. But you aren't going to convince people like Spencer or Milo of anything, because they either don't care about the factual inconsistencies in their position, or have drunk their own koolade.
B. I actually disagree with banning Nazis from forums. That doesn't mean I don't think people shouldn't be banned for encouraging acts of violence, on or off site. Nor should such individuals be treated with any respect.
C. The "antifa has caused more harm than the alt-right" narrative only works if we ignore everything atomwaffen has accomplished in the past year, let alone the mass shootings and attacks on minorities by members of the group.
D. The narrative that Antifa hates everyone that is white/male/cis/christian is bullshit. They also aren't a unified group or organization.
E. Violent actions taken by anyone presenting as a member of antifa are officially labeled terrorist violence. Antifa as a whole group have not been labeled a terrorist organization, because of the wide range of beliefs and tactics that fall under that umbrella. They also aren't a unified group with a gate to join, so people can and do call themselves antifa when they are really just shitrolls from Tumblr.
F. Milo has a section of his speeches called "spotting a trannie" where he teaches people how to spot transgender folk, often outing someone in the crowd, and incites the crowd to harras trans folk until they leave the school or kill themselves.
G. The alt right adopted Pepe as their symbol in an attempt to discredit the media. When you have shitrolls like Spencer litteraly wearing it as a badge, the joke has become reality.
H. The average Trump supporter is necessarily and idiot, but not necessarily a member of the alt-right. In left leaning regions, he and the local media taylored their approach to make him appear closer to the center. When in right leaning areas, he went full right wingnut. While the alt-right supported Trump, not everyone who supported Trump is a member of the alt right. I had a fun conversation with someone who outright refused to believe the kkk endorsed Trump. They were black. That is the level of mental gymnastics people will do for their prefered political candidate. The same shit with sHillary too, and Obama, and most every fucking candidate.
ADDENDUM: Milo and Spencer actively incite violence and the breaking of multiple laws, and this is ignored by society at large, and defended as "free speech", despite having long passed that zenith into the territory of incitement.


----------



## antonrai18 (May 16, 2018)

This is regarding zelox quo or whoever this guy is - THE REASON - by ZeloxQuo < Submission | Inkbunny, the Furry Art Community do not feel bad for dragoneer he was financially supporting antifa at one point if i remember correctly i know alot of people who got shafted due to the banwave and they were never involved with any pollitical movement... Im pretty sure dragoneer is banning people associated with people that are anything righter than center left regardless of who they are and what they did... So far dragoneer has treated me very poorly when i tried to converse with him on twitter and even blocked me this guy along with the admins here are total nutjobs


----------



## Le Chat Nécro (May 16, 2018)

Heaven help me for posting in this thread.
But.
Some important language in the update that I think is being overlooked in this discussion and that actually addresses some concerns people have voiced.

1) You_ shouldn't_ be penalized for what you do outside of FA.
*



			Will you take action against users for what they do outside of Fur Affinity?
		
Click to expand...

*


> In most circumstances, no. We do not take action against users for off-site content unless a substantial and direct correlation can be made to an incident that is imminent or occurring on Fur Affinity or involves content that the user themselves have linked to from our website. Our main focus is being an art community. If you have an issue with what someone is saying or doing on another website (e.g. Twitter, Facebook, DeviantArt), please report it to that website’s help desk for assistance.


​A discussion can be had about how well this has and will be implemented, but the word of the law is that if you are alt-right but do not advertise it on site or contribute to on site drama or violence because of your affiliation, then you will not be in violation of the rule. 

2) ANTIFA isn't getting off scott-free.



> *What about Antifa, "Alt-Left" and the Alt-Light (New Right)?*





> At this time, we could not find enough evidence to consider Antifa a hate group and what was provided appeared to be of false-equivalence. There has been voiced concern about their operations on Fur Affinity and* we have and will continue to monitor and take action against any user who promotes or encourages illegal activites and violence on our website as per our rules.* Concerning the Alt-Left, there is no evidence one exists, and the Alt-Light or New Right has specifically distanced themselves from the Alt-Right and openly rejected hate and identity politics.


​
I bolded and underlined the important bit, but I'll restate it again: " we have and will continue to monitor and take action against any user who promotes or encourages illegal activites and violence on our website as per our rules". As with the first, there can be a discussion on how well this has and will actually be implemented, but again, word of God has it that they are not being given any special treatment aside from not being specifically listed. And from what I have heard through various grapevines, it seems like upper management has been lax about all groups, not just the left. 

3) Don't remember who, but I'm like 95% certain someone brought up fictional hate groups or the use of hate groups in fictional content, and like, they addressed that in their language.



> *Why use the term “real hate-based or terrorist organizations?”*
> It is important to differentiate between real organizations and fictional ones such as Hydra (Marvel), COBRA (G.I. Joe), The Foot Clan (TMNT), or the Death Eaters (Harry Potter).





> *What about fictional content that I find offensive?*
> Fur Affinity provides a platform for our users to exchange ideas and works of art that include variety of different themes. We understand that some users may create content that is political, religious, or use themes that may be perceived as offensive. However, artistic expression that may be offensive to some users does not necessarily mean the content violates our rules. Indiana Jones would not be who he is without his greatest enemies. Maus would not be the tragic story it is without being able to show the horror.


​


> Fictional expression should be differentiated from the committing of real life acts. If you believe that the content posted is not intended to be fictional, grossly promotes hate and violence against a group of people, or otherwise violates any of our other rules and policies, we encourage you to report it so that our staff may review it.






So... yeah. Personally, I'm happy that FA is cracking down harder on Nazis. While there is definitely stuff to talk about and rehash now that the update is out, I do not think anyone has really touched on the actual points that are of concern. Honestly, a lot of this trash fire could have been prevented with some reading of the journal that followed the update. And, you know, a touch of civility. But this is FAF we're talking about.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 16, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> "There is no such thing as a pure Capitalist system. Thank God." Well at least we agree on that XD
> 
> Honestly though, I have to disagree with  business hierarchies being natural. Social hierarchies? Sure, to a degree, but then again, we aren't animals. We have the ability to ask why we are here and question our surroundings. Failing to be sceptical of our own nature can lead down some dark paths. The issue with so called "Corporatism" is that is that the venn diagram overlap between capitalism and "Corporatism" is vague at best and amorphous at worst.





Le Chat Nécro said:


> Heaven help me for posting in this thread.
> But.
> Some important language in the update that I think is being overlooked in this discussion and that actually addresses some concerns people have voiced.
> 
> ...


I read the journal myself.  The problem is that your interpretation is... interpretation.  For one, Antifa is not listed as a hate group; thus they are free to roam the site as they wish despite having a reprehensible track record and literally branded as a terrorist organization (and making art assaulting other, real furries, but its okay because they're nazi furs).
Antifa is getting off scott free by the mere fact that they are being treated as any other forum member; that if they promote illegal activities they'll be punished.  This is true of everyone.  This is not a new rule as I understand it.  Antifa is basically being given a blind eye and treated as everyone else has, while anyone associated with Alt Furry or Furry Raiders are given the immediate perma ban for simply existing.
And given how many innocent people have been permabanned from the site by this point, yeah, I'd say it's kinda fucked up.  I'm very disappointed in this direction they've taken; not that I think Nazis and Antifa deserve a platform, but because I trust nobody to properly regulate a platform.  This shitshow of people having zero and even opposite associations with Alt Furry being permabanned by baseless accusations and guilt by association is absurdity; anybody who thinks this is okay needs to actually SEE what is happening to people.


----------



## LuxVolans (May 16, 2018)

JakeCWolf said:


> I'm fully disappointed in how this matter was handled. I expected so much better from FurAffinity. You guys took a sledgehammer to a problem that needed a scalpel, I can't help but think you got pushed to acting so rashly. A friend of mine lost her account for being _*formally*_ associated with The Furry Raiders. A group she distanced herself from a long time ago, after their trolling and acting like Nazis to make people realize how uptight they are became full tilt nazism, atleast for some of it's members.
> 
> But I guess once associated with a hate group, always associated with one? What is this, the medieval ages? I'm thoroughly and utterly disgusted with the current state of affairs, and hope you lot takes a _*big*_ step back and consider the consequences for the fandom this rash, blunt, hamfisted excuse for a "solution" will have. I thought the furry fandom was better then this.
> 
> At this point, if you ban me for speaking out, I don't really care, I don't put it past you guys to do it at this point, the innocent are guilty of wasting your time, or something stupid.




I believe then you mean she was "Formerly" associated. 

And it's laughable that they then have the gall to say that they "Will not take actions against individuals for what they do outside of FA."


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 16, 2018)

Umm the alt-right is basically the KKK thinly veiled and dressed up in smooth talking suits.  *washes hands and moves on from thread*


----------



## Judge Spear (May 16, 2018)

Friend of mine just got banned for lurking an alt right Discord to see what goes on in them (and make fun of them elsewhere). Lmao
What gets me is how FA even knew he was in there.

He didnt say anything beyond "hi" upon joining and no one in the server mentioned him in any of FA's spaces. Nor did he bring them up publicly (until he got banned). Hes never expressed any serious political views to my knowledge either so this is a REAL sensitive trigger. Lol


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (May 16, 2018)

Problems with the execution of the CoC are different than problems with the CoC, and I must admit it does sound like the actual execution has been a haphazard fuckmess.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 16, 2018)

XoPachi said:


> Friend of mine just got banned for lurking an alt right Discord to see what goes on in them (and make fun of them elsewhere). Lmao
> What gets me is how FA even knew he was in there.
> 
> He didnt say anything beyond "hi" upon joining and no one in the server mentioned him in any of FA's spaces. Nor did he bring them up publicly (until he got banned). Hes never expressed any serious political views to my knowledge either so this is a REAL sensitive trigger. Lol


How am I not banned yet I've been in a Discord like that a full year? 
Dragoneer where you at bro ban me already.
(don't actually)


----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (May 16, 2018)

Ya, I've done shit like creep the Stormer forums for the purpose of intelligence gathering on my enemies, so one does have to wonder how short lived my time here is going to be given how the bans are going.


----------



## DeltaJazz (May 16, 2018)

So here's my two cents. No one person is innocent in this affair and the new CoC reflects that by punishing every Tom, Dick, and Harry for every minute reaction or criticism for one thing or another. The site was originally built to be an escape from the world and it's issues not to spread it and blowing every small issue well out of proportion. Do I believe that everyone has a right to their opinion? Of course. Do I think that everyone's opinion is correct? No, of course not, only a fool believes that. Saying this, when what you express and show start crossing that moral boundary of reality and fiction and in most eyes violating the law, at that moment it's no longer of opinion and feelings. When this occurs rules are set in place and need to be specific as to what is and isn't okay, or else you have the massive meltdown of what has transpired over the past 24hours. CoC 2.7 doesn't make anything clear at all what is and isn't right and wields that double edge sword that has stabbed so many innocents. That sword being "Vagueness" a blade that judges all and has no true rules as to giving an understanding that stand before it. The people who wield it know of it's power and sure are well aware that they can abuse it, and will see to it that anyone who stands against their opinion is slain before it's might. Yet the blade called "Reasoning" and it's shield "Context" sit in the shadows to be left with no wielder and those who try to are slammed with the infamous "Banhammer" to have their voices stolen and their identities ruined. At the end of the day the CoC needs a heavy revision giving light to context and reasoning so that such a fallout or civil war such as this doesn't happen again or at least be actively prevented.

Thank You.

- Jazz


----------



## TrishaCat (May 16, 2018)

What's with the arguments about fascism/communism/anarchism in this thread? It's not really relevant to the OP, not to mention arguing over which form of extremist ideology is the worst is....well, I don't see much purpose in it.

Also it'd be much appreciated if @Dragoneer would explain what's going on with the very sketchy mass banning


----------



## bombylius (May 16, 2018)

I support the new CoC update and I think FA staff made the right decision. Fascism and antfascism are in no way equivalent and Antifa is not a hate organisation just because it opposes actual hate organisations (altright, neonazis etc). Reactionary fascist ideology that promotes racism, nationalism etc. should never be given a platform and antifascists should make it as dificult as possible for them to be able to voice their beliefs (even if it means punching some literal nazis to achieve that).


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (May 16, 2018)

bombylius said:


> Fascism and antfascism are in no way equivalent and Antifa is not a hate organisation just because it opposes actual hate organisations (altright, neonazis etc)


What bullshit is this?


----------



## antonrai18 (May 16, 2018)

Yeah it would be a real shame if there was actually a nazis for antifa to fight against instead of centrists and right wingers. So far the scummiest people i have talked to are not foxler and the people who have edgy fursonas it's the people that go out of their way to post shit like "www.furaffinity.net: Its Fuckin Dope by Nemo" and fetishize violence against individuals with even slightly opposing views. Antifa as a group is focused on "punching nazis" however it turns out anybody that does not agree with them is a white supremacist nazi and the latest real world example was kanye... So im pretty sure that they are just as bad if not actually WAY worse than altfurry... Because im yet to see altfurry attack people in the streets,kill animals and deplatform people because they believe in communism(even though altfurry are not fascists or anything remotely close)


----------



## antonrai18 (May 16, 2018)

Mikazuki this is the same people that harassed dragoneer into showing his true self


----------



## antonrai18 (May 16, 2018)

@bombylius Do you think communists and antifa members that fetishize violence should be permanently banned like the "natzis"?


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (May 16, 2018)

antonrai18 said:


> Mikazuki this is the same people that harassed dragoneer into showing his true self


Ironic isn't it? V:


----------



## bombylius (May 16, 2018)

I don't know what its like in America, but in my country I have seen neonazis attack a place known for being a popular spot for lgbt people, immigrants, leftist and alternative collectives. As in, I was there when they stormed the place with torches and weapons (it was dark and I was scared so Im not sure what exactly they had on them) and I've seen them beating people up with my own eyes (I've later read in the news that some people actually had their skulls cracked open). I've been to peaceful protests that turned into chaos because some people with a celtic cross banner (a popular nazi simbol around here) decided to stir sh#t up. I've read about refugee homes and leftist centres having their windows smashed and being spray painted with swastikas and hateful graffiti. 
And as for something older, but sadly not less relevant, I've been to a village that my family comes from. There aren't many of my relatives there anymore; there is however a tall monument engraved with the names of all of the civilians that nazis slaughtered in that village during WW2. They are written in a small font, just to get all of them on the 2,5 meter high pillar. So excuse me if I'm not exactly tolerant of nazis because I know how dangerous their ideology (that mostly targets the most vulnerable people in our communities) can be.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (May 16, 2018)

bombylius said:


> I don't know what its like in America,


I'll be waiting for @LogicNuke 's famous "You're not from the US so your opinion is invalid" argument


----------



## bombylius (May 16, 2018)

@antonrai18 nonviolent methods should of course be the priority, but sometimes thats not an option in defending yourself against people trying to kill you. Fascists, like all people, are much less bold when they are scared of actual consequences.


----------



## antonrai18 (May 16, 2018)

Yeeeahhh im from the balkans and i can assure you that the monstrosities Hitler did with the jews are a fraction of what communists did here... The modern day "antifa" (communist-led piece of shit excuse of a movement) is known to be acting like the nazi brownshirts from 1936 before hitler was ellected. I have seen videos of antifa burning cars in brandenburg germany and in the USA. However what we have here what germany and US lacks is cavalry mounted police ready to deal with the people that call for the islamization of my homeland and the genocide of the core populace something i have seen supposedly "antifa" in the west has in common with their branch here. Antifa are no different than islamist extremists!


----------



## antonrai18 (May 16, 2018)

A step against antifa is a step against terrorism and extremism.


----------



## bombylius (May 16, 2018)

@antonrai18 
Smrt fasizmu! Svoboda narodu!


----------



## quoting_mungo (May 16, 2018)

*Disclaimer:* I speak based on common sense reasoning guided in small part by knowing how the discussion went when the original 2.7 rule was formulated. I have no insight into the decision-making process associated with this change.

The obvious reason alt-left is not included is simple: no one calls themselves alt-left. The rule is about identifying with and associating oneself with hate groups. Including alt-left would be like making a rule restricting Vulcans from using the site. Completely pointless. (Unlike Vulcans, however, there'd be a deluge of reports accusing people of being alt-left, and most ideology reports are time-consuming and prone to escalation.)

Antifa is not one group. It's a number of local groups associated by name and some base commonality of ideology. That ideology does not inherently or universally include violence. As such, Antifa on FA is judged by the actions of its local "chapter", ie Antifa-on-FA. If evidence comes up that it has advocated for violence or otherwise actually shown itself to be an issue, that would be grounds for action.

My primary issue with the actions taken in association with this update is that on the face of it they appear to have been rushed. As per TOS 2.2 the new rules should not have gone into effect until in two weeks' time.


----------



## Cawdabra (May 16, 2018)

XoPachi said:


> Friend of mine just got banned for lurking an alt right Discord to see what goes on in them (and make fun of them elsewhere). Lmao
> What gets me is how FA even knew he was in there.
> 
> He didnt say anything beyond "hi" upon joining and no one in the server mentioned him in any of FA's spaces. Nor did he bring them up publicly (until he got banned). Hes never expressed any serious political views to my knowledge either so this is a REAL sensitive trigger. Lol


Yeah I know who you're talking about. I'm willing to bet Dragoneer won't listen to an appeal (although I hope he does).


----------



## Perri_Rhoades (May 16, 2018)

I'm skeptical if it's worth my time to put my 2 cents in here, but here's how I feel about the CoC 2.7 I just read.  I think it's mostly great.  And all the people here saying Nazis and Fascists are bad, I've got no argument with them either.  This is all in accordance with the general tolerance policy that has long existed in The Furry Community.  You can be as weird as you want, as explicit as you want, or as cringe as you want, as long as you're not hurting or advocating for the hurting of anyone.  And hurting includes things like harassment as well as actual violence.  And advocating for Nazi or supremacist views, be they white or otherwise, is advocating harm.  So how could there possibly be a problem with this rule?

Well, it's in the fine print.  It might fly past you so fast you might not even notice it.  "If you identify as or promote Alt-Right ideologies (e.g. Alt-Furry and Furry Raiders) on Fur Affinity, you may be permanently banned."

Ok, what's wrong with that line?  Are Alt-Right ideologies not toxically Nazi-like?  Well, being as they openly argue for eugenics, you can't really argue with that point.  Alt-Right is a really bad thing, and completely contrary to the traditional concept of Furry inclusiveness.  It advocates harm to Furries.  Indeed, there's every indication it is potentially hostile to all Furries, because it would view Furry as a mental disorder, something that should be eradicated from the gene pool.

So, of course, no Furry in their right mind would want anything to do with the Alt-Right.  And, conversely, no one who was truly Alt-Right, a Neo Nazi, white supremacist, nor even anyone who could be considered very right of center, would want anything to do with being a Furry.  They would consider Furry to be an abomination, not only for its humanization of animals, but for its ability to eradicate human racial distinctions by hiding them behind an animal avatar.

Certainly we should avoid the Alt-Right, as surely as the Alt-Right avoids us.  So what's the problem?  The problem is, how do you identify the Alt-Right?  Well, according to the line above, we identify the Alt-Right by assuming guilt by association of anyone who can be connected with, by any roundabout means, the terms Alt-Furry and Furry Raiders.

Do we ask for any verification of Alt-Furry or Furry Raiders being Alt-Right?  No, we are just expected to accept on faith that there is, not one, but two groups of furs promoting an ideology that wants to exterminate Furries.

Well, my gracious, this must be a wonder to behold.  Surely we can just pop onto YouTube and get an eyeful of their grandiose Furry self-hate rallies.  What?  They are conspicuous by their absence?  No matter.  We'll just go to their websites and cop a load of their hateful Furry manifestos.  But, oh dear, what's all this nonsense about Furry love and tolerance; the need for inclusiveness?  How boring.  This is not what we came here to see.  We came here to see hate, not love.  We came here to see furs being excluded on the basis of color and religion.  Why is there no uniformity.  Why, even the armbands don't match.  Look, there's a purple one, and a gay pride rainbow one.  This seems like the worst excuse for a Nazi group we've ever seen.

Ah, but there's that fellow Foxler we've heard about, and he's got the right color armband.  Finally, someone we can be assured is an indisputable white supremacist son of a bitch.  But wait.  What do you mean he's not white?  What do you mean he's a gay half-breed Asian dating a black man running a multi-cultural group for Furries who have been exiled from The Furry Community for not supporting The Regressive Left?  Is this supposed to be some kind of joke?  Oh, come on.  Show us the real Nazis you've got us all worked up about.

Are you serious?  This is the standard you expect us to employ in judging furs as Nazis and white supremacists fit only for banning and black listing?  Are you seriously saying that only furs who sign off on the extreme views of The Regressive Left shall be allowed access to The Furry Community?  But aren't the views of The Regressive Left generally Communist in nature?

Oh, is that it?  So Furry Fandom has been conquered, and the hammer and sickle now fly over The Furry Community.  And we're supposed to hate anyone who doesn't like it.   Hmmmmmmmmmm.  Maybe you should write that out a bit more clearly in CoC 2.8.


----------



## Judge Spear (May 16, 2018)

Battlechili said:


> Also it'd be much appreciated if @Dragoneer would explain what's going on with the very sketchy mass banning



AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHHAHA
HAHAHAHA
HA.....

good one


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (May 16, 2018)

XoPachi said:


> AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> HAHAHHAHA
> HAHAHAHA
> HA.....
> ...


I'm not a huge fan of dragoneer but lately his presence has been felt and he does respond :V
I can atleast give credit for that


Although I doubt he will respond to this since this is a touchy subject he wouldn't want to delve deep into


----------



## Judge Spear (May 16, 2018)

Cawdabra said:


> Yeah I know who you're talking about. I'm willing to bet Dragoneer won't listen to an appeal (although I hope he does).



You know? I was fully expecting some idiot to try and claim I was lying.

To be honest, neither I nor my friend actually give a shit about his ban. And neither should anyone that isn't making a living here who may have got the hammer themselves.
Get wrongfully banned at 15 followers and zero uploads? Grab Tunnelbear and make a new account...if this trash heap site is that important to you. Problem solved. I just think this whole thing is fucking funny like every other jackass slip up this place makes like clockwork.



Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> Although I doubt he will respond to this since this is a touchy subject he wouldn't want to delve deep into



Exactly this is why I expect nothing OR a shitty explanation if he does.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (May 16, 2018)

XoPachi said:


> Grab Tunnelbear


Shameless advertising :V


----------



## JakeCWolf (May 16, 2018)

antonrai18 said:


> Mikazuki this is the same people that harassed dragoneer into showing his true self



You have proof of that? At all?


----------



## RinjiPantera (May 16, 2018)

bombylius said:


> @antonrai18 nonviolent methods should of course be the priority, but sometimes thats not an option in defending yourself against people trying to kill you. Fascists, like all people, are much less bold when they are scared of actual consequences.



And yet you support fascism by taking away platform from people whom you deem "nazi's". Lasy I checked, nazi's were people under Hitler's regime. That was many many decades ago.

And when you talk about "punching a nazi", you're being a huge hypocrite. If someone tries to punch me for having different views than another, you better be ready to knock me out because I WILL punch back even harder. What you fail to understand is that Antifa ARE fascists, who use violence against conservatives.

Furthermore, it doesn't matter WHO you are. Until you say something that violates actual laws (threatening violence against someone, kinda like what you just did even though it was only in jest), NO one deserves to be silenced for having a different opinion. What you're describing is a dictatorship. Pity you're not from America, as the only thing I myself care about is the freedoms my forebears fought and died for. But more and more organizations and such are using fascism to silence people for things they never even did, just because they share SOME opinions and views that "nazi's" also have. For instance, being a Donald Trump supporter has routinely led to being labeled as such.

My point is, in combatting hate, you're employing hateful tactics. That's tyranny. And if FA is going to become just another mob that silences certain people over their views, then I'll go where EVERYONE is still welcome. You know, innocent until proven guilty...not the other way around.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (May 16, 2018)




----------



## Misha Bordiga Zahradník (May 16, 2018)

antonrai18 said:


> Yeeeahhh im from the balkans and i can assure you that the monstrosities Hitler did with the jews are a fraction of what communists did here... The modern day "antifa" (communist-led piece of shit excuse of a movement) is known to be acting like the nazi brownshirts from 1936 before hitler was ellected. I have seen videos of antifa burning cars in brandenburg germany and in the USA. However what we have here what germany and US lacks is cavalry mounted police ready to deal with the people that call for the islamization of my homeland and the genocide of the core populace something i have seen supposedly "antifa" in the west has in common with their branch here. Antifa are no different than islamist extremists!


Really, because last I checked a lot of antifa groups actively championed the communes in Rojava fighting ISIS, and some of them went over and volunteered. "Everything I don't like is Islamization" seems to be your line of reasoning, which is exactly what you are accusing antifa of.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 16, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> *Disclaimer:* I speak based on common sense reasoning guided in small part by knowing how the discussion went when the original 2.7 rule was formulated. I have no insight into the decision-making process associated with this change.
> 
> The obvious reason alt-left is not included is simple: no one calls themselves alt-left. The rule is about identifying with and associating oneself with hate groups. Including alt-left would be like making a rule restricting Vulcans from using the site. Completely pointless. (Unlike Vulcans, however, there'd be a deluge of reports accusing people of being alt-left, and most ideology reports are time-consuming and prone to escalation.)
> 
> ...



But the Alt-Right IS one group?  Or is punishing them as one group more convinent?


----------



## ellaerna (May 16, 2018)

I leave for a few months and this is what I come back to? Did we not learn anything from previous political debate threads?

First, a vocabulary lesson.
1) Violence does not equal fascism. Violence can be a part of fascism, but just being violent doesn't make you a fascist. If it did, then the entire US would have to be listed as a fascist nation since we have conducted a lot of military violence over the years. For an explanation of what fascism actually is see here. Note that AntiFa, while some groups under that umbrella are violent, is not authoritarian, nationalistic, or in support of dictators. 

2) I've stated this in threads about AntiFa before, but it is not one singular group. It literally means "anti fascist". Anti meaning "opposed to" and "fascist" meaning, well, fascist. So anyone who is against fascists is antifa. Congrats. You're one of us. The image one has of antifa, is really just blackbloc, a style of dress used by many groups including anarchists when protesting. It's actually entirely possible and probably that during a protest, one does not know who they are standing by and what exactly they stand for other than "not this bullshit that we're protesting". Despite being put on the list of domestic terror organizations, it is a silly title because there is literally no central organization "AntiFa" with which to stick it on. (and also if we want to nit pick, white men should really be on that list too all shootings considered, so I hardly take it as absolute, unbiased fact)

Second, and more on topic, instead of crying "What about the fascist antifascists!" perhaps do what some reasonable people on here are doing and pointing out the problems with enforcement. Cause people are right, despite saying that stuff outside of FA doesn't count, we know all too well that Neer et al like to get ban happy regardless of where certain things are done or said, particularly when it pertains to him. But also, we know from another thread that is _active right now_, that staff has a problem even keeping Nazi imagery (which was already explicitly banned before the update) off site and removed, so who knows how effective this is even going to be for those who want the Altright/furs and Raiders gone. 

That's my concern. Is this update even going to do anything? After the first wave of bans, will anything really change?


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 16, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Umm the alt-right is basically the KKK thinly veiled and dressed up in smooth talking suits.  *washes hands and moves on from thread*


Bout time people called it like it is.


----------



## quoting_mungo (May 16, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> But the Alt-Right IS one group?  Or is punishing them as one group more convinent?


If you break it down to half a statement, of course it's going to look sketchy. You need the whole of it for it to make sense:
- Antifa is not one cohesive group (therefore the minority that steps out of line should not reflect on every group that uses the name)
- Antifa groups' shared ideology is not inherently hateful (therefore treating every group that uses the name as a hate group because of the actions of a few is not indicated)
Both of those points are important, and must be considered together.

The alt-right may not be one cohesive group, but the term "alternative right" was coined by paleoconservatives (whose ideology has hella racist overtones) and popularized by right-wing extremists (notably Richard Spencer) trying to make their racism slip under the public's radar. White supremacism is part of the alt-right shared ideology. At that point whether they're a cohesive group ceases to matter.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 16, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> I read the journal myself.  The problem is that your interpretation is... interpretation.  For one, Antifa is not listed as a hate group; thus they are free to roam the site as they wish despite having a reprehensible track record and literally branded as a terrorist organization (and making art assaulting other, real furries, but its okay because they're nazi furs).
> Antifa is getting off scott free by the mere fact that they are being treated as any other forum member; that if they promote illegal activities they'll be punished.  This is true of everyone.  This is not a new rule as I understand it.  Antifa is basically being given a blind eye and treated as everyone else has, while anyone associated with Alt Furry or Furry Raiders are given the immediate perma ban for simply existing.
> And given how many innocent people have been permabanned from the site by this point, yeah, I'd say it's kinda fucked up.  I'm very disappointed in this direction they've taken; not that I think Nazis and Antifa deserve a platform, but because I trust nobody to properly regulate a platform.  This shitshow of people having zero and even opposite associations with Alt Furry being permabanned by baseless accusations and guilt by association is absurdity; anybody who thinks this is okay needs to actually SEE what is happening to people.




Antifa isn't a group.... its a statement.... the people who protest at hate rallies and KKK rallies are just as much antifa as the fucks like the Berkeley bike lock guy.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 16, 2018)

antonrai18 said:


> A step against antifa is a step against terrorism and extremism.



Same with a step against the alt right and fascism.


----------



## JakeCWolf (May 16, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> Same with a step against the alt right and fascism.



So by that logic, being okay with Antfi, like FA is, means that it's a haven for terrorism and extremism, right? Congrats Dragoneer and pals, the site once dedicated to furry porn and a sense of belonging has become a hub for the scum and villainy of the world.


----------



## Imperial Impact (May 16, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> View attachment 32405


You have no right on using that meme.


----------



## Judge Spear (May 16, 2018)




----------



## Cawdabra (May 16, 2018)

This was posted just a day ago. I think it says a lot about what can be done to curb extremism.


----------



## ellaerna (May 16, 2018)

Cawdabra said:


> This was posted just a day ago. I think it says a lot about what can be done to curb extremism.


That's a lovely story, and it's great that he's done what he did. 

But what he is doing is not easy. And what he's doing doesn't always work.

I have talked and talked and talked and talked to people "with differing viewpoints" until I am blue in the face. It doesn't always work. They don't always listen. 
And they can bait you. Push you. Try to get you to break.
And being human, sometimes we do. 

It takes a lot of patience and courage to go up to someone - anyone - who has admitted that they want you dead and try to get them to see that they are wrong. It takes a lot of fighting off every instinct in your body to befriend someone who would gladly stand as your enemy. It takes a lot of willpower not to hate those who are actively fighting against you.

Daryl is great. What he's doing is great. But we're not all Daryl and I don't think it's fair to expect everyone to be.


----------



## DeltaJazz (May 16, 2018)

I love how the people voicing reason on the CoC itself are drowned out by the people bent on whether or not -insert controversial group here- is a hate group or not.


----------



## Revates (May 16, 2018)

I like that I have appealed to furaffinity for my ban since. I'm not alt-right. I'm a leftist and the only reason I can think that I've been banned is because I joined an alt-right chat to ghost it. So uh... this is good that I have been told I can't appeal my ban, EVEN THOUGH I HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG. Doing a VERY good job! I wonder which historical group has ever conducted ideological purges and doesn't care whether they get anyone else! Not the nazis.


----------



## Cawdabra (May 16, 2018)

Revates said:


> I like that I have appealed to furaffinity for my ban since. I'm not alt-right. I'm a leftist and the only reason I can think that I've been banned is because I joined an alt-right chat to ghost it. So uh... this is good that I have been told I can't appeal my ban, EVEN THOUGH I HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG. Doing a VERY good job! I wonder which historical group has ever conducted ideological purges and doesn't care whether they get anyone else! Not the nazis.


@Dragoneer that's dumb as fuck yo.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (May 16, 2018)

Revates said:


> I like that I have appealed to furaffinity for my ban since. I'm not alt-right. I'm a leftist and the only reason I can think that I've been banned is because I joined an alt-right chat to ghost it. So uh... this is good that I have been told I can't appeal my ban, EVEN THOUGH I HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG. Doing a VERY good job! I wonder which historical group has ever conducted ideological purges and doesn't care whether they get anyone else! Not the nazis.


You're the dude @XoPachi talked about earlier? V:


----------



## Revates (May 16, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> You're the dude @XoPachi talked about earlier? V:


Hi, it's me the dude!


----------



## TrishaCat (May 16, 2018)

Unban Rev!
Or at least give a proper reason for his banning. It's not right to bam someone without explaining what they did wrong, and a message like "You are not a good fit for this site" explains nothing.
@Dragoneer @SSJ3Mewtwo


----------



## Judge Spear (May 16, 2018)

Cawdabra said:


> @Dragoneer that's dumb as fuck yo.



Of course it is. Seems to be his preferred means of running the site.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 16, 2018)

XoPachi said:


> Of course it is. Seems to be his preferred means of running the site.


What bothers me most of all is that this HAD to be a group made decision, actively deciding to ignore the fact that they stated outside activity wouldn't matter, and take specific names from no doubt Kiwifarms, Dogpatch, and other leftist furs as a form of identifying them, and SIMPLY TAKING THEIR WORD FOR IT.
This is why you don't fucking ban groups, even as hate groups; you let your rules fucking do the talking, let users report others, take care of cases at the individual level, instead of trying to purge an entire group.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 16, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> What bothers me most of all is that this HAD to be a group made decision, actively deciding to ignore the fact that they stated outside activity wouldn't matter, and take specific names from no doubt Kiwifarms, Dogpatch, and other leftist furs as a form of identifying them, and SIMPLY TAKING THEIR WORD FOR IT.
> This is why you don't fucking ban groups, even as hate groups; you let your rules fucking do the talking, let users report others, take care of cases at the individual level, instead of trying to purge an entire group.



It's perfectly within reason to ban a certain group or affiliation from a website. Get over your persecution complex, right wingers.


----------



## TrishaCat (May 16, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> It's perfectly within reason to ban a certain group or affiliation from a website. Get over your persecution complex, right wingers.


People are being banned that haven't broken the rules nor even reside under the banner of these groups. There's already evidence to show this.
The far reaching banhammer as it stands takes innocents with it.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 16, 2018)

Battlechili said:


> People are being banned that haven't broken the rules nor even reside under the banner of these groups. There's already evidence to show this.
> The far reaching banhammer as it stands takes innocents with it.



I don't know about it. All I have are people's word for it, and I tend to take anecdotes, regardless of their source, with a pound of salt.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 16, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> It's perfectly within reason to ban a certain group or affiliation from a website. Get over your persecution complex, right wingers.


Hardly.  The only reason to do so is reactionary; if the Alt Right really was as bloodthirsty and violent as people claim, there would be NO NEED for the banning of entire groups; they would be weeded out in due time.  But websites and private institutions want to play God, punishing people for what they think rather than what they do.  Face it; the only reason this exists is out of political motivation, not because they actually care about stopping trolling efficiently.  If they wanted that, they would have left well enough alone and let the "bloodthirsty, violent Alt Right" get weeded out by individual bans.


----------



## TrishaCat (May 16, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I don't know about it. All I have are people's word for it, and I tend to take anecdotes, regardless of their source, with a pound of salt.


Well

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/996889048252694528


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 16, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I don't know about it. All I have are people's word for it, and I tend to take anecdotes, regardless of their source, with a pound of salt.


There are screenshots... ALL OVER TWITTER.













All three are from Leftists/Libertarians.  Shall I go on?


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 16, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Hardly.  The only reason to do so is reactionary; if the Alt Right really was as bloodthirsty and violent as people claim, there would be NO NEED for the banning of entire groups; they would be weeded out in due time.  But websites and private institutions want to play God, punishing people for what they think rather than what they do.  Face it; the only reason this exists is out of political motivation, not because they actually care about stopping trolling efficiently.  If they wanted that, they would have left well enough alone and let the "bloodthirsty, violent Alt Right" get weeded out by individual bans.



So you want to wait until the alt right becomes actually violent and destructive before we do anything about them? No thanks. 



Battlechili said:


> Well
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/996889048252694528





ResolutionBlaze said:


> There are screenshots... ALL OVER TWITTER.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A few bans. And?


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 16, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> So you want to wait until the alt right becomes actually violent and destructive before we do anything about them? No thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


See no evil.


----------



## TrishaCat (May 16, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> A few bans. And?


Bans that give no reason of people who don't show signs of rule breaking or being a part of the alt right.  What does it matter that it's a few or not? Throwing the innocent with the guilty and telling them they've committed a wrong without saying what that wrong is isn't right, and it happening right after this update implies they got caught under this new banhammer, which is apparently very good at not only taking rule breakers, but also others.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 16, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> So you want to wait until the alt right becomes actually violent and destructive before we do anything about them? No thanks.


Given that logic, we should probably act on Antifa before they start making up Nazi stories as an excuse to riot.
Or ban people who draw pornography, because we can't wait for them to distribute them to young children before we do something about it.
-
Yes, I am saying we wait for them to actually DO something before you actually punish someone.  That's... literally how competent rules work.  Besides, it's the fucking internet, the worst someone can do to you without treading into harassment is post mean comments.


----------



## TimidTanuki (May 16, 2018)

Gotta love the "antifa are labeled as terrorists by the DoHS". Cherry-picking at its best, heh.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 16, 2018)

JakeCWolf said:


> So by that logic, being okay with Antfi, like FA is, means that it's a haven for terrorism and extremism, right? Congrats Dragoneer and pals, the site once dedicated to furry porn and a sense of belonging has become a hub for the scum and villainy of the world.



How does one stop a fascist who wants them dead? You die. 

How does one stop Antifa? Stop being a fascist.

I have a gun to my head from both sides and one is telling me that "when its all over, you're dead" and the other is telling me "when this is all over, as long as you're not a fascist, you'll be protected" I'll gladly side with the antifa people. Hell, Antifa isnt just the black block people at the protests, its far more than that. If you dont like fascism and work against it, even if its in a pacifistic way, you are antifa. 

That's the problem with the right and calling anyone left of Hillary Clinton Anitfa and stalin and shit.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 16, 2018)

TimidTanuki said:


> Gotta love the "antifa are labeled as terrorists by the DoHS". Cherry-picking at its best, heh.


But saying, "Alt Furry are all White Supmeceists" isn't cherry-picking?


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 16, 2018)

Battlechili said:


> Bans that give no reason of people who don't show signs of rule breaking or being a part of the alt right.  What does it matter that it's a few or not? Throwing the innocent with the guilty and telling them they've committed a wrong without saying what that wrong is isn't right, and it happening right after this update implies they got caught under this new banhammer, which is apparently very good at not only taking rule breakers, but also others.



All you have is there word they didn't break any rules. 



ResolutionBlaze said:


> Given that logic, we should probably act on Antifa before they start making up Nazi stories as an excuse to riot.
> Or ban people who draw pornography, because we can't wait for them to distribute them to young children before we do something about it.
> -
> Yes, I am saying we wait for them to actually DO something before you actually punish someone.  That's... literally how competent rules work.  Besides, it's the fucking internet, the worst someone can do to you without treading into harassment is post mean comments.




If you want to argue for banning AntiFa furries as well, be my guest. Personally I don't advocate banning based on ideology, but you do you.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 16, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> But saying, "Alt Furry are all White Supmeceists" isn't cherry-picking?



I mean, most alt righters are white supremacists.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 16, 2018)

TimidTanuki said:


> Gotta love the "antifa are labeled as terrorists by the DoHS". Cherry-picking at its best, heh.



IKR? Please ignore all of the parts where the DHS and FBI label nearly every far right group as a terrorist organization. Ignore the nazi who drove his car at high speed into a crowd to kill people, ignore all the mass murderers who shoot up schools and churches who are white nationalists/nazis. Just focus on Antifa, clearly the biggest issue.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 16, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> How does one stop a fascist who wants them dead? You die.
> 
> How does one stop Antifa? Stop being a fascist.
> 
> ...


that kinda becomes a problem when Antifa can't even define what a fucking Nazi is.  The definition of a Nazi changes so frequently for them I wouldn't be surprised if you started being branded at one for one single idea you hold.  Also, you obviously don't know much about Fascists if you think they're all motivated by the death and destruction of other races.  That may be the inevitable consequences, but the inevitable consequences of Communism is totalitarianism, and I don't see you getting upset about them.


----------



## TrishaCat (May 16, 2018)

Fair, I can't prove they didn't do anything wrong, but surely you at least see a problem with not giving a proper ban reason or an example of these users crimes, right?


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 16, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Given that logic, we should probably act on Antifa before they start making up Nazi stories as an excuse to riot.
> Or ban people who draw pornography, because we can't wait for them to distribute them to young children before we do something about it.
> -
> Yes, I am saying we wait for them to actually DO something before you actually punish someone.  That's... literally how competent rules work.  Besides, it's the fucking internet, the worst someone can do to you without treading into harassment is post mean comments.




Funny, they did ban child porn yet people are still on the site that make child porn.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 16, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I mean, most alt righters are white supremacists.


I've spent a little more than a year in a Discord made up of a portion of Alt Righters.  I know what they are.  And even if they are all white supremacists, that doesn't mean they're violent.  That's why we had one fucking leave and doxx the Discord; because we weren't radical enough.


----------



## TrishaCat (May 16, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> IKR? Please ignore all of the parts where the DHS and FBI label nearly every far right group as a terrorist organization. Ignore the nazi who drove his car at high speed into a crowd to kill people, ignore all the mass murderers who shoot up schools and churches who are white nationalists/nazis. Just focus on Antifa, clearly the biggest issue.


People aren't saying those other groups don't matter. They just have issue with the lack of consistency.

Also cub porn isn't cp and never should have been banned to begin with


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 16, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> Funny, they did ban child porn yet people are still on the site that make child porn.


Yeah?  What's your point?


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 16, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> IKR? Please ignore all of the parts where the DHS and FBI label nearly every far right group as a terrorist organization. Ignore the nazi who drove his car at high speed into a crowd to kill people, ignore all the mass murderers who shoot up schools and churches who are white nationalists/nazis. Just focus on Antifa, clearly the biggest issue.


Producing strawman arguments doesn't make you wiser.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 16, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> that kinda becomes a problem when Antifa can't even define what a fucking Nazi is.  The definition of a Nazi changes so frequently for them I wouldn't be surprised if you started being branded at one for one single idea you hold.  *Also, you obviously don't know much about Fascists if you think they're all motivated by the death and destruction of other races.*  That may be the inevitable consequences, but *the inevitable consequences of Communism is totalitarianism*, and I don't see you getting upset about them.



Please. Educate me on how fascism is totally a good thing if I just look at it a certain way. 

The inevitable consequence of Fascism is totalitarianism as well.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 16, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Producing strawman arguments doesn't make you wiser.



Since when have the facts been a strawman argument? For someone who really wants to sit down and have a serious debate about all this, you sure do avoid the facts.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 16, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> Please. Educate me on how fascism is totally a good thing if I just look at it a certain way.
> 
> The inevitable consequence of Fascism is totalitarianism as well.


I never claimed that it was a good thing nor did I claim that Fascism didn't inevitably lead to totalitarianism.  My point is that they're not all motivated by the death of other people and cultures.  I even clearly stated "that it may be the inevitable consequences" of such an ideology.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 16, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Yeah?  What's your point?



You used banning porn as an example yet they did just that.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 16, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> Since when have the facts been a strawman argument? For someone who really wants to sit down and have a serious debate about all this, you sure do avoid the facts.


Your argument is valid, not sound.  The reason it's a strawman is that it's an argument nobody made; I never said they weren't factual.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 16, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> You used banning porn as an example yet they did just that.


Sure but they aren't banning people for being Cub Artists.  Rather, they would be punished if they actually DID something.


----------



## TimidTanuki (May 16, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> But saying, "Alt Furry are all White Supmeceists" isn't cherry-picking?



Please point out where I said that.

There are members of Alt Furry who are just in it "for the lulz". Just like there are members of Antifa who aren't violent and destructive.

The only statement I made was that it was blatant cherry-picking to say that Antifa are considered domestic terrorists. It overlooks a number of other statements in the document being referenced, and it ignores the fact that the author who penned the article about those confidential documents had in fact previously stated that both intelligence organizations had said they "don't keep lists of terrorist groups". Which is probably bullshit, but that's another matter entirely.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 16, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Your argument is valid, not sound.  The reason it's a strawman is that it's an argument nobody made; I never said they weren't factual.



Then why dispute them in the first place?


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 16, 2018)

TimidTanuki said:


> Please point out where I said that.
> 
> There are members of Alt Furry who are just in it "for the lulz". Just like there are members of Antifa who aren't violent and destructive.
> 
> The only statement I made was that it was blatant cherry-picking to say that Antifa are considered domestic terrorists. It overlooks a number of other statements in the document being referenced, and it ignores the fact that the author who penned the article about those confidential documents had in fact previously stated that both intelligence organizations had said they "don't keep lists of terrorist groups". Which is probably bullshit, but that's another matter entirely.




Ironic fascism is still fascism in the same way that ironically hating people based on their race is racism and ironically hatting LGBT people is homo/trans-phobic. 

Just because it's a joke, doesn't make it okay.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 16, 2018)

Kinda says something about radical leftist furs when they can't decide whether an Alt Righter is a White Supremacist, a "transphobe" or fucking antifeminist.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 16, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> Then why dispute them in the first place?


Because they're Strawman Fallacies.  That doesn't mean they aren't factual, it just means you're arguing against points that nobody made; you're essentially making up your opposition's arguments and discussing those instead of any actual content that I spoke of.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 16, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> So you want to wait until the alt right becomes actually violent and destructive before we do anything about them? No thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You. I like you.


----------



## TrishaCat (May 16, 2018)

Preemptive criminalization is kinda...


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 16, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> Ironic fascism is still fascism in the same way that ironically hating people based on their race is racism and ironically hatting LGBT people is homo/trans-phobic.
> 
> Just because it's a joke, doesn't make it okay.


Of course, it makes it okay.  It's subjective.  Jokes don't have objective moral implications.  They're funny to some people, they're unfunny to others; either way, it would be a JOKE.  Which means taking it seriously is actually incorrect.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 16, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Of course, it makes it okay.  It's subjective.  Jokes don't have objective moral implications.  They're funny to some people, they're unfunny to others; either way, it would be a JOKE.  Which means taking it seriously is actually incorrect.



I'll remember that if I ever want to scream fire in a crowded building, yell "I have a bomb" in an airport, plan to kill the president or some other fucked up illegal thing. If it's "just a prank bro" that excuses all of my actions.


----------



## TimidTanuki (May 16, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> I've spent a little more than a year in a Discord made up of a portion of Alt Righters.  I know what they are.  And even if they are all white supremacists, that doesn't mean they're violent.  That's why we had one fucking leave and doxx the Discord; because we weren't radical enough.



Even if they aren't violent, the fact remains that white supremacy is an ideology that doesn't need to be discussed. It's unacceptable, as it should be. At its root, it will always lead to violence, because even those claiming they just want a "white ethno-state" are ignoring the fact that in order to achieve that, they'd have to displace many hundreds of thousands of people - many of whom won't go quietly.

This concept that all ideas deserve a place in the discussion is itself fallacious. Certain ideas and concepts don't deserve a place in society because they are inherently dangerous and ultimately damaging to that same society.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 16, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> [Picture]
> 
> Kinda says something about radical leftist furs when they can't decide whether an Alt Righter is a White Supremacist, a "transphobe" or fucking antifeminist.



Source please.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 16, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> I'll remember that if I ever want to scream fire in a crowded building, yell "I have a bomb" in an airport, plan to kill the president or some other fucked up illegal thing. If it's "just a prank bro" that excuses all of my actions.


That's quite the leap from LARPing.  Not like jokes are based on context or anything.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 16, 2018)

TimidTanuki said:


> Even if they aren't violent, the fact remains that white supremacy is an ideology that doesn't need to be discussed. It's unacceptable, as it should be. At its root, it will always lead to violence, because even those claiming they just want a "white ethno-state" are ignoring the fact that in order to achieve that, they'd have to displace many hundreds of thousands of people - many of whom won't go quietly.
> 
> This concept that all ideas deserve a place in the discussion is itself fallacious. Certain ideas and concepts don't deserve a place in society because they are inherently dangerous and ultimately damaging to that same society.



Bingo! Many like Spencer and Duke talk of "peaceful ethnic cleansing through forced busing" but at what point does "We're making you go so just go" become "You refuse to go, time to kill anyone who resists". 

It's one of those things that people just shouldn't talk about. Sure, go ahead if you really want to. You have the right to say and talk about whatever you want, you don't have the right to have zero consequences from it.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 16, 2018)

TimidTanuki said:


> Even if they aren't violent, the fact remains that white supremacy is an ideology that doesn't need to be discussed. It's unacceptable, as it should be. At its root, it will always lead to violence, because even those claiming they just want a "white ethno-state" are ignoring the fact that in order to achieve that, they'd have to displace many hundreds of thousands of people - many of whom won't go quietly.
> 
> This concept that all ideas deserve a place in the discussion is itself fallacious. Certain ideas and concepts don't deserve a place in society because they are inherently dangerous and ultimately damaging to that same society.


Communism is the exact same way.  Yet in this very thread, people either defend it or straight up ignore that fact.  Ban the Swastika, but not the Hammer and Sickle that resulted in the deaths of millions more than the Holocaust?


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 16, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> That's quite the leap from LARPing.  Not like jokes are based on context or anything.



So it's only a joke when YOU say its a joke. *stretches* I need to be loosened up if I'm going to chase these goalposts!


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 16, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> So it's only a joke when YOU say its a joke. *stretches* I need to be loosened up if I'm going to chase these goalposts!


I didn't move any goalposts; I literally stated that jokes are subjective.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 16, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Communism is the exact same way.  Yet in this very thread, people either defend it or straight up ignore that fact.  Ban the Swastika, but not the Hammer and Sickle that resulted in the deaths of millions more than the Holocaust?



"communism" is like saying "the left" or "the right" its such a wide and broad term that covers a lot of things. I'm a Marxist but if you put me in a room with Stalin, Hitler and a gun with one bullet, I would shoot hitler to spare him the trauma of seeing what I would do to Stalin. It's very rare to find someone who is both far left AND authoritarian like Stalin or Mao. Sure, they exist, and fuck them all.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 16, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> I didn't move any goalposts; I literally stated that jokes are subjective.



So are many things, but society must have order if it is to function. If I see someone taking something that's not theirs, I see it as stealing. Even if its food and they need food, that's still a crime and they are prosecuted for it. 

Without law and order, things fall to anarchy. With too much law and order, things become a totalitarian mess. Its a balance.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 16, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> "communism" is like saying "the left" or "the right" its such a wide and broad term that covers a lot of things. I'm a Marxist but if you put me in a room with Stalin, Hitler and a gun with one bullet, I would shoot hitler to spare him the trauma of seeing what I would do to Stalin. It's very rare to find someone who is both far left AND authoritarian like Stalin or Mao. Sure, they exist, and fuck them all.


I never said it was common, just that it is, like Fascism, the inevitable consequence of it.  Even if the leader of a Communist state was an absolute saint (which likely isn't the case) the next person in line is waiting to shoot him in the back of the head and take that entire state.
-
And if Stalin was that bad, then why isn't the Hammer and Sickle banned since it was utilized by the Stalinists and murdered far more than Hitler?


----------



## RinjiPantera (May 16, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> I'll remember that if I ever want to scream fire in a crowded building, yell "I have a bomb" in an airport, plan to kill the president or some other fucked up illegal thing. If it's "just a prank bro" that excuses all of my actions.



There's a difference between trolling someone over LGBT stuff and the asinine examples _you_ just gave. It's common sense to not shout something that could very well get you in trouble with the law. Of course, leftists like Madonna or Rosie O'Donnell are apparently above the law, considering they both grossly broke them without consequence...but I digress.

In any case, it's just like you to exaggerate an example of something to try and prove a point.



TimidTanuki said:


> Even if they aren't violent, the fact remains that white supremacy is an ideology that doesn't need to be discussed. It's unacceptable, as it should be. At its root, it will always lead to violence, because even those claiming they just want a "white ethno-state" are ignoring the fact that in order to achieve that, they'd have to displace many hundreds of thousands of people - many of whom won't go quietly.
> 
> This concept that all ideas deserve a place in the discussion is itself fallacious. Certain ideas and concepts don't deserve a place in society because they are inherently dangerous and ultimately damaging to that same society.



How about just NOT talking about white supremacy instead of constantly demanding that people not talk about white supremacy? The more you keep bringing it up, the more likely people might want to talk about it. To the average person around here, ANY racial supremacy is likely that LAST thing on their minds when having fun with anthropomorphic characters until someone like you brings it up like this.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 16, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> I never said it was common, just that it is, like Fascism, the inevitable consequence of it.  Even if the leader of a Communist state was an absolute saint (which likely isn't the case) the next person in line is waiting to shoot him in the back of the head and take that entire state.
> -
> And if Stalin was that bad, then why isn't the Hammer and Sickle banned since it was utilized by the Stalinists and murdered far more than Hitler?



I personally think it should be and I'm a fucking Marxist. Both are symbols of tyrannical governments that killed millions. I for one far prefer the socialist rose. Its meaning and implications are far better than the mess that was the Soviet Union... ugh... 

Stalin single handedly set back leftist thought by nearly a century.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 16, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> So are many things, but society must have order if it is to function. If I see someone taking something that's not theirs, I see it as stealing. Even if its food and they need food, that's still a crime and they are prosecuted for it.
> 
> Without law and order, things fall to anarchy. With too much law and order, things become a totalitarian mess. Its a balance.


Remember the days where "Don't make jokes about the King" was considered regressive?  "Don't make jokes about the [insert minority here]"
-
We jumped from making jokes to order and anarchy.  You claim not to be an authoritarian, yet your insistence on "Order" as opposed to "Chaos" and using it as a defense for criminalizing things as insignificant as JOKES tells me more about you than you could ever say.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 16, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> I personally think it should be and I'm a fucking Marxist. Both are symbols of tyrannical governments that killed millions. I for one far prefer the socialist rose. Its meaning and implications are far better than the mess that was the Soviet Union... ugh...
> 
> Stalin single handedly set back leftist thought by nearly a century.


So why aren't Stalinists given this treatment?  Why the double standard?  Because there are certainly Stalinist furries, believe me.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 16, 2018)

RinjiPantera said:


> There's a difference between trolling someone over LGBT stuff and the asinine examples _you_ just gave. It's common sense to not shout something that could very well get you in trouble with the law. It's just like you to exaggerate an example of something to try and prove a point...



Again, why is what I said not a joke? People still get hurt but fuck them, I got a chuckle! If 'free speech' is all that matters then you should support all language, not just the language you want. 

Free speech is a myth in and of itself. The very concept is just a pipedream.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 16, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> So why aren't Stalinists given this treatment?  Why the double standard?  Because there are certainly Stalinist furries, believe me.



I personally can't stand Stalinists and Maoists and feel the same about them as I do about fascism. They can all fuck off and die in a fire.


----------



## RinjiPantera (May 16, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> Again, why is what I said not a joke? People still get hurt but fuck them, I got a chuckle! If 'free speech' is all that matters then you should support all language, not just the language you want.
> 
> Free speech is a myth in and of itself. The very concept is just a pipedream.



Free speech and common sense go hand in hand. I never once pretended that the First Amendment is some free pass to talk shit with impunity. It still means you can talk about pretty anything so long as it's not violating any laws, like threats of harm against someone. But nowadays, you can't even make a joke about something without someone being "offended". Shit, Blazing Saddles would NEVER be made today for that reason. Comedy is one of the first genres to die once political correctness infected it.

...yeah, I know I'm getting a bit off track here. But still...


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 16, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Remember the days where "Don't make jokes about the King" was considered regressive?  "Don't make jokes about the [insert minority here]"
> -
> We jumped from making jokes to order and anarchy.  You claim not to be an authoritarian, yet your insistence on "Order" as opposed to "Chaos" and using it as a defense for criminalizing things as insignificant as JOKES tells me more about you than you could ever say.



If hoping for order over anarchy is authoritarian, then every government in history is authoritarian. 

I'm simply saying hate speech should not be encouraged.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 16, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> I've spent a little more than a year in a Discord made up of a portion of Alt Righters.  I know what they are.  And even if they are all white supremacists, that doesn't mean they're violent.  That's why we had one fucking leave and doxx the Discord; because we weren't radical enough.



Okay, please enlighten us as to why you're hanging out with people who are basically racists?


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 16, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> Again, why is what I said not a joke? People still get hurt but fuck them, I got a chuckle! If 'free speech' is all that matters then you should support all language, not just the language you want.
> 
> Free speech is a myth in and of itself. The very concept is just a pipedream.


Sure, it's a myth.  Not like it's the mechanism by which we run our very societies, exited from a dark age of totalitarianism, and avoid group identity and emphasize the power of the individual over the power of the State.  The only reason you don't believe in Free Speech is that it is incompatible with your philosophy, and you'd rather mold the world around your philosophy rather than let your philosophy be molded by the world.  It is wilful ignorance, not fact, which brings you to that conclusion; a willingness to refuse to see the significance of Free Speech and the unwillingness to surrender your philosophy to such a concept.  Congratulations; you're an Authoritarian.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 16, 2018)

RinjiPantera said:


> Free speech and common sense go hand in hand. I never once pretended that the First Amendment is some free pass to talk shit with impunity. It still means you can talk about pretty anything so long as it's not violating any laws, like threats of harm against someone. But nowadays, you can't even make a joke about something without someone being "offended". Shit, Blazing Saddles would NEVER be made today for that reason. Comedy is one of the first genres to die once political correctness infected it.



Because comedy is suffering taken to absurdity. I for one don't find hate speech funny because people suffer from it.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 17, 2018)

12


AK_Sandfire said:


> Because comedy is suffering taken to absurdity. I for one don't find hate speech funny because people suffer from it.


We will live in a humorless world....


----------



## RinjiPantera (May 17, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> If hoping for order over anarchy is authoritarian, then every government in history is authoritarian.
> 
> I'm simply saying hate speech should not be encouraged.



But at the same time, people don't typically come here to "hate". Yet you keep drawing attention to it until that's all people see. You're becoming one of the architects of the very thing you claim to discourage. Notice how in the toilet CNN's ratings have become? If all a "news" network is capable of is 24/7 Trump hate, there's going to be pushback. So I'm basically agreeing that yeah, hate speech is bad. Yet people tend to want to cherry pick what they see as hate from only one side of the political spectrum, when they fail to see it in themselves. After all, it takes two to tango.


----------



## RinjiPantera (May 17, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> Because comedy is suffering taken to absurdity. I for one don't find hate speech funny because people suffer from it.



Okay, so what do you claim to be hate speech then? Let's get some context, so I can understand better. Seriously...name a couple examples.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 17, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Okay, please enlighten us as to why you're hanging out with people who are basically racists?


 I don't need to justify myself to you.  But if you must know; I joined as a rebellion against the current trend of furries abusing others who do not subscribe to their viewpoints.  Particularly radical leftists.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 17, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Okay, please enlighten us as to why you're hanging out with people who are basically racists?





ResolutionBlaze said:


> Sure, it's a myth.  Not like it's the mechanism by which we run our very societies, exited from a dark age of totalitarianism, and avoid group identity and emphasize the power of the individual over the power of the State.  The only reason you don't believe in Free Speech is that it is incompatible with your philosophy, and you'd rather mold the world around your philosophy rather than let your philosophy be molded by the world.  It is wilful ignorance, not fact, which brings you to that conclusion; a willingness to refuse to see the significance of Free Speech and the unwillingness to surrender your philosophy to such a concept.  Congratulations; you're an Authoritarian.



How is my philosophy incompatible with free speech? Because I would prefer people not use slurs, put downs, hate speech, etc. and I'd appreciate it if I didn't have to "just take it" if its directed at me? Every philosophy in history attempts to mold the world to it, that's literally what modern politics is all about. The state is there to protect its people, not control them, but no matter how anarchist the government is, by the very nature of the state itself it will control its people. You can call working towards a better life for everyone 'willful ignorance' if you like, but at the end of the day, you're a coward. You refuse to confront the problems in society that cause harm to millions yet jump defend many of the things that cause said harm. You call it "free speech' but at the end of the day its being an apologist for the status quo, no matter how harmful that status quo. If wanting to fight for a government that protects those who are on the bottom of society over giving even more away to those who have it all makes me authoritarian then please by all means, keep calling me it all you like. It's not the facts, its not the definition of the word, but by all means, feel free to take everything I say out of context and warp it to whatever you please.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 17, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> I don't need to justify myself to you.  But if you must know; I joined as a rebellion against the current trend of furries abusing others who do not subscribe to their viewpoints.  Particularly radical leftists.



So you joined a bunch of nazis because that's... punk now?


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 17, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> How is my philosophy incompatible with free speech? Because I would prefer people not use slurs, put downs, hate speech, etc. and I'd appreciate it if I didn't have to "just take it" if its directed at me? Every philosophy in history attempts to mold the world to it, that's literally what modern politics is all about. *The state is there to protect its people, not control them*, but no matter how anarchist the government is, by the very nature of the state itself it will control its people. *You can call working towards a better life for everyone 'willful ignorance' if you like, but at the end of the day, you're a coward. You refuse to confront the problems in society that cause harm to millions yet jump defend many of the things that cause said harm.* You call it "free speech' but at the end of the day its being an apologist for the status quo, no matter how harmful that status quo. If wanting to fight for a government that protects those who are on the bottom of society over giving even more away to those who have it all makes me authoritarian then please by all means, keep calling me it all you like. It's not the facts, its not the definition of the word, but by all means, feel free to take everything I say out of context and warp it to whatever you please.


What's blue, small, and smells like garbage?
--
A dead baby in a dumpster.
--
Did I kill a baby with that joke?


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 17, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> So you joined a bunch of nazis because that's... punk now?


Alt Furry was intended to be a unity of all ideologies, which obviously grabbed the attention of Alt Righters, but a majority of participants were Libertarian.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 17, 2018)

RinjiPantera said:


> Okay, so what do you claim to be hate speech then? Let's get some context, so I can understand better. Seriously...name a couple examples.



If you don't know what hate speech is by now then its clear to me you just don't care but fine, here we go. 

Racial/ethnic slurs, homophobia, transphobia, sexist rhetoric, fascist talking points and calling for ethnic cleansing in any way just to name a few.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 17, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Alt Furry was intended to be a unity of all ideologies, which obviously grabbed the attention of Alt Righters, but a majority of participants were Libertarian.



But it became a harbor for fascists and white supremacists, so why stay?


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 17, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> If you don't know what hate speech is by now then its clear to me you just don't care but fine, here we go.
> 
> Racial/ethnic slurs, homophobia, transphobia, sexist rhetoric, fascist talking points and calling for ethnic cleansing in any way just to name a few.


Terms so vague that you can define them to be literally anything.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 17, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> But it became a harbor for fascists and white supremacists, so why stay?


It was hardly a harbor.  Most of the actual murderous ones stayed away because we were "too moderate".  The ones who did call for ethnostates typically fell out later on.  The number of Alt Right people actually shrank over time as Alt Furry continued to grow.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 17, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Terms so vague that you can define them to be literally anything.



Not vague, actually it's fairly on point but if you want to play dumb please go right ahead.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 17, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> I don't need to justify myself to you.  But if you must know; I joined as a rebellion against the current trend of furries abusing others who do not subscribe to their viewpoints.  Particularly radical leftists.



No, but you have admitted to it, and are openly associating with them. Which means I'm free to criticize this position. There's lots of marginalized groups of people out there who are abused for their viewpoints. Alt-righters get abused because their views are founded on hate, ignorance, and are not compatible with modern society.


----------



## RinjiPantera (May 17, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> If you don't know what hate speech is by now then its clear to me you just don't care but fine, here we go.
> 
> Racial/ethnic slurs, homophobia, transphobia, sexist rhetoric, fascist talking points and calling for ethnic cleansing in any way just to name a few.



Most of those things are pretty obvious, but they won't stop some people from thinking it. And if forcing them not to express themselves out loud, it's just going to stir the pot even more until something gives. Frankly, there's a whole can of worms regarding the mere subject of what people think about gays or trans, for instance. But last I checked, it's not a crime for someone to have feelings. If so, then you really are naive. Nevertheless, I go back to my original point, that most people on FA should have the common sense NOT to talk about those things you listed. However, you're being really ambiguous on the whole "fascist talking points" part.

Also, I've seen my fair share of hate, but I don't recall the last time someone started preaching about any ethnic cleansing. Seems like it comes up more with people who keep using it as a talking point against their perceptions of hate speech.

Personally, I don't give two shits about the color of someone's skin...only the content of their character. But I know there are people out there who would call even THAT racist by proxy. Seems nothing, that isn't a leftist viewpoint, is acceptable. And that is why one's definition of hate speech is a slippery slope.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 17, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> No, but you have admitted to it, and are openly associating with them. Which means I'm free to criticize this position. There's lots of marginalized groups of people out there who are abused for their viewpoints. Alt-righters get abused because their views are founded on hate, ignorance, and are not compatible with modern society.


I find hypocrisy more despicable.  In which the Stalinist situation remains to be addressed.  The only reason Alt Righters are taken to town for it instead of Stalinists is that they're "fascists and fascists are scary and make loud noises"
-
As long as Stalinists and Maoists are allowed to continue their beliefs unhindered (which Google celebrated a fucking Maoist one time) I will be there to defend the Alt Right believe that they have the right to hold.


----------



## RinjiPantera (May 17, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> No, but you have admitted to it, and are openly associating with them. Which means I'm free to criticize this position. There's lots of marginalized groups of people out there who are abused for their viewpoints. Alt-righters get abused because their views are founded on hate, ignorance, and are not compatible with modern society.



Oh, so it's perfectly okay to abuse them, eh Mr. Hypocrite? Fighting hatred with hatred? If you were any more transparent, you'd be invisible.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 17, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> Not vague, actually it's fairly on point but if you want to play dumb please go right ahead.


Who defines homophobia?  You?  I was banned from a Discord server for "having dumb opinions" because I argued that Jordan Peterson WASN'T transphobic and cited evidence.  According to them, and utilizing your very unrefined logic, I am an Alt Righter by that charge.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 17, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Who defines homophobia?  You?  I was banned from a Discord server for "having dumb opinions" because I argued that Jordan Peterson WASN'T transphobic and cited evidence.  According to them, and utilizing your very unrefined logic, I am an Alt Righter by that charge.



But the fact of the matter is that Peterson was transphobic. If you don't think so, then you obviously don't know what those words mean.



RinjiPantera said:


> Oh, so it's perfectly okay to abuse them, eh Mr. Hypocrite? Fighting hatred with hatred? If you were any more transparent, you'd be invisible.



When Nazis throw the first punches, yes. When nazis show up with a fuck ton of guns, yes. You have to fight people like that with violence in some cases.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 17, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> Again, why is what I said not a joke? People still get hurt but fuck them, I got a chuckle! If 'free speech' is all that matters then you should support all language, not just the language you want.
> 
> Free speech is a myth in and of itself. The very concept is just a pipedream.


I'd like to point out that there's a difference between causing mass hysteria and making a trans joke.  Making a trans joke there is no evidence you're actually harming anyone.  Making a joke about having a bomb on a plane is far more costly because in the mass hysteria you can actually hurt people.  Conflating context and situations is fallacious.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 17, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> But the fact of the matter is that Peterson was transphobic. If you don't think so, then you obviously don't know what those words mean.
> 
> 
> 
> When Nazis throw the first punches, yes. When nazis show up with a fuck ton of guns, yes. You have to fight people like that with violence in some cases.


A) Peterson actually stated that he didn't care whether or not people utilized alternative pronouns; his contention was with the mandating of it and the demand for it by radicals.
-
B) Peterson also stated in an interview that he believes in different genders that exist outside the male and female norms.
-
If you're going to make claims that are based on evidence at least do your research.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 17, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> A) Peterson actually stated that he didn't care whether or not people utilized alternative pronouns; his contention was with the mandating of it and the demand for it by radicals.
> -
> B) Peterson also stated in an interview that he believes in different genders that exist outside the male and female norms.
> -
> If you're going to make claims that are based on evidence at least do your research.



1) He still refused to use people's proper pronouns, thus transphobia. 

2) He openly opposed legislation to protect the rights of trans people, thus transphobia. 

If I'm going to make claims that are based on evidence at least do my research? Why should I when you clearly didn't do yours XD


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 17, 2018)

@AK_Sandfire Here is the video of him making the biological case for multiple genders:


----------



## RinjiPantera (May 17, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> But the fact of the matter is that Peterson was transphobic. If you don't think so, then you obviously don't know what those words mean.
> 
> 
> 
> When Nazis throw the first punches, yes. When nazis show up with a fuck ton of guns, yes. You have to fight people like that with violence in some cases.



Only people I've ever seen throwing the first punches is Antifa. Conservatives defend themselves, which fighting back becomes necessary. Also, WTF is your definition of a nazi? Don't answer that, because A. It's rhetorical. B. We'd just be going around in circles over this.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 17, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> I find hypocrisy more despicable.  In which the Stalinist situation remains to be addressed.  The only reason Alt Righters are taken to town for it instead of Stalinists is that they're "fascists and fascists are scary and make loud noises"
> -
> As long as Stalinists and Maoists are allowed to continue their beliefs unhindered (which Google celebrated a fucking Maoist one time) I will be there to defend the Alt Right believe that they have the right to hold.



We're not talking about Stalin or Maoists. We're talking about associating freely with people who base their ideology on hate, intolerance, nationalism, anti-immigration, etc. Essentially alt-righters are disillusioned, bored, fat white guys who blame their problems on absolutely everyone except the main source their problems - themselves. 



RinjiPantera said:


> Oh, so it's perfectly okay to abuse them, eh Mr. Hypocrite? Fighting hatred with hatred? If you were any more transparent, you'd be invisible.



Your comment has no impact on me, sorry.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 17, 2018)

RinjiPantera said:


> Only people I've ever seen throwing the first punches is Antifa. Conservatives defend themselves, which fighting back becomes necessary. Also, WTF is your definition of a nazi? Don't answer that, because A. It's rhetorical. B. We'd just be going around in circles over this.



You're conveniently forgetting that the riots in Charlottesville remained peaceful until a white supremacist used a car to run over a girl.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 17, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> We're not talking about Stalin or Maoists. We're talking about associating freely with people who base their ideology on hate, intolerance, nationalism, anti-immigration, etc. Essentially alt-righters are disillusioned, bored, fat white guys who blame their problems on absolutely everyone except the main source their problems - themselves.


We are talking about Stalinists and Maoists now, because it's a form of hypocrisy and a fundamental point in my argument that if Alt Righters can be discriminated and collectively banished as a group, then why not them?  Address my argument.  Address they hypocrisy.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 17, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> You're conveniently forgetting that the riots in Charlottesville remained peaceful until a white supremacist used a car to run over a girl.


Of course he would; that's not the argument he's making.  What does that have to do with anything?


----------



## RinjiPantera (May 17, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> 1) He still refused to use people's proper pronouns, thus transphobia.
> 
> 2) He openly opposed legislation to protect the rights of trans people, thus transphobia.
> 
> If I'm going to make claims that are based on evidence at least do my research? Why should I when you clearly didn't do yours XD



Forcing someone to say certain words because radicals demand it is authoritarianism. I'm allowed to believe anything I want. I'm allowed to express that belief if I want. What I'm not allowed to do is try and force someone _else_ to believe what I do...which is what you're pretty much saying, regarding pronouns.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 17, 2018)

RinjiPantera said:


> Forcing someone to say certain words because radicals demand it is authoritarianism. I'm allowed to believe anything I want. I'm allowed to express that belief if I want. What I'm not allowed to do is try and force someone _else_ to believe what I do...which is what you're pretty much saying, regarding pronouns.



So asking people to be treated with respect is radical? Damn. Thoughts and prayers to the hope you never become a professional who works with people.


----------



## RinjiPantera (May 17, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> You're conveniently forgetting that the riots in Charlottesville remained peaceful until a white supremacist used a car to run over a girl.



Peaceful riots...HA! Talk about an oxymoron! Go check out this thread while it's still there: forums.furaffinity.net: ban antifa too

Figures you'd focus on the ONE time a conservative committed an actual crime.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 17, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> So asking people to be treated with respect is radical? Damn. Thoughts and prayers to the hope you never become a professional who works with people.


You must be trying to hide from my arguments, because your posts are not appearing.  Luckily I kinda glitched the system so I can see this.
Just another Strawman Fallacy sadly.  Asking and Demanding are two different things, something you seem to conflate often.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 17, 2018)

RinjiPantera said:


> Forcing someone to say certain words because radicals demand it is authoritarianism. I'm allowed to believe anything I want. I'm allowed to express that belief if I want. What I'm not allowed to do is try and force someone _else_ to believe what I do...which is what you're pretty much saying, regarding pronouns.


She must've blocked or muted me.  I can't see her posts.  Lol.


----------



## RinjiPantera (May 17, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> So asking people to be treated with respect is radical? Damn. Thoughts and prayers to the hope you never become a professional who works with people.



There's a difference between a debate and real life applications. I haven't found myself in a position where I have referred to a trans person by a certain pronoun. Usually, I'm talking TO that person and thus refer to that person by name, assuming I even know it. Otherwise, there's no direct reference at all. Just "hello" and "goodbye". I do treat people with respect. I won't, however, conform to SJW ideologies.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 17, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> We are talking about Stalinists and Maoists now, because it's a form of hypocrisy and a fundamental point in my argument that if Alt Righters can be discriminated and collectively banished as a group, then why not them?  Address my argument.  Address they hypocrisy.



Deflection noted and ignored. We're talking about people who base their ideology on a fundamental hatred of other human beings. Why should this be tolerated? I am using my freedom of speech to tell you, and others, exactly how wrong this is, because it is not in line with modern principles of tolerance and peace. 



ResolutionBlaze said:


> Of course he would; that's not the argument he's making.  What does that have to do with anything?



The claim was violent leftists, when right wingers can be violent as well. In fact, most left-wing violence is reactionary against right-wing policy. Right wing violence originates because of the thing conservatism is based on: fear.



RinjiPantera said:


> Peaceful riots...HA! Talk about an oxymoron! Go check out this thread while it's still there: forums.furaffinity.net: ban antifa too
> 
> Figures you'd focus on the ONE time a conservative committed an actual crime.



Your simplistic syntax still warrants no response from me.



ResolutionBlaze said:


> She must've blocked or muted me.  I can't see her posts.  Lol.



Because not everyone wants to see people defending racists and neo-Nazis. I wonder why.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 17, 2018)

RinjiPantera said:


> There's a difference between a debate and real life applications. I haven't found myself in a position where I have referred to a trans person by a certain pronoun. Usually, I'm talking TO that person and thus refer to that person by name, assuming I even know it. Otherwise, there's no direct reference at all. Just "hello" and "goodbye". I do treat people with respect. I won't, however, conform to SJW ideologies.



I have. I use their preferred pronoun. If I slip and use the wrong one they're not too upset. I think I've talked to about 5 furry trans people now. It's amazing how far not being a dick with people will get you in life. Something the alt-right doesn't seem to understand.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 17, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> @AK_Sandfire Here is the video of him making the biological case for multiple genders:



Good for him. But still, what he did was transphobic. Just because someone changes their mind, doesn't just eliminate their past.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 17, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Deflection noted and ignored. We're talking about people who base their ideology on a fundamental hatred of other human beings. Why should this be tolerated? I am using my freedom of speech to tell you, and others, exactly how wrong this is, because it is not in line with modern principles of tolerance and peace.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A) Doesn't matter if the foundation of the ideology is hatred or compassion; if it is totalitarian it is murderous.  Thus it is not a deflection because I never denied that Alt Right isn't totalitarian; just that the hypocrisy is that they are arguably less dangerous than Stalinists yet Stalinists are okay because they "arn't founded on hate and hate r bad" as though the foundational ideas or motivation means anything at all.
-
B) Nobody argued against that.  It's also not a hypocrisy you're calling out.  So you're just bringing it up as though he's ignoring a point when there wasn't a point to be made about it.
-
C) Typical, "Your argument warrants no response despite that literally giving away that I have no more arguments"
-
D) She blocked me after I posted evidence that Jordan Peterson WASN'T a transphobe... which is the opposite of what you're claiming.  She blocked me because she was wrong and couldn't handle it. Correction; she never blocked me something weird must have happened.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 17, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> Good for him. But still, what he did was transphobic. Just because someone changes their mind, doesn't just eliminate their past.


He didn't change his mind; that was his argument in the first place.  The original interview was posted ten months ago, which was before he grew big and not long after the Senate hearing on Bill C-16.  So I'd like to hear these transphobic views he held somehow in his past.
Also, thank you for unblocking me.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 17, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> A) Doesn't matter if the foundation of the ideology is hatred or compassion; if it is totalitarian it is murderous.  Thus it is not a deflection because I never denied that Alt Right isn't totalitarian; just that the hypocrisy is that they are arguably less dangerous than Stalinists yet Stalinists are okay because they "arn't founded on hate and hate r bad" as though the foundational ideas or motivation means anything at all.
> -
> B) Nobody argued against that.  It's also not a hypocrisy you're calling out.  So you're just bringing it up as though he's ignoring a point when there wasn't a point to be made about it.
> -
> ...



A. It does not matter if an ideology is hatred or compassion? And I was never talking about Stalinists. And no one said they were good. What kind of sick shit am I reading?

B. I didn't say I was calling out hypocrisy. Do try to stay on target, I know it (apparently) can be difficult. 

C. No, I'm stating that I ignore people who use intellectually simplistic arguments and personal attacks. If I want to be bored, I will go talk to my dog. 

D. Maybe she blocked you because you're defending racist assholes. Your friends define you.


----------



## RinjiPantera (May 17, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I have. I use their preferred pronoun. If I slip and use the wrong one they're not too upset. I think I've talked to about 5 furry trans people now. It's amazing how far not being a dick with people will get you in life. Something the alt-right doesn't seem to understand.



You blow things so out of proportion there. Whatever violent leftwing reactionary...actions are in response to words. Like for example, "Make America Great Again". Those very words have been grouped, by leftists, with white supremacy, neo-nazis, and pretty much every other hateful word you sooo love to throw around. When, in fact, conservatives at least...just want America to be great again because they agree with Trump's campaign promises.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 17, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> He didn't change his mind; that was his argument in the first place.  The original interview was posted ten months ago, which was before he grew big and not long after the Senate hearing on Bill C-16.  So I'd like to hear these transphobic views he held somehow in his past.
> Also, thank you for unblocking me.



Never blocked ya dude. Plus this: www.chronicle.com: What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?

Its a shitty clickbait headline but the article is quite well done. 

Plus, let me ask you a personal question: Are you trans?


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 17, 2018)

RinjiPantera said:


> You blow things so out of proportion there. Whatever violent leftwing reactionary...actions are in response to words. Like for example, "Make America Great Again". Those very words have been grouped, by leftists, with white supremacy, neo-nazis, and pretty much every other hateful word you sooo love to throw around. When, in fact, conservatives at least...just want America to be great again because they agree with Trump's campaign promises.



The problem is that America was already great. By taking the slogan up, it indicates that one thinks there was something wrong with the country, and the current state of things. Because it is used almost exclusively by far-right-wingers, it essentially casts all the left wing into a collection of people who are making America, not great. Essentially it targets an entire third of the country and vilifies them into being responsible for various and sundry social ills. That, my good sir, is how wars are started.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 17, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> A. It does not matter if an ideology is hatred or compassion? And I was never talking about Stalinists. And no one said they were good. What kind of sick shit am I reading?
> 
> B. I didn't say I was calling out hypocrisy. Do try to stay on target, I know it (apparently) can be difficult.
> 
> ...


A) You claimed I deflected by talking about Stalinists.  I said I was not as I was referencing the hypocrisy surrounding it in relation to the Alt Right.  And no, it does not matter; Killmonger is motivated to commit genocide by compassion for a particular people in Black Panther; does that make him any better than if he was fueled by hatred?  Also, I'm not very convinced people in your lot are not fueled by hatred yourselves.
-
B) Since you weren't calling out a hypocrisy there is no reason to call out the situation of Alt Right murder.  There was no point to be made except perhaps as slander.
-
C) Who cares what kind of arguments they use?  Both of you are utilizing all kinds of fallacies; doesn't mean I act pig-headed and ignore any argument I don't find fit.
-
D) There was a mistake; she never blocked me there was a weird issue with the site.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 17, 2018)

RinjiPantera said:


> ...Like for example, "Make America Great Again". Those very words have been grouped, by leftists, with white supremacy, neo-nazis...



Maybe it was the people chanting old nazi shit like "jews will not replace us", "blood and soil", "Make america great again" and "hail victory" all in the same night of torches and swastikas. OH! Also, that "hail victory" one? yeah, that was accompanied with the nazi salute. Please continue to explain how its "not nazi, just roman" or whatever. Your apologetics for real, literal nazis is clear.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 17, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> Never blocked ya dude. Plus this: www.chronicle.com: What’s So Dangerous About Jordan Peterson?
> 
> Its a shitty clickbait headline but the article is quite well done.
> 
> Plus, let me ask you a personal question: Are you trans?


I've read this article before and Peterson himself wrote about it on Twitter; the accusations are not evidence-based.  His viewers don't consist of anyone really from the Alt Right, in fact, the Alt Right writes slanderous articles about him calling him a jewish shill.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 17, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> A) You claimed I deflected by talking about Stalinists.  I said I was not as I was referencing the hypocrisy surrounding it in relation to the Alt Right.  And no, it does not matter; Killmonger is motivated to commit genocide by compassion for a particular people in Black Panther; does that make him any better than if he was fueled by hatred?  Also, I'm not very convinced people in your lot are not fueled by hatred yourselves.
> -
> B) Since you weren't calling out a hypocrisy there is no reason to call out the situation of Alt Right murder.  There was no point to be made except perhaps as slander.
> -
> ...



A. You continue to deflect. 

STALIN.

KILLMONGER. 

BLACK PANTHER.

We're not talking about them.

*We're talking about you defending a group of intolerant, racist assholes.
*
Clear enough yet?

B. It's relevant as a rebuttal against leftists supposedly being more violent than rightists.


----------



## RinjiPantera (May 17, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> The problem is that America was already great. By taking the slogan up, it indicates that one thinks there was something wrong with the country, and the current state of things. Because it is used almost exclusively by far-right-wingers, it essentially casts all the left wing into a collection of people who are making America, not great. Essentially it targets an entire third of the country and vilifies them into being responsible for various and sundry social ills. That, my good sir, is how wars are started.



Seems like 63 million people disagree with you, because he IS our president. Also, you really don't want to get me started on why I agree that America had stopped being great at one point. I probably shouldn't have even brought that one up. Nevertheless, not everyone thinks the same way you or anyone else specific does. And you shouldn't make assumptions about someone else either.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 17, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> The problem is that America was already great. By taking the slogan up, it indicates that one thinks there was something wrong with the country, and the current state of things. Because it is used almost exclusively by far-right-wingers, it essentially casts all the left wing into a collection of people who are making America, not great. Essentially it targets an entire third of the country and vilifies them into being responsible for various and sundry social ills. That, my good sir, is how wars are started.


Wow.  You literally just defined politics.
-
"It's a slogan that indicates something wrong with the country."
-
LITERALLY EVERY POLITICIAN DOES THIS!!!!!


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 17, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> I've read this article before and Peterson himself wrote about it on Twitter; the accusations are not evidence-based.  His viewers don't consist of anyone really from the Alt Right, in fact, the Alt Right writes slanderous articles about him calling him a jewish shill.



Yet people in the far right quote him all the time, praise his work, demand for him to answer the Jewish question, etc. He sure has a lot of far right followers for someone who the far right supposedly hates. How about you stop defending him and just admit that most of what he says has no basis in factual science and is metaphysical philosophy at best.


----------



## RinjiPantera (May 17, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> Maybe it was the people chanting old nazi shit like "jews will not replace us", "blood and soil", "Make america great again" and "hail victory" all in the same night of torches and swastikas. OH! Also, that "hail victory" one? yeah, that was accompanied with the nazi salute. Please continue to explain how its "not nazi, just roman" or whatever. Your apologetics for real, literal nazis is clear.



That's pretty naive of you to say. There's extreme radicals on all sides of the political spectrum. I sure as hell don't associate with anyone who actually tries to bait conflict by doing the things the majority is being accused of.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 17, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> A. You continue to deflect.
> 
> STALIN.
> 
> ...


Do I seriously have to reverse time for you?  I said I would defend Alt Right as long as groups like Stalinists and Maoists remain untouched because it is a hypocrisy to allow those groups to be on their way and suppress the Alt Right.
-
*Is THAT clear enough FOR YOU?*


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 17, 2018)

RinjiPantera said:


> Seems like 63 million people disagree with you, because he IS our president. Also, you really don't want to get me started on why I agree that America stopped being great. I probably shouldn't have even brought that one up. Nevertheless, not everyone thinks the same way you or anyone else specific does. And you shouldn't make assumptions about someone either.



Actually, 66 million agree with me, and 63 million disagree with me. Which is not particularly relevant, as this is the _ad populum _logical fallacy. If you would like, I can link a free course that will help you learn how to avoid logical fallacies in your manner of thinking.



ResolutionBlaze said:


> Wow.  You literally just defined politics.
> -
> "It's a slogan that indicates something wrong with the country."
> -
> LITERALLY EVERY POLITICIAN DOES THIS!!!!!



Yes, but MAGA has basically been picked up as a wave of hard right white nationalism (read: bigotry). And not usually with this much brainless idiocy:







Just look at the mindless looks of adoration on their faces. I can practically see the flat brainwave EGM from here. It's pathetic.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 17, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> Yet people in the far right quote him all the time, praise his work, demand for him to answer the Jewish question, etc. He sure has a lot of far right followers for someone who the far right supposedly hates. How about you stop defending him and just admit that most of what he says has no basis in factual science and is metaphysical philosophy at best.


Nah, I'd rather you provide evidence for arguments that claims something to be factual or true.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 17, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Actually, 66 million agree with me, and 63 million disagree with me. Which is not particularly relevant, as this is the _ad populum _logical fallacy. If you would like, I can link a free course that will help you learn how to avoid logical fallacies in your manner of thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


>Pretends that this ONLY happens at Trump rallies and NO OTHER POLITICAL RALLIES EVER IN EXISTENCE.
-
Conflate much?


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 17, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Do I seriously have to reverse time for you?  I said I would defend Alt Right as long as groups like Stalinists and Maoists remain untouched because it is a hypocrisy to allow those groups to be on their way and suppress the Alt Right.
> -
> *Is THAT clear enough FOR YOU?*



Where's this massive wave of pro-Stalinists voting for presidents? Where are all these Maoists staging protests? Are they eating, I don't know, hom bows while they burn buildings? Seriously, what are you even trying to say?


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 17, 2018)

All right, checking out for the night. I'm tired of trying to tell someone why supporting a group of neo-Nazi racists is bad. 

NAZI BAD. HATE BAD. PEACE GOOD. Have a lollipop.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 17, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> 1) He still refused to use people's proper pronouns, thus transphobia.
> 
> 2) He openly opposed legislation to protect the rights of trans people, thus transphobia.
> 
> If I'm going to make claims that are based on evidence at least do my research? Why should I when you clearly didn't do yours XD


1) I showed evidence that it was NOT the case.
-
2) He opposed the legislation because the surrounding policies were incomprehensible and enforced pronoun usage and actually could harm transgendered individuals.  If you watched his Senate Hearing on Bill C-16 you would know this but don't bother doing any actual research, you may prove me right.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 17, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Where's this massive wave of pro-Stalinists voting for presidents? Where are all these Maoists staging protests? Are they eating, I don't know, hom bows while they burn buildings? Seriously, what are you even trying to say?


"Bernie Sanders" ring a bell?  Not a Stalinist but many who are in the radical left wanted him to be president.  Granted so did moderates but that just goes to show how weak your argument is; as though some magical wave of Alt Right decided one day they would vote as a homogenous group.  Or how about any humanities course in universities?  If you don't understand what I'm trying to say, idk what to tell you; I can't make it anymore clearer.


----------



## Ginza (May 17, 2018)

This is why we can’t have nice things


----------



## RinjiPantera (May 17, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Actually, 66 million agree with me, and 63 million disagree with me. Which is not particularly relevant, as this is the _ad populum _logical fallacy. If you would like, I can link a free course that will help you learn how to avoid logical fallacies in your manner of thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Says someone who would be doing the same thing with their first female president...regardless of her qualifications or views. Oh wait, Hillary wanted to start a war with Iran if she got elected president. Or how about Benghazi? But honestly, I'm not really in the mood to debate that much politics. My point is, it's certainly not a crime to support the president of the United States. Got a problem with that? Read the Constitution!

*sighs* And no, I'm NOT against having a female president...just not THAT one.


----------



## RinjiPantera (May 17, 2018)

Okay. I'm going to just leave this here: 




Goodnight! I'm admittedly tired from all this.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 17, 2018)

RinjiPantera said:


> Okay. I'm going to just leave this here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank God, you're not one of those people who thinks Deadpool invented the joke.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 17, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Nah, I'd rather you provide evidence for arguments that claims something to be factual or true.



The evidence is right there, all you have to do is look. But I guarantee whatever evidence I provide, you will find some reason, any reason to throw it out. Because you don't care about the truth, you care about winning. 



RinjiPantera said:


> Okay. I'm going to just leave this here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You first XD


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 17, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> The evidence is right there, all you have to do is look. But I guarantee whatever evidence I provide, you will find some reason, any reason to throw it out. Because you don't care about the truth, you care about winning.


I know this is a setup to utilize an excuse that any refutation I make will be dismissed as me "throwing out evidence" and "being unfair".  Arguing tip; if you have to make this prerequisite before posting something maybe you shouldn't be arguing.  It only excuses whatever "evidence" you find to be as logically inconsistent as possible, and any questioning of your argument is met with "throwing out evidence and ignoring the truth".  It's a level of arrogance I cannot conceive.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 17, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> I know this is a setup to utilize an excuse that any refutation I make will be dismissed as me "throwing out evidence" and "being unfair".  Arguing tip; if you have to make this prerequisite before posting something maybe you shouldn't be arguing.  It only excuses whatever "evidence" you find to be as logically inconsistent as possible, and any questioning of your argument is met with "throwing out evidence and ignoring the truth".  It's a level of arrogance I cannot conceive.


All your fancy verbiage doesn't cover up the fact that every time you've been shown evidence on here you shift the goalposts. If you are so desperate to be right, then please, go right into the arms of the waiting red piller incel cryptofascists who pretend their hateful rhetoric is all about "free speech" and not hate speech. Hate speech does not equal free speech, no matter how much you wish to defend it.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 17, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> All your fancy verbiage doesn't cover up the fact that every time you've been shown evidence on here you shift the goalposts. If you are so desperate to be right, then please, go right into the arms of the waiting red piller incel cryptofascists who pretend their hateful rhetoric is all about "free speech" and not hate speech. Hate speech does not equal free speech, no matter how much you wish to defend it.


Hate Speech DOES equal Free Speech because Hate Speech MUST equal Free Speech.  They cannot properly exist without each other.
-
Also, you haven't mentioned me moving any goalposts up until now.  Strange.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 17, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Hate Speech DOES equal Free Speech because Hate Speech MUST equal Free Speech.
> -
> Also, you haven't mentioned me moving any goalposts up until now.  Strange.



No, it doesn't. Hate speech is about as justified as screaming "I have a bomb" on a plane. Hate speech isn't free speech. Good to know you're defending peoples rights to spew hate though. Always a good sign.

Also, It's not strange. I just noticed it.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 17, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> No, it doesn't. Hate speech is about as justified as screaming "I have a bomb" on a plane. Hate speech isn't free speech. Good to know you're defending peoples rights to spew hate though. Always a good sign.
> 
> Also, It's not strange. I just noticed it.


One causes mass hysteria.  Another gives someone a big sad.  One evidently causes damage when utilized improperly; another causes no damage when used at all.  The big difference here is who defines what Hate Speech is?
-
Also if you noticed it perhaps you can give me a specific example rather than continue with accusations.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 17, 2018)

I'll be heading to bed.  I'll likely respond tomorrow; busy day at work and I need my sleep.  Four flights going out all in a row, likely a lot of passengers to take care of


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 17, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> One causes mass hysteria.  Another gives someone a big sad.  One evidently causes damage when utilized improperly; another causes no damage when used at all.  The big difference here is who defines what Hate Speech is?
> -
> Also if you noticed it perhaps you can give me a specific example rather than continue with accusations.



One causes mass hysteria, one leads down the path to horrific things. You clearly don't understand the serious ramifications of what you're standing up for. Please, by all means, lets let the white cis guy lecture minorities on how our experiences don't matter, our lives are tertiary to 'freeze peach' and how if we are threatened by the rise of white nationalism, we should just get over it. I for one am done with this conversation. You can take this as an "owned triggered lawl i win" all you want but honestly, there is a reason why many people turn to violence. JFK once said "If you make peaceful revolution impossible, you make violent revolution inevitable" well you know what? People like you have constantly stood against progress on the wrong side of history. People like you prevented peaceful change and then people resorted to violence out of desperation.

If you wish to die on this hill, you have every right to do so, but don't be surprised when you look around and see the kind of people your 'friends' really are. I have no pity for fools like you.

Edit: Spelling correction.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 17, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> "Bernie Sanders" ring a bell?  Not a Stalinist but many who are in the radical left wanted him to be president.  Granted so did moderates but that just goes to show how weak your argument is; as though some magical wave of Alt Right decided one day they would vote as a homogenous group.  Or how about any humanities course in universities?  If you don't understand what I'm trying to say, idk what to tell you; I can't make it anymore clearer.



Jesus Christ, did you just compare Mr Help Everyone to Stalin? You literally are not making any sense now. 



RinjiPantera said:


> Says someone who would be doing the same thing with their first female president...regardless of her qualifications or views. Oh wait, Hillary wanted to start a war with Iran if she got elected president. Or how about Benghazi? But honestly, I'm not really in the mood to debate that much politics. My point is, it's certainly not a crime to support the president of the United States. Got a problem with that? Read the Constitution!
> 
> *sighs* And no, I'm NOT against having a female president...just not THAT one.



At least she could talk in full sentences. The alt-right likes Trump because they feel like if someone who uses baby-talk can get into the Whitehouse, truly anyone can.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 17, 2018)

_


AK_Sandfire said:



			One causes mass hysteria, one leads down the path to horrific things. You clearly don't understand the serious ramifications of what you're standing up for. Please, by all means, lets let the white cis guy lecture minorities on how our experiences don't matter, our lives are tertiary to 'freeze peach' and how if we are threatened by the rise of white nationalism, we should just get over it. I for one am done with this conversation. You can take this as an "owned triggered lawl i win" all you want but honestly, there is a reason why many people turn to violence. JFK once said "If you make peaceful revolution impossible, you make violent revolution inevitable" well you know what? People like you have constantly stood against progress on the wrong side of history. People like you prevented peaceful change and then people resorted to violence out of desperation.

If you wish to die on this hill, you have every right to do so, but don't be surprised when you look around and see the kind of people your 'friends' really are. I have no pity for fools like you.

Edit: Spelling correction.
		
Click to expand...


"One causes mass hysteria, one leads down the path to horrific things. You clearly don't understand the serious ramifications of what you're standing up for. Please, by all means, lets let the white cis guy lecture minorities on how our experiences don't matter, our lives are tertiary to 'freeze peach' and how if we are threatened by the rise of white nationalism, we should just get over it. I for one am done with this conversation. You can take this as an "owned triggered lawl i win" all you want but honestly, there is a reason why many people turn to violence. JFK once said "If you make peaceful revolution impossible, you make violent revolution inevitable" well you know what? People like you have constantly stood against progress on the wrong side of history. People like you prevented peaceful change and then people resorted to violence out of desperation.

If you wish to die on this hill, you have every right to do so, but don't be surprised when you look around and see the kind of people your 'friends' really are. I have no pity for fools like you.

Edit: Spelling correction."
_
Lol owned


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 17, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Jesus Christ, did you just compare Mr Help Everyone to Stalin? You literally are not making any sense now.
> 
> 
> 
> At least she could talk in full sentences. The alt-right likes Trump because they feel like if someone who uses baby-talk can get into the Whitehouse, truly anyone can.



Can you not read?


----------



## Terastas (May 17, 2018)

Personally, I would think the greater concern is how insignificant the change may end up being. "Alt-right" is, after all, a term that was coined to disassociate with all of the previous labels that we now know are code for hate groups. Now that we know what the "alt-right" truly stands for, it's only a matter of time before they all agree on a new label under which to spew their hate.

So while I do agree with the intent, I worry the effect is going to be akin to putting a bucket under a leaking pipe -- a temporary solution at best.


----------



## Judge Spear (May 17, 2018)

I like that action was just taken against me for making fun of someone that doesn't even have an account on this forum OR FurAffinity proper, but Dragoneer bans people for "suspicions" that are totally off site. lmao

There's that consistently issue again. Whatever.


----------



## Aurocard (May 17, 2018)

I normally lurk about, but I just wanted to throw my brain in for a moment and dump out a pair of Pennies.

I apologise in advance if I seem to make no sense, sometimes my brain just likes to go into deep thought to find the root/cause of an issue and I can't stop it till I reach what my brain thinks to be the bare essentials.

(Spoilered in case anyone wants to skip personal opinion and jump straight to the question about the ban appeal process)



Spoiler



I've got my own code that I follow and one of the lines is as such:

_-If you are not hurting anyone else, and you are fully aware of what you are doing, and being safe about it. I don't care what you do. I'll respect you, if you respect me._

It's pretty "Golden Rule" of course, and in an ideal world it would be absolutely spectacular to have everyone following it and just keeping in mind how other people feel and think.

Unfortunately, this is the world. This is society. 

A collective of _individual beings_ that share a generalised common thought tend to become a their own group. 

The individuality gets lost somewhere in there, and somehow, focus on one's true self and the true self of other's gets overshadowed by statistics and regulations and polls and assumptions and theories and stereotypes and whatever else comes with bunching a set of people within the boundaries of a titled grouping.

Yes, grouping is easier to keep recording information simple. Yes, grouping is great for one unified ideology to rear it's head. 

What it is horrible for, is finding the individual, and seeking out their true intentions. Their reasoning. Their being.

So, you're left with a massive site wide ban that removes not just the actual Nazi's and AltRighters and actual Hate Group enthusiasts and believers....but people who were even showing the TINIEST inkling of researching into something that seems extremist Alt or Hate Group-esque.

This in turn, causes some to get a little upset, perhaps, dare I say it....fuming.

This isn't the first platform to do this, and it will not be the last. 

I'm not a fan of punishing many due to the actions of a few. 

I'm not a fan of innocent people getting the axe because they just happened to say hi to someone who was an Extremist. 

I believe that FA needs to re-evaluate those that feel they were wrongly banned.

Am I saying that each person who feels wrongfully banned was indeed, wrongfully banned? Oh no, no no no. 

What I am saying is every single person is an individual. They have their reasons. Base the judgement on their statements and their rhetoric and demeanour so you can find the nature of the cause.

Give people a chance on their individual merits and flaws. 




I know in the ban notices, there is a way to appeal, but my question concerning that is, are those appeals being listened to AND being judged on indavidual merits and flaws? (regardless of the person sending it in).

Thank you for your time, I apologise again for my tangent. I just wanted to throw my thoughts on groups out there. 

I hope you all have an awesome day


----------



## quoting_mungo (May 17, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> I have a gun to my head from both sides and one is telling me that "when its all over, you're dead" and the other is telling me "when this is all over, as long as you're not a fascist, you'll be protected" I'll gladly side with the antifa people. Hell, Antifa isnt just the black block people at the protests, its far more than that. If you dont like fascism and work against it, even if its in a pacifistic way, you are antifa.


1) I'd change that definition to "If you don't like fascism and work against it, even if it's in a pacifistic way, you have every right to call yourself Antifa." Pushing the label on people for being decent human beings is kinda rude.

2) My experience suggests that "as long as you're not a fascist" will be decided based on the whims of the judge and jury, not necessarily reality. Is Antifa still better than nazis? Yeah, sure. But I don't have much of any faith that there won't be collateral damage, nor that they'll be willing to own their part in causing that damage.



ResolutionBlaze said:


> I've read this article before and Peterson himself wrote about it on Twitter; the accusations are not evidence-based.  His viewers don't consist of anyone really from the Alt Right, in fact, the Alt Right writes slanderous articles about him calling him a jewish shill.


Uh. Huh. 



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/967027082537721856Just... go read that thread. Maybe they call him a Jewish shill, I don't know; if they do they still clearly think he's a _useful_ Jewish shill worth throwing money at. If Peterson claims he has no Alt Right followers, this suggests that he is (at absolute best) singularly ignorant of who his supporters are. He also spews rhetoric that sounds remarkably like something from RoK, which is its own problem.



Aurocard said:


> I know in the ban notices, there is a way to appeal, but my question concerning that is, are those appeals being listened to AND being judged on indavidual merits and flaws? (regardless of the person sending it in).


They should be, within reason; it would be foolish to spend much time listening to a leader of either group plead their case when facts are so obviously against them. That said, individuals who send in an appeal only to the effect of "I think you did something wrong; please unban me" are really doing themselves a disservice. (Note that I have never been one of the staff members reviewing appeals, so my insight into the process is limited.) An appeal should plead your case, acknowledge any wrongs you may have done that may have effected the decision to ban you, and make a clear case for why you feel this action should not have been taken. If you have questions about your ban, make them explicit and specific; "why was I banned?" was answered in the suspension message, so you want to be more specific than that. Be polite and professional in your approach. Don't send multiple emails (beyond, you know, any back-and-forth discussion). Don't curse out staff on social media.


----------



## antonrai18 (May 17, 2018)

There is literally only 1 nazi wannabe in altfurry and his name is legofreak...Who is also (gay)bisexual... So far i have heard everything from "it's okay when it's antifa doing it" to "They have illegal oppinionz we shouldn't give them anywhere to say what they are about letz just kill em all" to be honest anybody can label themselves altfurry either and do stupid shit too


----------



## antonrai18 (May 17, 2018)

"alt right" You mean the crazy christian conservatives? i would quote your message but i can be bothered learning a platform's tools that i will soon be leaving


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 17, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> Uh. Huh.
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/967027082537721856Just... go read that thread. Maybe they call him a Jewish shill, I don't know; if they do they still clearly think he's a _useful_ Jewish shill worth throwing money at. If Peterson claims he has no Alt Right followers, this suggests that he is (at absolute best) singularly ignorant of who his supporters are. He also spews rhetoric that sounds remarkably like something from RoK, which is its own problem



Do I really have to spell out why this is logically unsound and baseless accusation?  I figured you better than this.


----------



## JakeCWolf (May 17, 2018)

Back on topic, the real issue here is this blanket "fix" for a problem that requires a modicum of effort and patience to be done right and fairly. There is a reason we don't carpet bomb during war, and use smart weaponry to avoid collateral damage and affecting innocents. Same thing here, carpet bombed the site, yeah maybe you got some of the real haters, but was it worth all the "I said the word Nazi once in my life in a post 3 years ago" people you banned?

FA thinks so. Food for thought.


----------



## JakeCWolf (May 17, 2018)

So update of sorts on my friend. Turns out not only is her account suspended, she's also _*IP banned*_ from FA. You heard me right. Dragoneer and friends went that far, just to be spiteful.


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (May 17, 2018)

JakeCWolf said:


> So update of sorts on my friend. Turns out not only is her account suspended, she's also _*IP banned*_ from FA. You heard me right. Dragoneer and friends went that far, just to be spiteful.


Very troublesome times we live in. I suggest your friend or yourself use twitter. Almost every artist I know now use that.


----------



## TrishaCat (May 17, 2018)

Where the heck is Dragoneer? Normally when there's an issue on the forum and someone tries to get in contact with him he responds in a timely manner.

Still waiting to find out what's up with the sketchy bans and ban messages.


----------



## TrishaCat (May 17, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> Very troublesome times we live in. I suggest your friend or yourself use twitter. Almost every artist I know now use that.


Please no
Twitter ruins art and makes art discovery a pain.


Spoiler



use Pixiv


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (May 17, 2018)

Battlechili said:


> Where the heck is Dragoneer? Normally when there's an issue on the forum and someone tries to get in contact with him he responds in a timely manner.
> 
> Still waiting to find out what's up with the sketchy bans and ban messages.


Don't put your hopes up. 
FA's management had a bad track record and I'm hardly surprised about this


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 17, 2018)

Isn't FA supposed to be an art sharing site? Why the hell are politics even involved over there? When I go over there I browse art. I don't read people's shitty, meandering journals, I don't join groups, and I don't want to talk about politics there. Why have others tried to turn it into a political war zone? 

I understand doing it here. It's a forum.


----------



## Oblique Lynx (May 17, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Isn't FA supposed to be an art sharing site? Why the hell are politics even involved over there? When I go over there I browse art. I don't read people's shitty, meandering journals, I don't join groups, and I don't want to talk about politics there. Why have others tried to turn it into a political war zone?
> 
> I understand doing it here. It's a forum.


People are strange


----------



## Kyr (May 17, 2018)

Revates said:


> I like that I have appealed to furaffinity for my ban since. I'm not alt-right. I'm a leftist and the only reason I can think that I've been banned is because I joined an alt-right chat to ghost it. So uh... this is good that I have been told I can't appeal my ban, EVEN THOUGH I HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG. Doing a VERY good job! I wonder which historical group has ever conducted ideological purges and doesn't care whether they get anyone else! Not the nazis.


Wow, you were the last person i'd have expected to be hit by this. Seems ironic, you being barred and prevented from speaking in your own defense due to your perceived thoughts and beliefs. Consider it a learning experience. This is some bullshit though so for what it's worth.

@Dragoneer This man does not hold onto Alt right/racist views, nor is he associated with AltFurry or the Raiders in any way. I'd know, i've been in their spheres for months now and i've never seen him post or be listed in the group membership of various chats. He's a left leaning gay boy and i honestly doubt he'd harm a fly, from what i remember of him he's basically apolitical. Banning him from FurAffinity is certainly an unwarranted mistake on the part of your administration team. I would hope that you'd reconsider his banning from your platform as he's certainly not the enemy the new CoC rules have been put in place to combat.

That's that, have a nice life Rev.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 17, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Isn't FA supposed to be an art sharing site? Why the hell are politics even involved over there? When I go over there I browse art. I don't read people's shitty, meandering journals, I don't join groups, and I don't want to talk about politics there. Why have others tried to turn it into a political war zone?
> 
> I understand doing it here. It's a forum.



Art is usually political.  So they coincide.  Though making journals arguing about it is rather pointless.


----------



## Ciderfine (May 17, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> >Communism
> >~150 million dead as a result
> >0% empirical success rate
> 
> M'kay then.


 you know furries still laugh at me when i bring up their body count, communism is the axis of all evil but to them its utopia.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 17, 2018)

Ciderfine said:


> you know furries still laugh at me when i bring up their body count, communism is the axis of all evil but to them its utopia.


Well, Communists aren't motivated by race, so it must be better!


----------



## Ciderfine (May 17, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Well, Communists aren't motivated by race, so it must be better!



What are you talking about? A massive scale of genocide of races happened under communism.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 17, 2018)

Ciderfine said:


> What are you talking about? A massive scale of genocide of races happened under communism.


I was being sarcastic.


----------



## Ciderfine (May 17, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> I was being sarcastic.


 I sadly cant read sarcasm in written words, im a cripple in the online world.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 17, 2018)

Ciderfine said:


> I sadly cant read sarcasm in written words, im a cripple in the online world.


It's okay.
Poe's Law.


----------



## Sora-kun (May 17, 2018)

Here are my main issue.

Punishment for offsite behavior is so wildly reaching it's insane. FA has had a history of people who are known to participate and post on open bestiality forums with video and photographic evidence of what they're doing but staff refused to do anything because it was off-site.

But now that it's politics suddenly punishing people to police their offsite behavior is okay. Do I agree with the opinions these people hold? No, absolutely not. But should they be punished with vague guilt by association rules assuming they are posting nothing about their political activities on the site? Again, no. This isn't trying to make FA a safer place, it's punishing users for having the "wrong" opinions. FA doesn't need to put themselves in the place of needing to be the judge and jury of people's personal political activity.


----------



## TrishaCat (May 18, 2018)

Please, please unban and review everyone you've banned Dragoneer.
There's clearly some flaw with regards to the people chosen for banning, and the lack of actual explained ban reasons is dreadful. It's important to show users what they've done wrong.


----------



## ElFantastico (May 18, 2018)

Not that I have any illusions about the unilateral nature of the relationship between users and the site, but when such an absurd COC update notice has comments blocked, I think it's fair to say that awareness of fault exists and is actively being ignored.  

Making no judgement upon users or content, the direction this site has been taking for years has passed from respectable to merely tolerable, and history shows that I've kept my expectations far lower than others.  I figure that soon enough I'll be divorced from it regardless of my ability or desire to tolerate. This is hardly a positive atmosphere.


----------



## ElFantastico (May 18, 2018)

JakeCWolf said:


> We've all been guilty of that. We furs are to forgiving sometimes, willing to let crap slide long after everyone else has rioted. Starting to wonder if IMVU put a figurative  gun to Dragoneer's head or something, and they are are keeping the imaginary barrel firmly on his temple to keep him from talking. I've seen his posts on Twitters, happy tweets and funny images like everything here is hunky freakin' dory. He's clearly gone full autistic on us. Whether that is by his own choice or not is not known and largely irrelevant.



I suppose the potential involvement of IMVU is a point to consider, but regardless of the source of this nonsense, the fact that there are always people concealing the source of motivation and defending the outcomes means that there's plenty of blame to go around.  I know it's been a long road, but even a history of maintenance and design issues is less condemning of character than this shit.


----------



## quoting_mungo (May 18, 2018)

ElFantastico said:


> Not that I have any illusions about the unilateral nature of the relationship between users and the site, but when such an absurd COC update notice has comments blocked, I think it's fair to say that awareness of fault exists and is actively being ignored.


That's a _really_ flawed assumption. Look at what happened to the comments of www.furaffinity.net: 9/4/2017 - Code of Conduct Update -- Fender's Journal before they were turned off. Also consider that in the last year or two of my time on staff, I was probably the staff member who spent the most time monitoring newspost comments and answering questions. Most likely 65% of the comments would be some variation of "but Antifa!", another 20% would be "but why was X banned?", another 10% would be "Yay X has been banned!" and of the remaining 5% less than half would be legitimate questions or concerns rather than people shitposting. Percentages are total ass-pull, but <=2.5% comments that actually matter sounds pretty on par for newsposts in general.

I don't _like_ that comments are turned off, but I can look at the situation and say "yeah, there's definitely rational reasons why they might want to do this."



ResolutionBlaze said:


> Do I really have to spell out why this is logically unsound and baseless accusation? I figured you better than this.


I'm not really accusing anyone of anything. I'm making the observation that if you somehow miss every single one of 100+ alt-right people making monthly donations to you, you're remarkably ignorant of who your viewer base is, and definitely not in a position to boldly state that you have no alt-right supporters. That is not saying that Peterson personally is alt-right, but I find it difficult to believe he's as ignorant of their approval as you make him out to be.

The RoK-esque statement came out of an interview:


> And maybe you even have it worse than other people do. [...] That sucks. What are you going to do about it? Cast yourself as a victim? No. That isn’t the right way forward. First of all, it’s cringing and weak.


That last sentence feels like it's right out of RoK. There are plenty of reasons that casting yourself as the victim isn't healthy. "It's weak" is... problematic at best. 



Battlechili said:


> Where the heck is Dragoneer? Normally when there's an issue on the forum and someone tries to get in contact with him he responds in a timely manner.
> 
> Still waiting to find out what's up with the sketchy bans and ban messages.


FA is not going to make public statements about bans; doing so would be a breech of user privacy.


----------



## Cawdabra (May 18, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> FA is not going to make public statements about bans; doing so would be a breech of user privacy.


What annoys me is that they won't even make private statements about bans either. It's like a passive-aggressive "You know what you did!" response.


----------



## TrishaCat (May 18, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> FA is not going to make public statements about bans; doing so would be a breech of user privacy.


He doesn't need to make a public statement about individual bans. I mean a general one. Something like "several unoffending users were unintentionally banned and we're working to correct this" or "many users were given poor ban messages and we intend to correct this to improve site transparency" or something.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 18, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> I'm not really accusing anyone of anything. I'm making the observation that if you somehow miss every single one of 100+ alt-right people making monthly donations to you, you're remarkably ignorant of who your viewer base is, and definitely not in a position to boldly state that you have no alt-right supporters. That is not saying that Peterson personally is alt-right, but I find it difficult to believe he's as ignorant of their approval as you make him out to be.
> 
> The RoK-esque statement came out of an interview:
> 
> That last sentence feels like it's right out of RoK. There are plenty of reasons that casting yourself as the victim isn't healthy. "It's weak" is... problematic at best.



Where.  Is.  Your.  Evidence?

You don't make claims of truth without evidence, in which you've provided none except in the form of tweets that likewise show no evidence.  There is no evidence that a significant proportion of his followers and donators are Alt-Right.  So I don't know where you're pulling this "100+" figure.  So unless you have something tangible to show me I have no reason to argue against it.

Also, if playing a victim doesn't make you weaker, what doesn't make you?  Stronger?  These are pretty black and white when applied; victimizing yourself makes you weak.  I want to know exactly what's so problematic about the term and what's so false about it.


----------



## antonrai18 (May 18, 2018)

"let me ban people based on who we suspect from the altfurry blocklists may or may not be right wing but let's deny any and all trial and ways to appeal if they are not right wing" First off by using this site for so many years i did not really care that Dragoneer is left wing or an antifa supporter and i knew for the majority of the time he was... Then by these very same bans one of my friends who was also a communist that died 2016 by widespread stomach cancer (god bless his poor soul) was also banned. And he was ironically on the altfurry blocklist. So im very sure dragoneer was either paid or pressured to do this by antifa. I don't care about politics but dragoneer and crew is literally copying what the soviets and nazis did "See anybody with differing beliefs/ethnicity? Report them to us and we will mark them with a big star of david and later we will send them to work camps till they die!!!" or in this case get banned en masse... Alt left exists and there is plenty of proof of this. They have beaten up more people than the alt right has even thought. Che guevara wasn't exactly peaceful just like Stalin was not...


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (May 18, 2018)

I feel like this is the nail in the coffin for FA.


----------



## Judge Spear (May 18, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> I feel like this is the nail in the coffin for FA.



Then FA's coffin must be made entirely of nails.
We've been saying this every other time this dumb site royally fucks up. You know they'll be just fine.

A change is made but is egregiously handled that rightfully pisses off, pushes away, or in this case forcibly removes people for flimsy inconsistent reasons.
Dragoneer will ignore the complaints and lay low on Twitter pretending he's too busy to see what's going on unless he gets called out by literally the _entire_ site or someone popular/he follows.
A week will pass and people go right back to not caring once their favorite artists post some porn.

Business as usual. Why is any other outcome expected at this point?


----------



## JakeCWolf (May 18, 2018)

XoPachi said:


> Then FA's coffin must be made entirely of nails.
> We've been saying this every other time this dumb site royally fucks up. You know they'll be just fine.
> 
> A change is made but is egregiously handled that rightfully pisses off, pushes away, or in this case forcibly removes people for flimsy inconsistent reasons.
> ...



Well we all have our talents in life. Hiding from the truth and making dumb, rash decisions are two of Dragoneer's talents.

Also heard rumors that Antifuck might be to blame. Not a rumormonger or conspiracy theorist by any stretch of the imagination, but it's oddly convenient how they get excluded from the list when the FBI considers them domestic terrorists. Makes you think doesn't it?


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 18, 2018)

JakeCWolf said:


> Well we all have our talents in life. Hiding from the truth and making dumb, rash decisions are two of Dragoneer's talents.
> 
> Also heard rumors that Antifuck might be to blame. Not a rumormonger or conspiracy theorist by any stretch of the imagination, but it's oddly convenient how they get excluded from the list when the FBI considers them domestic terrorists. Makes you think doesn't it?



"But the title is ANTIFASCIST they CAN'T be bad people."

"Pffft, you think Alt Furry are liberals?  It's called ALT FURRY!"


----------



## antonrai18 (May 18, 2018)

"Everybody is able to label themselves antifa so this means they are not terrorists even though they fetishize violence with political aim against civilians but altfurry are the real terrorists because muh name"


----------



## antonrai18 (May 18, 2018)

So far the alt left has been 1. launching smear campaigns against altfurry 2. launching fake propaganda against altfurry 3. advocating for the genocide of altfurry when the only thing altfurry said is that they want politics out of the fandom


----------



## JakeCWolf (May 18, 2018)

So, turns out some very generous soul has decided to force Dragoneer out of hiding by taking his ass to court over this. Given IMVU have gone out of their way to hide any forms of contact, our favorite purple digimon fur gets to be the target. Looks like he finally has a problem he can't hide on Twitter from, he'll damn well try, I imagine. But skipping out on a court date in the US is a *bad *idea;


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/997592192708325376


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 18, 2018)

JakeCWolf said:


> So, turns out some very generous soul has decided to force Dragoneer out of hiding by taking his ass to court over this. Given IMVU have gone out of their way to hide any forms of contact, our favorite purple digimon fur gets to be the target. Looks like he finally has a problem he can't hide on Twitter from, he'll damn well try, I imagine. But skipping out on a court date in the US is a *bad *idea;
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/997592192708325376



Good luck you stupid mother fuckers. It's a private site and they can ban whoever they want. XD


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 18, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Good luck you stupid mother fuckers. It's a private site and they can ban whoever they want. XD



You know I'm enjoying this way too much. You alt righters are such a bunch of pathetic pansies XD


----------



## Cawdabra (May 18, 2018)

JakeCWolf said:


> So, turns out some very generous soul has decided to force Dragoneer out of hiding by taking his ass to court over this. Given IMVU have gone out of their way to hide any forms of contact, our favorite purple digimon fur gets to be the target. Looks like he finally has a problem he can't hide on Twitter from, he'll damn well try, I imagine. But skipping out on a court date in the US is a *bad *idea;
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/997592192708325376


This is going to be interesting. I have my doubts anything good will come from it though.


----------



## Judge Spear (May 18, 2018)

JakeCWolf said:


> So, turns out some very generous soul has decided to force Dragoneer out of hiding by taking his ass to court over this. Given IMVU have gone out of their way to hide any forms of contact, our favorite purple digimon fur gets to be the target. Looks like he finally has a problem he can't hide on Twitter from, he'll damn well try, I imagine. But skipping out on a court date in the US is a *bad *idea;
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/997592192708325376



This is so needless and embarrassing.


----------



## Judge Spear (May 18, 2018)

Ah! Rev got unbanned. How nice. :>


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (May 18, 2018)

It didn't take long before evidence of abuse of this new update to show up :V


----------



## Ciderfine (May 18, 2018)

JakeCWolf said:


> Found this little gem via my friend who got banned. Speaking of which, turns out she wasn't IP banned, but has confirmed multiple other people feeling Dragoneer's unthinking wrath have been. I don't know if this can get anymore childish at this point, but I don't doubt it.


   Thats a guchii good edit


----------



## TrishaCat (May 18, 2018)

The ancient evil has been defeated!

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/997613378850836480
Although now I'm wondering about the other people who got banned.


----------



## Izzy4895 (May 18, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> You know I'm enjoying this way too much. You alt righters are such a bunch of pathetic pansies XD



The conspiracy theories about Dragoneer being on Antifa’s payroll or being blackmailed by them are amusing enough. This alleged lawsuit has no legal basis.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 18, 2018)

Battlechili said:


> The ancient evil has been defeated!
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/997613378850836480
> Although now I'm wondering about the other people who got banned.



That person should apply to a soap opera.


----------



## JakeCWolf (May 18, 2018)

Ciderfine said:


> Thats a guchii good edit



I have no idea who made it, but it's just one of those special memes that really sets home how messed up this all is.


----------



## RinjiPantera (May 18, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> That person should apply to a soap opera.



Triggered much? lol

I say that lawsuit needed to be expanded to cover the slander the updated CoC is imposing on people and have it removed. Guilt by association is _not_ a justifiable offense. Until a person actually says or does something illegal, the FA admins have no right to just arbitrarily ban someone. In short, that's (real) fascism.


----------



## Revates (May 18, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> That person should apply to a soap opera.



Do you think I'd get the best actor award?


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 18, 2018)

RinjiPantera said:


> Triggered much? lol
> 
> I say that lawsuit needed to be expanded to cover the slander the updated CoC is imposing on people and have it removed. Guilt by association is _not_ a justifiable offense. Until a person actually says or does something illegal, the FA admins have no right to just arbitrarily ban someone. In short, that's (real) fascism.



Lol. You alt-righters are so fucking butthurt. 

Actually, that's kind of the definition of being alt-right. It's literally based on people who have NO discrimination against them whatsoever turning themselves into a castigated minority. Because umm, they're bored, losing privilege, and usually pretty stupid.



Revates said:


> Do you think I'd get the best actor award?



Just make sure to blow things out of proportion and make lawsuits out of tiny issues, you'll do fine.


----------



## Izzy4895 (May 18, 2018)

JakeCWolf said:


> So, turns out some very generous soul has decided to force Dragoneer out of hiding by taking his ass to court over this. Given IMVU have gone out of their way to hide any forms of contact, our favorite purple digimon fur gets to be the target. Looks like he finally has a problem he can't hide on Twitter from, he'll damn well try, I imagine. But skipping out on a court date in the US is a *bad *idea;
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/997592192708325376



Update: I sniffed around a bit, and the guy filing this lawsuit is the game guy _who filed a frivolous lawsuit against Topps in an attempt to gain co-ownership of it close to a decade ago._  That in itself speaks volumes of the credibility of the person behind this lawsuit attempt.


----------



## Simo (May 18, 2018)

Izzy4895 said:


> Update: I sniffed around a bit, and the guy filing this lawsuit is the game guy _who filed a frivolous lawsuit against Topps in an attempt to gain co-ownership of it close to a decade ago._  That in itself speaks volumes of the credibility of the person behind this lawsuit attempt.



Topps? 

Maybe he just wants all that really hard pink gum that used to come with baseball cards, and is still bitter about losing.


----------



## Judge Spear (May 19, 2018)

Revates said:


> Do you think I'd get the best actor award?



Rev, I'll give you any award you desire.


----------



## JakeCWolf (May 19, 2018)

Izzy4895 said:


> Update: I sniffed around a bit, and the guy filing this lawsuit is the game guy _who filed a frivolous lawsuit against Topps in an attempt to gain co-ownership of it close to a decade ago._  That in itself speaks volumes of the credibility of the person behind this lawsuit attempt.



At this point, I don't really care who puts the screws to Dragoneer, as long as it's someone.


----------



## antonrai18 (May 19, 2018)

As far as i heard that very same guy actually won multiple lawsuits against big companies so idk... Though having someone fight against censorship is always good. It's actually kinda stupid if we think about it... it's 2018 and people are still trying to censor other people...


----------



## Revates (May 19, 2018)

XoPachi said:


> Rev, I'll give you any award you desire.



Can it be friendship


----------



## Judge Spear (May 19, 2018)

Revates said:


> Can it be friendship


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 20, 2018)

Dunno why people are hung up on this lawsuit thing.

We all know it's a bullshit scare tactic.  I've seen it all the time with Radical Left Furs and Alt Right Furs.

It's really an excuse to ignore the travesty that is this CoC and the shoddy excuses and job Dragoneer has done, while he keeps posting on Twitter like nothing is even happening or that people aren't actually upset about this.


----------



## Armaetus (May 20, 2018)

We should not be glorifying any form of far left or far right ideology, be it Nazism or Communism on this website, period. There should be no favoritism by the administration, which it seems to be and it's towards the left, and they seem to have blinders on to what's going on from the left/far left and whatever political violence Antifa have caused in the past. "No evidence" cop-out, more like it.

Either that or they caved in to all the whining.


----------



## LuxVolans (May 20, 2018)

This could all be resolved so easily really.  

1: Either define "Alt-Right," only judge those who actually claim to be "Alt-Right," or Remove the label "Alt-Right" And list specific organizations.

2: Include Antifa in the list of prohibited organizations.

3: Include some form of Due Process into the actual effect of banning.  Compile evidence, present it, and then ban.  None of this "Summary Execution" banning shit they're doing.


----------



## Armaetus (May 20, 2018)

I'm glad I'm not the only one up in arms over this change here, and furries erroneously labeling others when they aren't as "Alt-Right" or "Alt Furry" is technically slander.


----------



## Oblique Lynx (May 20, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Just make sure to blow things out of proportion and make lawsuits out of tiny issues, you'll do fine.



I'm not familiar with this person, but if defamation is involved then it's hardly a _tiny _issue. Having a tarnished reputation can severely hurt someone depending on what their livelihood is.


----------



## LuxVolans (May 20, 2018)

Glaice said:


> We should not be glorifying any form of far left or far right ideology, be it Nazism or Communism on this website, period. There should be no favoritism by the administration, which it seems to be and it's towards the left, and they seem to have blinders on to what's going on from the left/far left and whatever political violence Antifa have caused in the past. "No evidence" cop-out, more like it.
> 
> Either that or they caved in to all the whining.



It's not a cop-out, it's a complete lie. 

1: FBI and DoHS define AntiFa as a "Domestic Terrorist" Organization.  There is absolutely no reason, logical justification, or intellectually honest excuse one can create to NOT include them.  

2: To deny that AntiFa, or BAMN are inherently violent groups is to deny every form of evidence on the planet. I've found it hard to find official AntiFa gatherings that didn't involve SOME kind of arrest, or assault documented.  Hell, there's more evidence for AntiFa being Violent than there is for the Furry Raiders being "Nazis!"

There is a complete and obvious bias here.  The furry fandom is obviously inherently to the left, and I say fine to that.  Be as left as you want.  But as soon as you start A)Advocating violent groups/giving them a free pass, and B) Trying to force your opinions or your own prejudice/thought policing on others, Now I have a problem.


----------



## Armaetus (May 20, 2018)

So Dragoneer and co flat out lied then, _that_ I have a problem with.


----------



## DeeTheDragon (May 20, 2018)

LuxVolans said:


> It's not a cop-out, it's a complete lie.
> 
> 1: FBI and DoHS define AntiFa as a "Domestic Terrorist" Organization.  There is absolutely no reason, logical justification, or intellectually honest excuse one can create to NOT include them.
> 
> ...


Are they clasified as a "Domestic Terrorist" Organization?  I know that AntiFa have been classified by DoHS as "Anarchist Estremist" (not that that's any better) but I've yet to see any public documents labeling them as a Domestic Terrorist Organization.

I think we need an improved staff transparency.  It's hard to tell what's going through their minds and I can only speculate.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 20, 2018)

Oblique Lynx said:


> I'm not familiar with this person, but if defamation is involved then it's hardly a _tiny _issue. Having a tarnished reputation can severely hurt someone depending on what their livelihood is.



You're right, hopefully Dragoneer realizes this and files a counter suit for defamation. Good idea!


----------



## LuxVolans (May 20, 2018)

DeeTheDragon said:


> Are they clasified as a "Domestic Terrorist" Organization?  I know that AntiFa have been classified by DoHS as "Anarchist Estremist" (not that that's any better) but I've yet to see any public documents labeling them as a Domestic Terrorist Organization.
> 
> I think we need an improved staff transparency.  It's hard to tell what's going through their minds and I can only speculate.




They are.  The link can be found in the original post.

Transparency is definitely an issue!  Though it's clear they have a very heavy bias, the fact that they try to cloud it in the obfuscation and distortion of facts, and attempts to remove or edit the actual definitions of existing words.


----------



## Yakamaru (May 20, 2018)

LuxVolans said:


> They are.  The link can be found in the original post.
> 
> Transparency is definitely an issue!  Though it's clear they have a very heavy bias, the fact that they try to cloud it in the obfuscation and distortion of facts, and attempts to remove or edit the actual definitions of existing words.


From the article itself, directly under the headline:

"Confidential documents call the anarchists that seek to counter white supremacists ‘domestic terrorists.’"
^ Confidential documents, aka classified. Not public documents, which is what Dee specifically asked for.

That said, yes, their *actions* have been classified as domestic terrorism. Them as a group? No, not as of yet.
https://www.oodaloop.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/DHSBaseline-Anarchist-Extremists.pdf
www.njhomelandsecurity.gov: Anarchist Extremists: Antifa

Though I wouldn't be surprised they release those documents soon, and officially classify them as domestic terrorists.


----------



## LuxVolans (May 20, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> From the article itself, directly under the headline:
> 
> "Confidential documents call the anarchists that seek to counter white supremacists ‘domestic terrorists.’"
> ^ Confidential documents, aka classified. Not public documents, which is what Dee specifically asked for.
> ...




Ah, My mistake.  Thank you for calling and pointing that out.


----------



## antonrai18 (May 20, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> From the article itself, directly under the headline:
> 
> "Confidential documents call the anarchists that seek to counter white supremacists ‘domestic terrorists.’"
> ^ Confidential documents, aka classified. Not public documents, which is what Dee specifically asked for.
> ...


Be ready for someone to pull the "b-b-b-but your skin tone!!!" tactic on you soon...


----------



## Yakamaru (May 20, 2018)

LuxVolans said:


> Ah, My mistake.  Thank you for calling and pointing that out.


No worries, man. I could've written it in a more friendly tone though.

If I knew about official and public documents directly naming them domestic terrorists I would have put them on the table immediately.


----------



## webkilla (May 21, 2018)

Hmm, it seems that the thread where I posted the antifa bomb-factory story got nuked or something - how odd

Allow me to post it again just for reference:

Thüringen: Regierung von Bodo Ramelow nach Sprengstofffunden unter Druck - WELT

You'll have to do the google translate dance unless you speak and read german - but the long and short of it was that prior to the G20 summit in Hamburg German police uncovered a legit antifa *bomb factory.
*
Sure, none of those bombs ever got set off as far as we know - but the article isn't mincing words here: This was a far-left terrorist operation, under the antifa banner.

Speaking the g20 summit in Hamburg:

Hamburg G20 protests: What is Antifa? Who are the 'Welcome to Hell' protestors? 


Now, I'm tirred of hearing antifa-apologists saying that antifa is just a mindset - not a real group. Well, a mob of some 8000 uniformed (black-clad and masked) antifa goons set Hamburg ablaze back last year, and considering the number of police officers who ended up in hospital during the clashes with those antifa rioters (there's no mistaking the "antifashista" chant) then I think its fair to say that yes: Antifa is dangerous, though from what I can tell then US antifa is really weak-sauce compared to the european ones, which is why their greatest accomplishments so far amounts to setting a few fires at some US colleges, compared to bringing a city of some 5 million to its knees. Not even the january riots at the Trump inauguration compare to the g20 battles the police had with the antifa rioters.

...and mods: please don't delete this thread - I'm already getting tired of having to dig up links for this again


----------



## Oblique Lynx (May 21, 2018)

webkilla said:


> Hmm, it seems that the thread where I posted the antifa bomb-factory story got nuked or something - how odd
> 
> Allow me to post it again just for reference:
> 
> ...


Wait... they actually _deleted _the thread, rather than locked it. I can't find the _ban antifa _thread through my notifications.


----------



## webkilla (May 22, 2018)

Oblique Lynx said:


> Wait... they actually _deleted _the thread, rather than locked it. I can't find the _ban antifa _thread through my notifications.



I couldn't find it either - and honestly, considering how much documentation had been linked in that thread to show how bad antifa is - then that's kind a disengenuous


Like how US Homeland security and FBI has labeled at least parts of antifa as domestic terrorists: www.politico.com: FBI, Homeland Security warn of more ‘antifa’ attacks

It is not difficult to google your way to this kind of stuff.


Antifa is not democratic, its not peaceful, and their definition of who gets punched seems really damn sketchy.

During the G20 summit in Hamburg, the journalist Tim Poole (who made his name living in and reporting live from the original Occupy Wallstreet camps) was randomly accused of being a "non-german identitarian" or fascists because Lauren Southern WALKED PAST HIM at one point (he's bi-racial for christ's sake!) and he had to flee the protest because he started getting attacked!




 - interview with a german journalist who somehow also got accused of being a foreign fascist, who got assaulted because of that!

Assaulting random journalists seems like a really peaceful thing, right?


----------



## quoting_mungo (May 22, 2018)

webkilla said:


> During the G20 summit in Hamburg, the journalist Tim Poole (who made his name living in and reporting live from the original Occupy Wallstreet camps) was randomly accused of being a "non-german identitarian" or fascists because Lauren Southern WALKED PAST HIM at one point (he's bi-racial for christ's sake!) and he had to flee the protest because he started getting attacked!


That's factually incorrect according to the video you posted. Tim Pool chose to leave before any attacking happened, because he judged the Twitter activity indicated that remaining at the protest was unsafe. "Lauren Southern walked past him" is also a skewing of facts - the reason was not directly that he was in proximity of Lauren Southern, but that someone took a photo of her, he happened to be in the shot along with the German young man he's interviewing in the second half of the video, and the individual did not do their due diligence but labeled the lot of them "identitarians". That _photo_ getting traction on Twitter is the reason they were attacked. 

The scenario you're presenting is excluding the Twitter rumor mill, when that was almost certainly the trigger for the attack on the German young man and the unnamed American journalist he was with at the time. Otherwise the attack would logically have happened in much closer connection to Lauren Southern passing them in the street. So yeah, social media is an excellent tool for spreading erroneous information, and sometimes that information gets people hurt.

Also worth noting is that it was the _same_ group that attacked the German national and the journalist both times. This is pretty strong support for the idea that one of two things is true:
1) The people who attacked them are the kind of assholes that seek out protests in the hopes of finding a fight
2) A small subset of the protesters held the value that assaulting people of differing ideologies is okay and were prepared to act on that value.

So yeah. The people who assaulted these folks were dickbags, they did a bad, they should face assault charges, and social media can be the catalyst for a lot of hella objectionable shit. Should Twitter links be removed from FA profiles because Twitter can and often is used for evil, too? :V

No one has claimed that specific Antifa "chapters" or individuals can't be violent. However, violence is _still_ not integral to the common ideology, and there has been no evidence that the FA "chapter" of Antifa has encouraged violence in any form. Any isolated incidents of individuals identifying as Antifa crossing the boundary of acceptable speech can be (and have been) easily and straightforwardly addressed with the rules that are already in place.


----------



## Reshizard (May 22, 2018)

I need to point this out to everyone who is getting upset over FA CoC 2.7 and are upset about this "violation" of free speech;

If you really want to listen to what hate groups say, and parrot what they say, go for it, but keep in mind that said groups would use you at best as trinkets to say "see? we are a tolerant people, look at these furries who joined us" but if you all displease them in any way, they will turn on you in a heartbeat and the worst thing that could happen is they will try to kill you/ make your lives living hell because their ideologies consider furries to be degenerates. It doesn't matter if you are white, they hate anyone who isn't their version of "white"


----------



## webkilla (May 22, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> However, violence is _still_ not integral to the common ideology, and there has been no evidence that the FA "chapter" of Antifa has encouraged violence in any form. Any isolated incidents of individuals identifying as Antifa crossing the boundary of acceptable speech can be (and have been) easily and straightforwardly addressed with the rules that are already in place.



ok hold on

I'll grant that I simplified things with regards to my description of events of the video - but I was trying to give a brief summary. IMO my point still stands that someone accused innocent bystanders of being fascists which resulted in antifa thugs assaulting someone.

Now, you say that violence isn't integral to the "common ideology" of antifa?

I'm going to have to challenge you on that.

You see, even wikipedia of all places Antifa (United States) - Wikipedia admit that at the least the US parts of antifa are MILITANT.

When a word like that is used, it very much so implies the use of force and violence. The page even cites examples of antifa engaging in 'militant protest tactics' that cause property damage and physical violence.

So... no, you're wrong. When the overall description of antifa in the US (which doesn't mention antifa in Europe) say they engage in violence to further their political goals - then it seems very integral to their common ideology.


I mean, I do recall "Bash the fash" being a rather trendy meme a while ago - pushed by antifa and its supporters on social media.


Now, secondly you claim that the FA 'chapter' of antifa has never encouraged violence.

Ahem: Taking just 5 minutes to look up "antifa" on FA, I found all of this:

www.furaffinity.net: ANTIFA Fnaf 'Poster' by Rotking
www.furaffinity.net: band aids won't fix that by catcooties
www.furaffinity.net: Its Fuckin Dope by Nemo
www.furaffinity.net: Nazi Furs Fuck Off by DI-FL
www.furaffinity.net: .: Nazis Furs STINK ! by Meoxie
www.furaffinity.net: Bash the fash by Azalea
www.furaffinity.net: [p] ugly fucking rats by wo7f
www.furaffinity.net: Seriously, though, fuck off by Nuttychooky
www.furaffinity.net: Make Nazis Afraid Again by lustylamb
www.furaffinity.net: I'm with Deo by embriel
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/27284927/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/26456910/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/20426428/

Encouraging violence right?

These things aren't exactly subtle in what message you're supposed to get from them.


So... no. You're wrong there - there are antifa supporters here on FA who are very much so encouraging violence. Sure, its against "nazis" and "nazi-furs" - but as has been noted with the Tim Poole video: Antifa isn't always that good at identifying who's a nazi or fascist - but that doesn't stop them from assaulting people.


To the mod staff: you should put antifa on par with the alt-right as another terrorist or hate-group that encourages violence. Baring that, a public statement that you're ok with left-wing political violence would actually be kinda nice.


----------



## Reshizard (May 22, 2018)

@webkilla even if antifa is a terrorist group, they don't have deaths verifiably linked to them, the alt-right and hate groups do hence alt-right and other hate groups being given the boot


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 22, 2018)

Reshizard said:


> @webkilla even if antifa is a terrorist group, they don't have deaths verifiably linked to them, the alt-right and hate groups do hence alt-right and other hate groups being given the boot



They've lit police officers on fire.

The only reason they haven't killed people is because they've been lucky.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 22, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> They've lit police officers on fire.
> 
> The only reason they haven't killed people is because they've been lucky.



Hey guess what? Far right extremists cause far more damage than Islamist extremists, in this example, and nothin near AntiFa extremism. (You'll probably say the example doesn't apply, which isn't true, because that's goalpost shifting. It's a comparison and a valid one.) 

Not all of us are fooled by your racist "but what about these people" examples. It's like a criminal saying "well these people all did it too, why am I the bad guy?"  

www.politifact.com: Fact-checking Cory Booker's stat about white nationalists


----------



## Yakamaru (May 22, 2018)

Reshizard said:


> @webkilla even if antifa is a terrorist group, they don't have deaths verifiably linked to them, the alt-right and hate groups do hence alt-right and other hate groups being given the boot


www.washingtontimes.com: Eric Clanton, former Calif. professor, arrested in ‘violent’ bike lock attacks on Trump supporters
www.berkeleyside.com: Eric Clanton charged with four counts of assault with deadly weapon
Allow me to introduce to you Eric Clanton. A former community college professor teaching ethics(which quite frankly is ironic as hell, considering what he did) who almost murdered a Trump supporter during an event at Berkeley back in 2017. His nickname is more known as "The Bike Lock Terrorist" and is currently facing 40 YEARS in prison and a $40k fine.

But the Alt-Right have members who are worse, I am sure?


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 22, 2018)

LuxVolans said:


> This could all be resolved so easily really.
> 
> 1: Either define "Alt-Right," only judge those who actually claim to be "Alt-Right," or Remove the label "Alt-Right" And list specific organizations.
> 
> ...



Alt right has already been defined. Do you not read the papers?


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 22, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Hey guess what? Far right extremists cause far more damage than Islamist extremists, in this example, and nothin near AntiFa extremism. (You'll probably say the example doesn't apply, which isn't true, because that's goalpost shifting. It's a comparison and a valid one.)
> 
> Not all of us are fooled by your racist "but what about these people" examples. It's like a criminal saying "well these people all did it too, why am I the bad guy?"
> 
> www.politifact.com: Fact-checking Cory Booker's stat about white nationalists



The article clearly stated that Islamic terror could have potentially caused more damaged despite having fewer attacks.  So your statement that it has caused less damage is questionable at best.

Also, take care not to call me racist... you don't want to start down that road.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 22, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> The article clearly stated that Islamic terror could have potentially caused more damaged despite having fewer attacks.  So your statement that it has caused less damage is questionable at best.
> 
> Also, take care not to call me racist... you don't want to start down that road.



To clarify - number of attacks. Your deflection is noted but invalid. 

Also notice that NO ONE HERE IS DEFENDING ANTIFA. Their violent tactics have no place in peaceful society. So until I see someone actually sayin AntiFas vioience is okay, this whole argument is literally a red herring. 

Don't worry, we all know racists are never racist. They just "don't want *certain people* coming into the country," they want to focus on "black on black crime," and worry incessantly about impoverish city areas but ignore the social problems white people face in their own areas, and so on and so forth.


----------



## TrishaCat (May 22, 2018)

webkilla said:


> Ahem: Taking just 5 minutes to look up "antifa" on FA, I found all of this:
> 
> www.furaffinity.net: ANTIFA Fnaf 'Poster' by Rotking
> www.furaffinity.net: band aids won't fix that by catcooties
> ...


Not that I disagree with your overall point, but some of these are just art and not literally encouraging violence.
Granted, some of these ARE violent propoganda (the poster ones especially), but I'd be careful not to include and mix in art as art shouldn't be banned or removed even if it depicts bad things.


----------



## Reshizard (May 22, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> www.washingtontimes.com: Eric Clanton, former Calif. professor, arrested in ‘violent’ bike lock attacks on Trump supporters
> www.berkeleyside.com: Eric Clanton charged with four counts of assault with deadly weapon
> Allow me to introduce to you Eric Clanton. A former community college professor teaching ethics(which quite frankly is ironic as hell, considering what he did) who almost murdered a Trump supporter during an event at Berkeley back in 2017. His nickname is more known as "The Bike Lock Terrorist" and is currently facing 40 YEARS in prison and a $40k fine.
> 
> But the Alt-Right have members who are worse, I am sure?


I condemn extremists  in antifa, he did that and I condemn what he did. What about James Alex fields aka the man who committed the ramming attack in Charlottesville, do you condemn him? What about Christopher Cantwell aka the crying nazi who was arrested for inciting violence?


----------



## Reshizard (May 22, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> They've lit police officers on fire.
> 
> The only reason they haven't killed people is because they've been lucky.


got any proof from a neutral source? no breitbart, washington free beacon, fox news or any other conservative news sources


----------



## webkilla (May 22, 2018)

Battlechili said:


> Not that I disagree with your overall point, but some of these are just art and not literally encouraging violence.
> Granted, some of these ARE violent propoganda (the poster ones especially), but I'd be careful not to include and mix in art as art shouldn't be banned or removed even if it depicts bad things.



"These are just art" - and the message they convey is that the artist wishes violence done a certain group of people.

What's the difference between art and propaganda? What's the difference between art and a war-banner?

The point of the COC2.7 rule was that any group that advocates hate or violence is not to be allowed on FA - and you just yourself admitted that its violent propaganda.

My point stands




Reshizard said:


> got any proof from a neutral source? no breitbart, washington free beacon, fox news or any other conservative news sources



I don't know about cops being lit on fire - but...

www.theatlantic.com: More Than 70 Police Officers Injured in G20 Protests
www.reuters.com: Dozens of police injured in G20 protests as Merkel seeks consensus
www.standard.co.uk: More than 70 police officers injured in violent G20 protests
www.abc.net.au: Nearly 200 police injured as G20 protesters torch cars, loot stores in Hamburg


----------



## Yakamaru (May 22, 2018)

Reshizard said:


> I condemn extremists  in antifa, he did that and I condemn what he did. What about James Alex fields aka the man who committed the ramming attack in Charlottesville, do you condemn him? What about Christopher Cantwell aka the crying nazi who was arrested for inciting violence?


I condemn them both. One is a murderer the other a lunatic. 

Again. Feel free to source where Alt-Right members have been more violent than ANTIFA members. The evidence is clearly out there somewhere, seeing as you've made such a claim.


----------



## Cawdabra (May 22, 2018)

webkilla said:


> Ahem: Taking just 5 minutes to look up "antifa" on FA, I found all of this:
> 
> www.furaffinity.net: ANTIFA Fnaf 'Poster' by Rotking
> www.furaffinity.net: band aids won't fix that by catcooties
> ...


These are pretty funny in a sad way.


Reshizard said:


> What about James Alex fields aka the man who committed the ramming attack in Charlottesville, do you condemn him?


I knew this would be brought up the moment I read that post. It's THE goto argument for defending Antifa.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 22, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> To clarify - number of attacks. Your deflection is noted but invalid.


Wasn't a deflection; you stated far-right extremists cause, "Far more damage" than Islamic extremism.  Nowhere did you say "number of attacks" so it seems you've shifted the goalposts or you did not originally clarify what you wanted to make clear.  I simply pointed out (in the very article you sourced) that Islamic terror, while not as frequent, has arguably caused far more damage on average.


BahgDaddy said:


> Also notice that NO ONE HERE IS DEFENDING ANTIFA. Their violent tactics have no place in peaceful society. So until I see someone actually sayin AntiFas vioience is okay, this whole argument is literally a red herring.



Clearly, people are defensive enough to say "well they aren't THAT bad" or "That's not representative of the whole!" which ironically is the same arguments used to defend Alt Furry.  That's the whole point is that it's a double standard.  If we both agree that Antifa are pieces of shit, then why aren't you advocating that they also are banned from the site if the Alt Right is getting that treatment?  That is where the confusion strikes me.


BahgDaddy said:


> Don't worry, we all know racists are never racist. They just "don't want *certain people* coming into the country," they want to focus on "black on black crime," and worry incessantly about impoverish city areas but ignore the social problems white people face in their own areas, and so on and so forth.


I think you're ignoring a lot of the context that goes into conversations like those.


----------



## TrishaCat (May 22, 2018)

webkilla said:


> The point of the COC2.7 rule was that any group that advocates hate or violence is not to be allowed on FA


The CoC update also specifically says that anything fictional is allowed.
A drawing of a character brutally murdering another character is not an advocation of violence. The poster ones outright encouraging violence with words? Sure. But not just art depicting murder. One of your pictures for example was art of a person striking a nazi with a bat. No words of encouraging real world violence in that.
Such is at worst the equivalent of modding the game Hatred to replace the civilians with [group I don't like]


----------



## Reshizard (May 22, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> I condemn them both. One is a murderer the other a lunatic.
> 
> Again. Feel free to source where Alt-Right members have been more violent than ANTIFA members. The evidence is clearly out there somewhere, seeing as you've made such a claim.


www.snopes.com: Are 'Antifa' and the 'Alt-Right' Equally Violent?
Here is what Marilyn Mao said

"I don’t want to give moral equivalence to the two sides because one side is fighting against white supremacy.  On the Antifa side, they’ve never murdered anyone but there have been many murders done by white supremacists, so we have to be concerned about that movement."

she also said this
"You have an escalation of rhetoric and you have people who are willing to fight it out in the streets. With this political polarization in the country right now, you have people who come dressed for battle, and when they confront each other it can lead to violence.

This is kind of a watershed moments because we saw one of the largest and most violent white supremacist rallies in over a decade. It brought together a lot of strains under one umbrella and the fact these groups were able to unite shows they feel the moment is very ripe to get their message out and be in the streets. They’re not afraid to be out and open in their views. When you have people who have so much hate and bigotry, shouting things like “Jews will not replace us,” it shows that they are rearing for action. And there’s always the potential for violence when you have hate groups going out into the streets."

Snopes is a fact checking organization with NO bias


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 22, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Wasn't a deflection; you stated far-right extremists cause, "Far more damage" than Islamic extremism.  Nowhere did you say "number of attacks" so it seems you've shifted the goalposts or you did not originally clarify what you wanted to make clear.  I simply pointed out (in the very article you sourced) that Islamic terror, while not as frequent, has arguably caused far more damage on average.
> 
> 
> Clearly, people are defensive enough to say "well they aren't THAT bad" or "That's not representative of the whole!" which ironically is the same arguments used to defend Alt Furry.  That's the whole point is that it's a double standard.  If we both agree that Antifa are pieces of shit, then why aren't you advocating that they also are banned from the site if the Alt Right is getting that treatment?  That is where the confusion strikes me.
> ...



I have the right to correct what I originally meant. Saying it is disingenuous to offer a correction is itself disingenuous. I used to talk like you, I can see right through this pseudo intellectual drivel. 

Islamic terrorism in the US is only worse on average if you include 9/11. After that point right wing extremism is what is causing most of our current social problems. 

Oh. And no one was ever even talking about AntiFa. Let's get back on track shall we:

*The alt right are white nationalists. They want a white ethnostate just like the KKK. Fuck them sideways with a cactus. *


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 22, 2018)

Battlechili said:


> The CoC update also specifically says that anything fictional is allowed.
> A drawing of a character brutally murdering another character is not an advocation of violence. The poster ones outright encouraging violence with words? Sure. But not just art depicting murder. One of your pictures for example was art of a person striking a nazi with a bat. No words of encouraging real world violence in that.
> Such is at worst the equivalent of modding the game Hatred to replace the civilians with [group I don't like]


That's a pretty absurd double standard.



But what do I know?



I mean, when has art ever been used for political gain?

I mean, it's absurd, I know; why would anyone use art for political purposes when you have words?


----------



## TrishaCat (May 22, 2018)

Ironically every single one of those pictures you posted use words....
And none of them are advocating violence...


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 22, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Oh. And no one was ever even talking about AntiFa. Let's get back on track shall we:


Actually, that's incorrect; the topic was the double standard of AntiFa.  In any case, to use your own words; deflection noted.


BahgDaddy said:


> *The alt right are white nationalists. They want a white ethnostate just like the KKK. Fuck them sideways with a cactus. *


Yes.  They are not worthy of notice; they deserve a public shaming.  But you don't destroy ideologies without dismantling their ideas.  And you can't do that if you silence what they're saying; then you make people uneducated about their ideas; they won't understand them... and you can't combat what you don't understand.  You can fear it, but you cannot combat it.
-
"What shall I do with a fallen soul? Offer a genuine and cautious hand but do not join it in the mire."


BahgDaddy said:


> Islamic terrorism in the US is only worse on average if you include 9/11. After that point right wing extremism is what is causing most of our current social problems.


What does that matter?  My point was that Islamic Terrorism has had the most destructive attacks despite being less than right wing extremism.  I'm not defending Right Wing extremism I'm simply pointing out that you stated something that was not technically correct.  Why do you insist on arguing about that?


BahgDaddy said:


> I have the right to correct what I originally meant. Saying it is disingenuous to offer a correction is itself disingenuous. I used to talk like you, I can see right through this pseudo intellectual drivel


Perhaps you should revert; it may do your arguments a world of difference.  And no, you do not have the right to correct what you meant; you have the obligation to, at least if you wish to have a sense of validity.


----------



## Reshizard (May 22, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> What does that matter? My point was that Islamic Terrorism has had the most destructive attacks despite being less than right wing extremism. I'm not defending Right Wing extremism I'm simply pointing out that you stated something that was not technically correct. Why do you insist on arguing about that?


because of the fact that there are more terrorist attacks being committed by right wing groups in the US than by ISIL


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 22, 2018)

Reshizard said:


> because of the fact that there are more terrorist attacks being committed by right wing groups in the US than by ISIL


So what?  That wasn't what he stated.  He stated they were the most destructive, which is questionable at best, false at worst.  So I corrected him.


----------



## TrishaCat (May 22, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


>


This is not promoting violence. A fictional character is hitting another and that's it. The words are just conveying what is going on or happening in the characters head.





ResolutionBlaze said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> *


This one is directly encouraging violence. The words are telling the viewer to perform violent actions.


----------



## Reshizard (May 22, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> So what?  That wasn't what he stated.  He stated they were the most destructive, which is questionable at best, false at worst.  So I corrected him.


can you provide unbiased sources?


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 22, 2018)

Battlechili said:


> This is not promoting violence. A fictional character is hitting another and that's it. The words are just conveying what is going on or happening in the characters head.This one is directly encouraging violence. The words are telling the viewer to perform violent actions.





And this isn't saying Communism is the greatest evil of all.  It's just a giant hand with a tattoo stabbing a country with a daggar.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 22, 2018)

Reshizard said:


> can you provide unbiased sources?


_*I used his own source*_


----------



## Reshizard (May 22, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> _I used his own source_


can you provide sources saying regarding alt right being less destructive than isil? don't use conservative sources


----------



## TrishaCat (May 22, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> And this isn't saying Communism is the greatest evil of all.  It's just a giant hand with a tattoo stabbing a country with a daggar.


Correct


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 22, 2018)

Reshizard said:


> can you provide sources saying regarding alt right being less destructive than isil? don't use conservative sources


>Don't use conservative sources


----------



## Reshizard (May 22, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> >Don't use conservative sources


So I am guessing you can't find any?


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 22, 2018)

Battlechili said:


> Correct


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 22, 2018)

Reshizard said:


> So I am guessing you can't find any?


No, I'm just trying to process it...
-
It's basically like saying "You're free to color whatever you want, as long as it's this specific color in this specific spot."
-
"Evidence be damned!  It's not the _RIGHT_ evidence!  I only accept evidence from_ correct_ sources."
-
It's just a testament that you're no less bigoted and biased as those conservative sources you don't want me using.  Because all conservative sources are wrong, right?


----------



## Reshizard (May 22, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> No, I'm just trying to process it...
> -
> It's basically like saying "You're free to color whatever you want, as long as it's this specific color in this specific spot."
> -
> ...


if you use a biased source, conservative or liberal, it skews the truth. have you heard of something called confirmation bias?


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 22, 2018)

Reshizard said:


> if you use a biased source, conservative or liberal, it skews the truth. have you heard of something called confirmation bias?


What of it?  People have Confirmation Bias; you call it out as it comes along, IF AT ALL!  People are not well equipped with the average tools to detect bias, much less call it out and regulate it.  Believing yourself that capable, especially after_ you've just suggested that I avoid particular sources based on political ideology_ then you are the last person who should be discussing bias.
-
In any case, I will search a source for you, but again, I utilized the source that Bahgdad provided.


----------



## Reshizard (May 22, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> What of it?  People have Confirmation Bias; you call it out as it comes along, IF AT ALL!  People are not well equipped with the average tools to detect bias, much less call it out and regulate it.  Believing yourself that capable, especially after_ you've just suggested that I avoid particular sources based on political ideology_ then you are the last person who should be discussing bias.
> -
> In any case, I will search a source for you, but again, I utilized the source that Bahgdad provided.


have you bothered to use snopes and fact checker?


----------



## Yakamaru (May 22, 2018)

Reshizard said:


> www.snopes.com: Are 'Antifa' and the 'Alt-Right' Equally Violent?
> Here is what Marilyn Mao said
> 
> "I don’t want to give moral equivalence to the two sides because one side is fighting against white supremacy.  On the Antifa side, they’ve never murdered anyone but there have been many murders done by white supremacists, so we have to be concerned about that movement."
> ...


There are countless videos of ANTIFA members being aggressive and violent in the US. I asked for members of the Alt-Right specifically who themselves have claimed to be part of Alt-Right, not someone else claiming they are. Alt-Right, not white nationalists or white supremacists let alone Conservatives. White supremacist and/or white nationalist rallies does not equate Alt-Right. They equate white nationalist and/or white supremacist rallies. Have they themselves claimed to be part of the Alt-Right, or is it a label being thrust upon them?
Examples:


Spoiler: CNN reporting on violent ANTIFA members













Spoiler: VICE's take on ANTIFA(who are also violent)











I don't see Millennial Woes nor his fanbase at these rallies who *are* Alt-Righters. Are they wrong on a lot of ideas? Yes. Are some of their ideas outright stupid? Yes. However, I have not seen any member of the Alt-Right being violent let alone cause a murder. Only claims that someone is part of the Alt-Right. It's become a boogeyman used by the Mainstream Media and quite frankly, I ain't buying any of that shit.

I will have to ask you one last time: Please provide evidence of the Alt-Right being more violent than ANTIFA. People who themselves have claimed to be part of the Alt-Right. Claims that they are is not sufficient, as claims alone are not evidence.


Reshizard said:


> because of the fact that there are more terrorist attacks being committed by right wing groups in the US than by ISIL


In the US, yes. Worldwide? No. ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas, Boko Haram, etc, are all sitting on around 80% of all terrorism conducted on the planet.

Oh, and are we talking total deaths, or total attacks? Because Islamists are sitting on 97% of all deaths in terms of terrorism in the US. Remember 9/11/2001?
www.cato.org: Terrorism Deaths by Ideology: Is Charlottesville an Anomaly?
^ Might want to read these statistics.

Since 2016, 13 deaths by Left-wing terrorism, 5 by Nationalist and Right-wing. 

Right-wing terrorism is indeed more prevalent than Left-wing terrorism, though the Left-wing's been stepping up their game this past year it seems. Doesn't make one *less* horrifying than the other as they are all acts of terrorism, regardless of affiliation or target.  That said, I find extremism unacceptable and vile, no matter who it is being done against or who is doing it, for whatever reason. Period.


----------



## Reshizard (May 22, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> Oh, and are we talking total deaths, or total attacks? Because Islamists are sitting on 97% of all deaths in terms of terrorism in the US. Remember 9/11/2001?
> www.cato.org: Terrorism Deaths by Ideology: Is Charlottesville an Anomaly?
> ^ Might want to read these statistics.


I am and have been aware of that, but after the september 11 attacks, there was a spike in white supremacist attacks. Yes, Islamist groups killed over 3000 people in total in the  US and as a result, Muslims are getting "terrorist" slapped on them even if they themselves were disgusted or horrified by the attack. I will say that because right wing organizations have been able to commit more terrorist acts because nobody did shit to punish them as harshly as any Islamist group, it shouldn't be a surprise that the left wing groups stepped up their game. Is it the right thing to do? no!


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 22, 2018)

Reshizard said:


> I am and have been aware of that, but after the september 11 attacks, there was a spike in white supremacist attacks. Yes, Islamist groups killed over 3000 people in total in the  US and as a result, Muslims are getting "terrorist" slapped on them even if they themselves were disgusted or horrified by the attack. I will say that because right wing organizations have been able to commit more terrorist acts because nobody did shit to punish them as harshly as any Islamist group, it shouldn't be a surprise that the left wing groups stepped up their game. Is it the right thing to do? no!


Actually, the numbers seem to indicate that terrorism from right wingers was business as usual.  Terrorist attacks far outnumber Right wing attacks post 2001, and have far greater consequences.  The last major right-wing terrorist attack was in 1995.  Since then, it's been a murder here and there, a shooting here and there.  Islamic Terrorism has had a far greater track record since then:
-
Right-wing terrorism - Wikipedia <-- For the Right Wing numbers post 2001.
-
www.thereligionofpeace.com: Islamic Attacks on America <-- For the Islamic Terrorist numbers.  Ignore any attack pre 9/11.


----------



## Reshizard (May 22, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Actually, the numbers seem to indicate that terrorism from right wingers was business as usual.  Terrorist attacks far outnumber Right wing attacks post 2001, and have far greater consequences.  The last major right-wing terrorist attack was in 1995.  Since then, it's been a murder here and there, a shooting here and there.  Islamic Terrorism has had a far greater track record since then:
> -
> Right-wing terrorism - Wikipedia <-- For the Right Wing numbers post 2001.
> -
> www.thereligionofpeace.com: Islamic Attacks on America <-- For the Islamic Terrorist numbers.  Ignore any attack pre 9/11.



dude! you picked an islamophobic website islamophobia132.weebly.com: The Religion of Peace and Islam-Watch - Digitized Islamophobia it may have said it was "non-partisan" but that's a lit


----------



## Yakamaru (May 22, 2018)

Reshizard said:


> I am and have been aware of that, but after the september 11 attacks, there was a spike in white supremacist attacks. Yes, Islamist groups killed over 3000 people in total in the  US and as a result, Muslims are getting "terrorist" slapped on them even if they themselves were disgusted or horrified by the attack. I will say that because right wing organizations have been able to commit more terrorist acts because nobody did shit to punish them as harshly as any Islamist group, it shouldn't be a surprise that the left wing groups stepped up their game. Is it the right thing to do? no!


Well, why are you avoiding my inquiry? I asked you to show evidence of Alt-Right members being more violent than ANTIFA. I have yet to see anything actually backing this claim up, unfortunately.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 22, 2018)

Reshizard said:


> dude! you picked an islamophobic website islamophobia132.weebly.com: The Religion of Peace and Islam-Watch - Digitized Islamophobia it may have said it was "non-partisan" but that's a lit


I noticed you deflected and didn't actually address the numbers cited.  And I knew you would do so, because I used to be exactly like you; waiting for someone to cite something, then attacking the source for being "this and that" without actually reading it.


----------



## Reshizard (May 22, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> I noticed you deflected and didn't actually address the numbers cited.


you have been deflecting yourself you know


----------



## Reshizard (May 22, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> Well, why are you avoiding my inquiry? I asked you to show evidence of Alt-Right members being more violent than ANTIFA. I have yet to see anything actually backing this claim up, unfortunately.


did you read the snopes article I linked?


----------



## Yakamaru (May 22, 2018)

Reshizard said:


> dude! you picked an islamophobic website islamophobia132.weebly.com: The Religion of Peace and Islam-Watch - Digitized Islamophobia it may have said it was "non-partisan" but that's a lit


List of battles and other violent events by death toll - Wikipedia
^ This only lists cases where 50 or more died as a result of a terrorist attack. 



Reshizard said:


> did you read the snopes article I linked?


Yes, I have. It was full of shit when it was first made, and it's still full of shit now.

Claims doesn't mean anything, especially not when you are labeling someone else something that they are not.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 22, 2018)

Reshizard said:


> you have been deflecting yourself you know


And you still haven't read the sources I've provided.  I wonder why.


----------



## Reshizard (May 22, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> And you still haven't read the sources I've provided.  I wonder why.


read them, used the ctrl+f function, antifa wasn't mentioned in any of those four articles you linked




Yakamaru said:


> List of battles and other violent events by death toll - Wikipedia
> ^ This only lists cases where 50 or more died as a result of a terrorist attack. Feel free to check out the common denominator.
> 
> Yes, I have. It was full of shit when it was first made, and it's still full of shit now.
> ...



so a fact-checking website is full of shit?

here is another site that checked Snopes
mediabiasfactcheck.com: Snopes - Media Bias/Fact Check
it said that Snopes is Least Biased and has high factual reporting


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 22, 2018)

Reshizard said:


> read them, used the ctrl+f function, antifa wasn't mentioned in any of those four articles you linked


. . . . . . . . .
-
_we weren't talking about antifa._


----------



## webkilla (May 22, 2018)

It's amazing the amount of antifa apologia I'm seeing here

Didn't anyone notice the link I posted earlier to german police finding a god damn ANTIFA BOMB FACTORY!?

I'm well aware of the poor soul who got run over at Charlottesville - but good heavens, considering how many fires have been lit and molotovs been thrown by black-block lunatics over the last years its only a miracle that nobody hasn't gotten hurt more.

just look at these cops here being pelted with rocks, glass bottles and fireworks by an antifa black block: 




Or here where an antifa mob comes down a street and just trashes absolutely everything: 




I mean, it wasn't for a lack of trying that they haven't killed anyone so far - that antifa joker known as the "bikelock basher" was trying his damnedest to kill people, wielding his U-lock like a hammer to crack skulls.


I seriously do wonder if this debate would look any different if an antifa group had actually managed  to kill someone over the last year, be it in Europe or in the US. I don't want to see anyone get killed, but to pretend that antifa isn't dangerous because nobody's been killed by them yet is delusional!

That's why I would prefer antifa put in under that COC rule now, rather than later - because despite all the nitpicking about all the violent antifa propaganda art floating on FA, showing antifa furries absolutely murdering people they don't like, then its clear to anyone sane there's a violent streak among antifa's supporters and members, even if you can't nail down exactly who is part of antifa because that's apparently anyone who don't like evil people.

that's why the whole rule is stupid to begin with - its political censorship - I'd personally prefer that the CoC simply say that FA's administration wants to keep FA apolitical, but that the mods of course will clamp down on any calls to violence and other directly criminal content or utterances - but if they do want political censorship, then at least make it even-handed instead of this one-sided BS


----------



## Reshizard (May 22, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> . . . . . . . . .
> -
> _we weren't talking about antifa._


I mistakenly thought you linked the antifa articles and for that I apologize.

as for the link you submitted. that was good that they sentenced that vigilante to death for his murder. It seems we still have issues with Islamophobia as the election of a certain president has shown with his Muslim travel ban


----------



## elliefluff (May 22, 2018)

I agree. When a group is officially recognized as a domestic terrorist organization by the US government, that's pretty good evidence that it shouldn't be supported by FA.


----------



## Yakamaru (May 22, 2018)

Reshizard said:


> so a fact-checking website is full of shit?
> 
> here is another site that checked Snopes
> mediabiasfactcheck.com: Snopes - Media Bias/Fact Check
> it said that Snopes is Least Biased and has high factual reporting


Indeed. However, it doesn't make them free from confirmation bias, selective bias, political bias nor sample bias.

Oh, and for the record: Mediabiasfactcheck.com is listing WikiLeaks as Right-wing. What? 

A decent amount of these are correct in where their bias is though, to be fair. Time to go digging and see which ones are good in the center.


----------



## Ramjet (May 22, 2018)




----------



## Reshizard (May 22, 2018)

Ramjet556 said:


>


ironically, everyone complaining about the CoC update is acting like the stereotypical anarchist


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 22, 2018)

Reshizard said:


> ironically, everyone complaining about the CoC update is acting like the stereotypical anarchist


It's so effortless to criticise a caricature, isn't it?


----------



## Ramjet (May 22, 2018)

Reshizard said:


> ironically, everyone complaining about the CoC update is acting like the stereotypical anarchist



Meh,honestly dude I could care less...I've expressed in another thread that FA is a private site and can do whatever the fuck they please...

On platforms like this though people vote with their presence...Every site that singles out one side while ignoring the rest usually go downhill pretty quick.


----------



## Reshizard (May 22, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> It's so effortless to criticise a caricature, isn't it?


Yet it seems everyone here is throwing a tantrum about antifa not being added into the list of "hate groups" despite the fact that antifa is not considered a hate group
According to the FBI a hate crime is a criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.

Is politics located in that definition?

Everyone keeps throwing the NJ homeland security site link but as it was said before, the site is for the state of New Jersey which has the republican governor Chris Christie. This also ignores the fact only the New Jersey Department of Homeland Security considers antifa a terrorist organization. I never said this before but I am not a defender of anti. It seems like it, but I am only taking their side because of the fact that nobody has tried digging through the federal department of homeland security, not a state government.


----------



## Reshizard (May 22, 2018)

Ramjet556 said:


> Meh,honestly dude I could care less...I've expressed in another thread that FA is a private site and can do whatever the fuck they please...
> 
> On platforms like this though people vote with their presence...Every site that singles out one side while ignoring the rest usually go downhill pretty quick.


I could care less too but if someone makes a conscious decision to mention their political preferences, they painted a target on their back


----------



## Ramjet (May 22, 2018)

Reshizard said:


> I could care less too but if someone makes a conscious decision to mention their political preferences, they painted a target on their back




In what context?
To be debated and discussed,or to be singled out and harrassed?...

If it's the former I would agree...


----------



## Reshizard (May 22, 2018)

Ramjet556 said:


> In what context?
> To be debated and discussed,or to be singled out and harrassed...
> 
> If it's the former I would agree...


Because this is the internet, it is the latter unfortunately which is one out of a myriad of reasons why it is best for everyone to keep their political preferences off of FA.


----------



## Ramjet (May 22, 2018)

Reshizard said:


> Because this is the internet, it is the latter unfortunately which is one out of a myriad of reasons why it is best for everyone to keep their political preferences off of FA.



Then you should be for keeping it fair/even and including Antifa in this new COC.Anything else is just hyperbole/strawmen to dilute the obvious bias towards this issue...


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 22, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Actually, that's incorrect; the topic was the double standard of AntiFa.  In any case, to use your own words; deflection noted.
> 
> Yes.  They are not worthy of notice; they deserve a public shaming.  But you don't destroy ideologies without dismantling their ideas.  And you can't do that if you silence what they're saying; then you make people uneducated about their ideas; they won't understand them... and you can't combat what you don't understand.  You can fear it, but you cannot combat it.
> -
> ...



Okay, to anyone reading, this person just said that I DO NOT have the right to correct what I meant. This is a common debate tactic used by people who aren't actually interested in having a rational conversation and will instead focus on minute aspects in a conversation, ad nauseam, in order to prevent people from actually attacking his arguments. Further, they will use long, meandering posts to carefully conceal what they actually mean. 

I specifically said you have to throw out 9/11. Since 9/11, right wing extremism has committed the vast amount of terrorism in the US. Islamic terrorism does the rest, and then there's probably some crazy lefties in there somewhere. No where NEAR the amount committed by crazy right wingers. 

Stop deflecting. When a portion of the left becomes as violent, bigoted, and downright stupid as the alt right, we'll have a problem. Until then, what exactly are you trying to point out with this argument?


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 22, 2018)

Reshizard said:


> have you bothered to use snopes and fact checker?



Facts have a leftist slant, apparently, and can't be trusted.


----------



## Reshizard (May 23, 2018)

Ramjet556 said:


> Then you should be for keeping it fair/even and including Antifa in this new COC.Anything else is just hyperbole/strawmen to dilute the obvious bias towards this issue...


Antifa is labelled as a terrorist group by the state of new jersey only as I pointed out before. Constantly ignoring that point will not make it go away


----------



## Mikazuki Marazhu (May 23, 2018)

Reshizard said:


> Antifa is labelled as a terrorist group by the state of new jersey *only* as I pointed out before.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Okay, to anyone reading, this person just said that I DO NOT have the right to correct what I meant. This is a common debate tactic used by people who aren't actually interested in having a rational conversation and will instead focus on minute aspects in a conversation, ad nauseam, in order to prevent people from actually attacking his arguments. Further, they will use long, meandering posts to carefully conceal what they actually mean.
> 
> I specifically said you have to throw out 9/11. Since 9/11, right wing extremism has committed the vast amount of terrorism in the US. Islamic terrorism does the rest, and then there's probably some crazy lefties in there somewhere. No where NEAR the amount committed by crazy right wingers.
> 
> Stop deflecting. When a portion of the left becomes as violent, bigoted, and downright stupid as the alt right, we'll have a problem. Until then, what exactly are you trying to point out with this argument?


I


BahgDaddy said:


> Okay, to anyone reading, this person just said that I DO NOT have the right to correct what I meant. This is a common debate tactic used by people who aren't actually interested in having a rational conversation and will instead focus on minute aspects in a conversation, ad nauseam, in order to prevent people from actually attacking his arguments. Further, they will use long, meandering posts to carefully conceal what they actually mean.
> 
> I specifically said you have to throw out 9/11. Since 9/11, right wing extremism has committed the vast amount of terrorism in the US. Islamic terrorism does the rest, and then there's probably some crazy lefties in there somewhere. No where NEAR the amount committed by crazy right wingers.
> 
> Stop deflecting. When a portion of the left becomes as violent, bigoted, and downright stupid as the alt right, we'll have a problem. Until then, what exactly are you trying to point out with this argument?



I actually posted sources debunking this notion that right wing terrorism outnumbered Islamic.  Even after 9/11 Islamic terrorism has killed 100s more post 9/11 than right wing extremeists.


----------



## LuxVolans (May 23, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Hey guess what? Far right extremists cause far more damage than Islamist extremists, in this example, and nothin near AntiFa extremism. (You'll probably say the example doesn't apply, which isn't true, because that's goalpost shifting. It's a comparison and a valid one.)
> 
> Not all of us are fooled by your racist "but what about these people" examples. It's like a criminal saying "well these people all did it too, why am I the bad guy?"
> 
> www.politifact.com: Fact-checking Cory Booker's stat about white nationalists



FUCK ME!

  I almost had an aneurysm trying to read this.

That's not even what we're trying to say in the first place.  I'm saying Hold the same standard, and apply it!

If you ban violent political rhetoric and imagery from the right,_ ban it from the left too_.  They Explicitly call out organizations on the right, while *BLATANTLY *disregarding that coming from the left.

First off, Politifact has already proven their incredibly left bias, as I'll show below.




BahgDaddy said:


> Alt right has already been defined. Do you not read the papers?



And Even then, it is incredibly vague!  Going through the actual article in which Politico Defined "Alt-right" as, they actually had it until they said:



> Alt Righters like to try to use terms such as “culture” as substitutes for more lightning rod terms such as “race,” or promote “Western Civilization” as a code word for white culture or identity.



The two are nothing alike.  Culture is a set of values, Race is a genetic trait.   I don't give a fuck about race.  Culture however, is very much something that should be subject to skepticism.   And it is then perfectly and objectively acceptable after looking through those values to find one better, or to find others lacking.

The moment they added this to their definition, they've included _every single_ skeptic of any foreign set of values, which includes anyone who leans right wing.



BahgDaddy said:


> Also notice that NO ONE HERE IS DEFENDING ANTIFA. Their violent tactics have no place in peaceful society. So until I see someone actually sayin AntiFas vioience is okay, this whole argument is literally a red herring.



*EXCEPT THAT THE CoC SPECIFICALLY DOES!  *




Battlechili said:


> The CoC update also specifically says that anything fictional is allowed.
> A drawing of a character brutally murdering another character is not an advocation of violence. The poster ones outright encouraging violence with words? Sure. But not just art depicting murder. One of your pictures for example was art of a person striking a nazi with a bat. No words of encouraging real world violence in that.
> Such is at worst the equivalent of modding the game Hatred to replace the civilians with [group I don't like]



I'd actually agree with that, but I'm more than certain it won't be policed this way.  And that's the issue; the biased moderation of this website.  I have no confidence in FA to be consistent, and fair in this issue.  In fact, I'd be willing to make a bet.

I'll create images similar to the ones presented by @webkilla, with someone wearing a confederate flag being brutalized by Antifa members, and then do the same vice versa.  How much would you be willing to bet that the Pro-Antifa images will remain, when the Pro-Confederacy ones will not?




BahgDaddy said:


> I have the right to correct what I originally meant. Saying it is disingenuous to offer a correction is itself disingenuous. I used to talk like you, I can see right through this pseudo intellectual drivel.
> 
> Islamic terrorism in the US is only worse on average if you include 9/11. After that point right wing extremism is what is causing most of our current social problems.
> 
> ...



Except we *were *talking about Antifa.  That was, as STATED IN THE ORIGINAL POST, the biggest problem I had with the entire CoC.  They specifically give Antifa a free Pass!

Guess what?  *WE'RE SAYING THAT TOO!*  But the problem is that even when defined by Politico, Anyone on the right wing could be included in "Alt-Right."




BahgDaddy said:


> Okay, to anyone reading, this person just said that I DO NOT have the right to correct what I meant. This is a common debate tactic used by people who aren't actually interested in having a rational conversation and will instead focus on minute aspects in a conversation, ad nauseam, in order to prevent people from actually attacking his arguments. Further, they will use long, meandering posts to carefully conceal what they actually mean.



Oh, fuck off.  You just specifically cherry picked _Less than half of a sentence_ in an attempt to preform character assassination of your opponent.  He said in Literally the *next half of the sentence*; 


ResolutionBlaze said:


> Perhaps you should revert; it may do your arguments a world of difference.  And no, you do not have the right to correct what you meant; you have the obligation to, at least if you wish to have a sense of validity.


He wasn't saying you couldn't correct what you said, he was saying you absolutely should if you want to retain any kind of actual validity or legitimacy in your political argument!

You want to talk about shitty debate tactics?  This is a constant from the left.  They stack the deck against their opponents with the most disingenuous character assassinations, often without even bothering to prove it.  Calling people "Racists" Is the GO-TO tactic for lefts.  That's why you get things like President Trump.  (Guess what, I don't like the guy either!)   People were sick of the left constantly slandering others with no real proof other than their own perceived injustices, even going as far as to fabricate the evidence as you literally just did.


----------



## Reshizard (May 23, 2018)

Mikazuki Marazhu said:


> View attachment 32828


www.njhomelandsecurity.gov: Anarchist Extremists: Antifa

This site is for the New Jersey DHS. Not the federal one


----------



## quoting_mungo (May 23, 2018)

webkilla said:


> I'll grant that I simplified things with regards to my description of events of the video - but I was trying to give a brief summary. IMO my point still stands that someone accused innocent bystanders of being fascists which resulted in antifa thugs assaulting someone.


It's a rather important distinction that the original accusation was made by a third party and to some degree went viral first. It changes the dynamics of the situation significantly, from "these people saw Tim Pool near this individual and assaulted him" (which is what your summary implied) to "these people believed an assertion on social media that some people caught in a photograph with Tim Pool and this individual were fascists and decided to assault them" - while assaulting them was bad in either case, what you got was basically the vigilante equivalent of SWATing.



webkilla said:


> Now, you say that violence isn't integral to the "common ideology" of antifa?
> 
> I'm going to have to challenge you on that.
> 
> You see, even wikipedia of all places Antifa (United States) - Wikipedia admit that at the least the US parts of antifa are MILITANT.


The common ideology, as appears to be understood by the vast majority of FA users I've seen supporting Antifa-branded accounts (and given my history on staff I can pretty much guarantee I've seen a larger portion of that demographic than you have), is being outspoken about opposing fascism. You are conflating ideology with methods, and as long as the objectionable methods are not being advocated on FA, FA has no problem with the ideology. That is pretty much what FA's statement means, and the general underlying reasoning I see as being behind the decision.



webkilla said:


> Now, secondly you claim that the FA 'chapter' of antifa has never encouraged violence.
> 
> Ahem: Taking just 5 minutes to look up "antifa" on FA, I found all of this:
> 
> ...


Nope. Fictional content designed to communicate a message that "these ideologies are not okay"; I draw plenty of violent vent art, too, doesn't mean I am a proponent of literal violence. I find nazi-punching art incredibly tiresome, myself, but hey, if that's how they want to vent their anger and it works for them, that's their prerogative.

The "group" accounts based around anti-fascist ideology on FA are not engaging in promoting actual violence. Any individuals actually making statements encouraging violence are already having action taken against them. I've seen a number of Antifa-punching submissions and depictions of nazi violence, as well, and they aren't encouraging RL violence, either.


----------



## GreenZone (May 23, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> It's a rather important distinction that the original accusation was made by a third party and to some degree went viral first. It changes the dynamics of the situation significantly, from "these people saw Tim Pool near this individual and assaulted him" (which is what your summary implied) to "these people believed an assertion on social media that some people caught in a photograph with Tim Pool and this individual were fascists and decided to assault them" - while assaulting them was bad in either case, what you got was basically the vigilante equivalent of SWATing.
> 
> 
> The common ideology, as appears to be understood by the vast majority of FA users I've seen supporting Antifa-branded accounts (and given my history on staff I can pretty much guarantee I've seen a larger portion of that demographic than you have), is being outspoken about opposing fascism. You are conflating ideology with methods, and as long as the objectionable methods are not being advocated on FA, FA has no problem with the ideology. That is pretty much what FA's statement means, and the general underlying reasoning I see as being behind the decision.
> ...



can you stop defending Antifa Mungo i my heart is actually racing with Anger

they are violent i have a friend who lost an eye to antifa simply because he was walking back from lunch in Uniform they defaced memorial to Vietnam vets with "this is a no Fascism zone" posters they tried to break into a military base causing a 6 hour lockdown

They have stabbed cops in the EU they have BOMBED places

the US branch of Antifa are more tame than the rest of the world but they are still domestic terrorists and you don't seem to understand their ideology they are criminals and thugs if you represent capitalism in any way be it a cop a soldier or a paramedic you are a "Nazi" if you do not confirm to their extremist communist views you are a "Nazi"

in the UK they are breaking into peoples homes who go on holiday and squatting because they don't believe in property ownership

do you understand Mungo

Antifa is the literal left version of a Nazi what they are doing is not opposing fascism they are committing it themselves


----------



## GreenZone (May 23, 2018)

you don't seem to understand by harbouring these people you are allowing violence because you don't seem to understand what they define as a Nazi and that's literally anyone who's not pro Communist

they attack liberals as well Mungo stop promoting this view that they're noble warriors standing up to Fascism


----------



## Cawdabra (May 23, 2018)

Just an amusing video.


----------



## Ramjet (May 23, 2018)

GreenZone said:


> you don't seem to understand by harbouring these people you are allowing violence because you don't seem to understand what they define as a Nazi and that's literally anyone who's not pro Communist
> 
> they attack liberals as well Mungo stop promoting this view that they're noble warriors standing up to Fascism



Their not as violent in the US because alot of American States have CCW laws...

They can't go too far with direct kinetic violence,they know they'd get smoked...

reason.com: Antifa Has Backed Its Message With Violence for Decades in Europe


----------



## Oblique Lynx (May 23, 2018)

GreenZone said:


> you don't seem to understand by harbouring these people you are allowing violence because you don't seem to understand what they define as a Nazi and that's literally anyone who's not pro Communist
> 
> they attack liberals as well Mungo stop promoting this view that they're noble warriors standing up to Fascism


This destruction they caused is disgusting. That's not protesting or fighting fascism. That's causing massive amounts of property damage against _most everyone in their vicinity _


----------



## webkilla (May 23, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> It's a rather important distinction that the original accusation was made by a third party and to some degree went viral first. It changes the dynamics of the situation significantly, from "these people saw Tim Pool near this individual and assaulted him" (which is what your summary implied) to "these people believed an assertion on social media that some people caught in a photograph with Tim Pool and this individual were fascists and decided to assault them" - while assaulting them was bad in either case, what you got was basically the vigilante equivalent of SWATing.



Vigilante equivalent of SWATing? Vigilante in what sense? Vigilante means civilian taking the law in their own hand - exactly what law was being upheld or enforced when innocent journalists were being targeted here?

It was guilt by vague association - and whatever antifa thug that assaulted the guy (not tim poole, the guy tim is interviewing in the video) seemed more than willing to play judge, jury and executioner.



> The common ideology*, as appears to be understood by the vast majority of FA users I've seen* supporting Antifa-branded accounts (and given my history on staff I can pretty much guarantee I've seen a larger portion of that demographic than you have), is *being outspoken about opposing fascism*. You are conflating ideology with methods, and as long as the objectionable methods are not being advocated on FA, FA has no problem with the ideology. That is pretty much what FA's statement means, and the general underlying reasoning I see as being behind the decision.



highlighted for relevance

What you appear to understand doesn't matter - you can have all the rose-tinted goggles on that you like, it doesn't change that a ton of antifa people are promoting political violence against people they don't like - just like what parts of, if not not most of, the alt-right also does.

Opposing fascism? Yes, opposing it with violence. Ideology informs methods - and if the ideology is that of militant anti-fascism, then violence seems to be a core tenet. Again, "bash the fash" was a viral meme for quite a while right after antifa member randomly assaulted that alt-right moron live on camera (which incidental made the guy famous, great work there genius)

You seem to be in denial of just how violent this little club is - or how violent its members at least would like to be. I can easily imagine that most of the FA-based supporters of antifa might not ever get to 'bash the fash' IRL - but they're still clearly quite ok with posting gore-filled propaganda.



> Nope. Fictional content designed to communicate a message that "these ideologies are not okay"; I draw plenty of violent vent art, too, doesn't mean I am a proponent of literal violence. I find nazi-punching art incredibly tiresome, myself, but hey, if that's how they want to vent their anger and it works for them, that's their prerogative.



so... by your logic here, pro-nazi propaganda is perfectly fine? I'm glad to her that - I could barely make out your logic over that massive double standard you seem to have there.



> The "group" accounts based around anti-fascist ideology on FA are not engaging in promoting actual violence. Any individuals actually making statements encouraging violence are already having action taken against them. *I've seen a number of Antifa-punching submissions and depictions of nazi violence, as well, and they aren't encouraging RL violence, either.*


Doesn't matter - the supporters, the random FA members who like antifa - are doing all that work for it. I mean, come on - you're basically saying "I'm not seeing these people doing anything bad right now, so they can't possible have done anything bad ever, or want to do anything bad ever".

And you must have the thickest proscription rose-tinted goggles to say that there. Are you legit arguing that propaganda depicting political violence isn't encouraging RL violence? Good grief you are a piece of work.


----------



## Oblique Lynx (May 23, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> Nope. Fictional content designed to communicate a message that "these ideologies are not okay"; I draw plenty of violent vent art, too, doesn't mean I am a proponent of literal violence. I find nazi-punching art incredibly tiresome, myself, but hey, if that's how they want to vent their anger and it works for them, that's their prerogative.


Does that mean I'm allowed to draw art of a Nazi punching an ANTIFA member?


----------



## JakeCWolf (May 23, 2018)

Wonder if Dragoneer ever emerged from his Twitter hiding spot to acknowledge that pending lawsuit or not? He's only got a few more days, or there's gonna be a warrant out for his arrest. The American justice system is nothing to take lightly.


----------



## Cawdabra (May 23, 2018)

Oblique Lynx said:


> Does that mean I'm allowed to draw art of a Nazi punching an ANTIFA member?


Ha! I think we all know the answer to that one.


----------



## webkilla (May 23, 2018)

Cawdabra said:


> Ha! I think we all know the answer to that one.



and there-in lies the hypocrisy

If its ok to depict political violence one way - but not the other way - then... then the system is broken


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 23, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> I
> 
> 
> I actually posted sources debunking this notion that right wing terrorism outnumbered Islamic.  Even after 9/11 Islamic terrorism has killed 100s more post 9/11 than right wing extremeists.



My numbers disagree with yours. Can you post that link again? Because we've got a lot of right won terrorism going on right now - the shooter in Florida recently was one such example. Also I'm keeping the example constrained to the US. Perhaps you weren't aware of that.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 23, 2018)

LuxVolans said:


> FUCK ME!
> 
> I almost had an aneurysm trying to read this.
> 
> ...



Hey, I'm not paying your medical bills, so try to avoid debates that make your heart go that fast! If you can't take it, don't dish it baby!


----------



## Reshizard (May 23, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Hey, I'm not paying your medical bills, so try to avoid debates that make your heart go that fast! If you can't take it, don't dish it baby!


Oh yes. I said it before, if anyone talks politics, they painted a target on themselves. I am not above this either


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 23, 2018)

Something to think about:

The alt right is racist. 

AntiFa is opposed to racism. That's one of the main definition of AntiFa. 

If you apologize for the alt right.... AND try to throw AntiFa under the bus... well we pretty know what you are, now don't we?


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 23, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> My numbers disagree with yours. Can you post that link again? Because we've got a lot of right won terrorism going on right now - the shooter in Florida recently was one such example. Also I'm keeping the example constrained to the US. Perhaps you weren't aware of that.



My example doesnthe same.

I'll send you the links in a bit I'm just exhausted rn


----------



## webkilla (May 23, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> AntiFa is opposed to racism. That's one of the main definition of AntiFa.
> 
> If you apologize for the alt right.... AND try to throw AntiFa under the bus... well we pretty know what you are, now don't we?



oh that's cute

no, antifa jokers tend to harp on about being against "fascism" - though, from what I can tell pretty much none of them really know what fascism even means these days. They just use it as a catch-all for anyone who's to the right of their politics.

And then you follow up with a nice and poorly veiled "if you're not with us, you're an alt-right supporter" threat. How utterly pathetic.


I've said it before and I'll say it again: if antifa propaganda is allowed on FA, then far right propaganda should be allowed on equal terms - calls to violence of any form should, of course, not be allowed. Alternatly ban all of it and be done with it.

Now, if you can contort your brain-meats in a feat of mental gymnastics to make that out out to be "apologizing" of the alt right, or throwing antifa under the bus, then go ahead... call me alt right - because that's all that it'll be: It'll be a moron on the internet calling me something that I am not, but it'll go really well to demonstrate how idiotic antifa supporters are and how happy they are to call anyone who disagrees with them for alt right supporters or worse.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 23, 2018)

webkilla said:


> oh that's cute
> 
> no, antifa jokers tend to harp on about being against "fascism" - though, from what I can tell pretty much none of them really know what fascism even means these days. They just use it as a catch-all for anyone who's to the right of their politics.
> 
> ...



"Oh that's cute"
"How utterly pathetic"
"Contort your brain meats"
"A moron on the internet"
"Idiotic AntiFa supporters"

My my, looks like I struck a nerve there! Too bad it's all wrong since I'm not an AntiFa supporter. I think they're violence is uncalled for and that we should solve problems with logic, reason, and public debate, not screechy protesting. Same goes for the alt right with their innumerable beer belly demonstrations. (They're not actually protesting leftism. They're just advertising their version of the American Dream, which usually seems to be some form of belching on your trailer steps while mama cooks meth.)


----------



## Oblique Lynx (May 23, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> "Oh that's cute"
> "How utterly pathetic"
> "Contort your brain meats"
> "A moron on the internet"
> ...


It's either rednecks swilling moonshine and spouting hate

or anti-fascists using fascist tactics to alienate

Both sides seem pretty shitty to be under


----------



## GreenZone (May 23, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> If you apologize for the alt right.... AND try to throw AntiFa under the bus... well we pretty know what you are, now don't we?



yeah a centrist 

you cannot trade one evil for another


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 23, 2018)

Oblique Lynx said:


> It's either rednecks swilling moonshine and spouting hate
> 
> or anti-fascists using fascist tactics to alienate
> 
> Both sides seem pretty shitty to be under



Yeah. 



GreenZone said:


> yeah a centrist
> 
> you cannot trade one evil for another



I'm not a centrist. I'm a leftist, basically a socialist. 

And I never said you could. 

Try again.


----------



## LuxVolans (May 24, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Hey, I'm not paying your medical bills, so try to avoid debates that make your heart go that fast! If you can't take it, don't dish it baby!



Yet you didn't respond to nor refute anything I said.



BahgDaddy said:


> Something to think about:
> 
> The alt right is racist.
> 
> ...




Except that I'm NOT apologizing for the Alt-Right.  We are openly condemning it. 

However, I disagree with the vague, nearly all encompassing definition of Alt-Right as described in the article provided that then begins to include people who actually aren't.  That's why I stated in the original post that I wanted to know exactly what they defined Alt-Right as, and who the "reputable organizations" were.

You are creating this "Us vs Them" Dichotomy automatically attributing those who disagree with you into the category of "Racists" without actually proving that they are racist.  You are the one dealing in absolutes.

And the problem is:  That logic goes both ways.  By _your own_ definitions, You are now affiliated with, in support of, or might as well be a member of AntiFa.  

Taking your argument and reversing it:  "If You're not a racist, and you stand against the Alt-Right, You MUST be a member of AntiFa."  

Do you see how destructive this logic and train of thought is?


This is why I subscribe to a much more simple and much more solid way of defining these lines.  

You are on the Alt-Right if you say you're in the Alt-Right.

You are a member of AntiFa if you say you're in AntiFa.

This is why, once again, I said I wanted to see what they defined it as, and what their source was.  

It's also why I am so passionate about them maintaining the same standards.  The Alt-Right is a radical extremist group.  AntiFa is ALSO a radical extremist group.  Treat them the same.  If you don't allow one, don't allow the other.  Acting otherwise is just blatant hypocrisy. 

Consistency please FA.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 24, 2018)

LuxVolans said:


> Yet you didn't respond to nor refute anything I said.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I never said you were apologizing for the alt right. I don't see you doing that.

And no. I'm not casting everyone who disagrees with me into the basket of racists. You seem to not be understanding my arguments, despite how short I've made them. Sad!

""If You're not a racist, and you stand against the Alt-Right, You MUST be a member of AntiFa." No, the logic doesn't follow, and it's not a reversal of what I said. A reversal of, "If you apologize for the alt right.... AND try to throw AntiFa under the bus... well we pretty know what you are, now don't we?" would be something like "If you apologize for antifa, and try to throw the Alt Right under the bus, we pretty much know what you are." Except it doesn't follow what you are, because it's a nonsense statement now. I guess you'd be... *le gasp* NOT A RACIST! Hide the children...

And no. You're an alt-righter if your ideology matches enough of the things the alt right believes. Even if you're not actually an alt-righter, if enough of the views match up, it's fair to say those views have no place in society and every effort should be made to keep them from running our society. Right wing populist nationalism is currently the biggest threat to liberal democracy. Everyone has an obligation to try and keep that dream alive, and that starts by fighting against these views and keeping them out of government.

Your arguments are cleverly styled pseudo logical rants. I can say what you say in 5 paragraphs, in 5 sentences, because I know what I stand for and don't need to mentally masturbate first.


----------



## webkilla (May 24, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> "Oh that's cute"
> "How utterly pathetic"
> "Contort your brain meats"
> "A moron on the internet"
> ...



You can belly-ache all you want - my points still stand

and for someone who claims not to be an antifa-supporter, you sure seem keen on trying to present them in the nicest way possible - though if you sincerely mean what you say about not wanting violence, and preferring logic, reason and public debate then I'm all there with you.

Mind you, you go to the exact same name-calling with the "beer belly demonstrations" - so no moral high horse you, but nice sentiment.


----------



## webkilla (May 24, 2018)

Hey gang - 2 the ranting gryphon had a fun little adventure investigating the Alt Furry






His discovery: No they're no nazis, and they share a ton of porn. He even asked why the furries there, were there - and got a lot of very interesting non-nazi related stories that seemed to center on having been abused by SJWs and antifa supporters, and thus felt pushed out of the regular fandom.

Take from that what you want - but he found no evidence that it was a vile hive of racism and white supremacy. Sure, there were a few white supremacists there, but there were also people there who challenged them on their ideas and took up a discussion on the topic, presenting alternate viewpoints.

2 basically sums it up talking about how left wing censors are taking over the furry fandom and excluding anyone who aren't agreeing with them.

This is why antifa is bad. This why the CoC needs to reflect that


----------



## quoting_mungo (May 24, 2018)

GreenZone said:


> can you stop defending Antifa Mungo i my heart is actually racing with Anger


Can you actually read my posts, GreenZone, instead of assuming that I'm doing something I'm not? :V
I have no particular love for Antifa. I think a lot of counter-protestors are going about it the wrong way (to say the least). _However_, I recognize that there is still a difference in character between an ideology that inherently involves bigotry, such as white supremacism, and an ideology that rejects such beliefs. I'm trying to explain this difference, and how in the light of it the administrative decisions FA has made make sense.

I'd personally still just as soon see "group" accounts branded "Antifa" off the site, but not for reasons relating to COC 2.7 or them supposedly being a "hate group".



webkilla said:


> Vigilante equivalent of SWATing? Vigilante in what sense? Vigilante means civilian taking the law in their own hand - exactly what law was being upheld or enforced when innocent journalists were being targeted here?
> 
> It was guilt by vague association - and whatever antifa thug that assaulted the guy (not tim poole, the guy tim is interviewing in the video) seemed more than willing to play judge, jury and executioner.


That's a flawed question. No law is being upheld in SWATing - it's harassment (and endangerment) by sending police to raid innocent people. Here, the individual(s) who identified Tim Pool and co as nationalists on Twitter, painted them as targets for vigilante "justice" (keep in mind that vigilantism isn't only about civilians taking into their own hands to uphold _actual_ law, but also to uphold law that they feel _should_ be in place). You are still painting the situation as being entirely based on the judgment of the individuals committing the assault, which doesn't jive with the account in Pool's video.



Oblique Lynx said:


> Does that mean I'm allowed to draw art of a Nazi punching an ANTIFA member?


As long as it's a generic character (or a character belonging to someone who's explicitly okay with it) getting punched, and not the fursona of some Antifa-identifying furry, far as I'm aware, yes. I see nothing in policy indicating otherwise, and I know it would have been permitted when I was on staff same as the nazi-punching work. That said, it's probably kind of social suicide to post such.


----------



## Oblique Lynx (May 24, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> And no. You're an alt-righter if your ideology matches enough of the things the alt right believes. Even if you're not actually an alt-righter, if enough of the views match up, it's fair to say those views have no place in society and every effort should be made to keep them from running our society.


How does national conservatism stack up?



quoting_mungo said:


> As long as it's a generic character (or a character belonging to someone who's explicitly okay with it) getting punched, and not the fursona of some Antifa-identifying furry, far as I'm aware, yes. I see nothing in policy indicating otherwise, and I know it would have been permitted when I was on staff same as the nazi-punching work. That said, it's probably kind of social suicide to post such.



Well I can get behind it being equal like that then


----------



## Yakamaru (May 24, 2018)

quoting_mungo said:


> That's a flawed question. No law is being upheld in SWATing - it's harassment (and endangerment) by sending police to raid innocent people. Here, the individual(s) who identified Tim Pool and co as nationalists on Twitter, painted them as targets for vigilante "justice" (keep in mind that vigilantism isn't only about civilians taking into their own hands to uphold _actual_ law, but also to uphold law that they feel _should_ be in place). You are still painting the situation as being entirely based on the judgment of the individuals committing the assault, which doesn't jive with the account in Pool's video.


Tim Pool. A Nationalist? What? The hell are these people smoking?


----------



## webkilla (May 24, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> And no*. You're an alt-righter if your ideology matches enough of the things the alt right believes*. Even if you're not actually an alt-righter, if enough of the views match up, it's fair to say those views have no place in society and every effort should be made to keep them from running our society. Right wing populist nationalism is currently the biggest threat to liberal democracy. Everyone has an obligation to try and keep that dream alive, and that starts by fighting against these views and keeping them out of government.
> 
> Your arguments are cleverly styled pseudo logical rants. I can say what you say in 5 paragraphs, in 5 sentences, because I know what I stand for and don't need to mentally masturbate first.



Are you aware of what you're saying here?

You see, quite a lot of the alt right believe strongly in freedom of speech (since places like FA, much of social media and other forums keep trying to silence them). I believe in freedom of speech too - does that make me alt right?

I also believe workers rights, does that make me a communist?

I believe that it is a state's moral and ethical duty to uphold the nation's sovereignty and to protect its borders - does that make me a nationalist?

I also think that open borders is a bad idea and that immigration should be controlled - does that make me a racist?

I also like the idea of a welfare state that helps the poor and redistributes a certain amount of wealth - does that make me a socialist?

I also like to occasionally listen to Hasidic jewish music and cook up some hummus - does that make me a jew?

How much is "enough" before you can be branded as "one of them" ?


Do you see how dangerous the 'logic' you're using there is?

And you complain that other people's posts are cleverly styles rants? You clearly do NOT understand what you're asking for here.


Equally, if we look back over the last hundred or so years, then left wing populism - socialism and communism - has killed far  more people than right wing populism and nationalism did. The USSR starved more people to death than the nazis ever managed to force into gas-chambers. That part of history is very well documented.



Yakamaru said:


> Tim Pool. A Nationalist? What? The hell are these people smoking?



It was the german antifa that called Tim Poole an 'identitarian' and fascist - and basically marked him as a target if caught, to which end he left Hamburg and the G20 summit early.


----------



## Yakamaru (May 24, 2018)

webkilla said:


> It was the german antifa that called Tim Poole an 'identitarian' and fascist - and basically marked him as a target if caught, to which end he left Hamburg and the G20 summit early.


I know. The G20 summit was a disaster. ANTIFA was running amok over there.


----------



## webkilla (May 24, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> I know. The G20 summit was a disaster. ANTIFA was running amok over there.



and yet Dragoneer have said that he couldn't find any evidence of antifa being a hate group, or terrorist group, or whatever you want to call it - so that it falls under the CoC rules.

Hell its the same trouble that americans had in Iraq: Sure there were taliban cells, but for the most part what united the insurgents they were fighting was simply a shared ideology - one informed by a particular religion.

antifa is like that, as has been covered already in this thread: its a roughly shared set of beliefs. The problem is that at the core of these beliefs is, as far as I can tell - based on press coverage, youtube video statements from antifa members and so on, a set of tenets that encourage if not demand violence done upon anyone marked as an enemy of the faith, uhm... I mean the ideology.

The problem in this sense is that - as has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread - anyone can call themselves antifa, or claim to be part of it.

However, just like not all football fans put on team jerseys and team-colored face paint, then not all antifa jokers put on black clothes and form up in black blocks and smash shop windows or light cars on fire.

...and its that extreme side of antifa that certain US government agencies have already labeled as domestic terrorists.

But the rest of them are still supporting these terrorists, posting pictures in support - pictures the extol the virtues of how righteous it is to "bash the fash" or commit other flavors of political violence.


And I don't like that. Political violence of any sort is bad -* and posting imagery in support of that is something that the FA mods and admins can say is not allowed, no matter what that violence is in support of!*


----------



## LuxVolans (May 24, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Your arguments are cleverly styled pseudo logical rants. I can say what you say in 5 paragraphs, in 5 sentences, because I know what I stand for and don't need to mentally masturbate first.



I'd recommend you actually check the word count. 


Yet, at the same time, you've contradicted yourself.  If "Everyone has an obligation to try and keep that dream alive, and that starts by fighting against fascism."  Then that means that everyone that disavows or disagrees with the Alt-right must fight for the cause that AntiFa does.  

Then that means that using your own logic: "*You're an alt-righter if your ideology matches enough of the things the alt right believes" *Then so too does this apply the other way.  You're a member of AntiFa, or at least, an AntiFa apologist if you hate Alt-Right, or try to fight white supremacy and Fascism.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 24, 2018)

webkilla said:


> You can belly-ache all you want - my points still stand
> 
> and for someone who claims not to be an antifa-supporter, you sure seem keen on trying to present them in the nicest way possible - though if you sincerely mean what you say about not wanting violence, and preferring logic, reason and public debate then I'm all there with you.
> 
> Mind you, you go to the exact same name-calling with the "beer belly demonstrations" - so no moral high horse you, but nice sentiment.



Usually I am expecting that the less educated someone is, and the less ability they have to be critical thinkers, the more likely they are to lean right, and the further it goes, the more likely they are to lean extreme or alt right. (There's a lot of crossover between far and alt right.) 



webkilla said:


> Hey gang - 2 the ranting gryphon had a fun little adventure investigating the Alt Furry
> 
> 
> 
> ...



They're furries. Of course they share porn. 

However alt furry is very much alt right. We've been over this a few times before in previous threads. Basically you had s few people pointing out that they're alt right and a few people trying to use long, meandering blocks of text to circumnavigate that. 



Oblique Lynx said:


> How does national conservatism stack up?
> 
> 
> 
> Well I can get behind it being equal like that then



What beliefs do you think national conservativism holds? Odds are I will disagree but won't throw it under the bus. I generally hold nationalism to be a reactionary, fear driven belief set, however. 



webkilla said:


> Are you aware of what you're saying here?
> 
> You see, quite a lot of the alt right believe strongly in freedom of speech (since places like FA, much of social media and other forums keep trying to silence them). I believe in freedom of speech too - does that make me alt right?
> 
> ...



I believe in free speech too. 

I also believe in propert rights. 

And FA happens to be private property and can kick whomever they want off their property. It's not discrimination to hold someone accountable for their beliefs and actions. You apologists seem to want people to be able to get away with whatever hate speech they'd like. I see no reason to endorse a private company allowing hate speech. In fact it's just bad for business. 

Oh. Socialism and communism don't kill people. _People kill people. 
_
Did that sound stupid? Because that's what pro 2nd amendment people sound like. 

Seriously though, dictatorship is what caused those situations to fail. Also, while people starving is unfortunate, it is not on the same moral ground as deliberately gassing an entire ethnic group. Just keep reaching, eventually you'll burn yourself on the sun. 

As for your examples. Of course those single items don't make you those groups. Why would you think they did?



LuxVolans said:


> I'd recommend you actually check the word count.
> 
> 
> Yet, at the same time, you've contradicted yourself.  If "Everyone has an obligation to try and keep that dream alive, and that starts by fighting against fascism."  Then that means that everyone that disavows or disagrees with the Alt-right must fight for the cause that AntiFa does.
> ...



Hey, let's try something novel. Stop trying to tell me what I mean. Because it's just making you look like you don't know what you're talking about, which we already knew anyway, but really.


----------



## Oblique Lynx (May 24, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> What beliefs do you think national conservativism holds? Odds are I will disagree but won't throw it under the bus. I generally hold nationalism to be a reactionary, fear driven belief set, however.



Well, generally a more traditional view on social issues mixed in with belief of the needs of one's country coming before any other. Of note, at least more presonally, there's the need for keeping a relatively strong military force and a government that has a good bit more power than what is current.

Personal views on the matter:



Spoiler




Limiting immigration but not halting it. Rather, ensuring a strict and thorough process that _must _be followed. They must be of some use or potential use
Refuge can be considered but, again, must be a thorough process and ensure those that seek it are eligible. If one crosses illegally then they should lose any right for future consideration into the country on the grounds of refuge
One's country and its needs comes before others. This applies to immigrants provided they've come legally
The keeping of traditional gender roles to an extent in regards to families. I acknowledge that studies have been done with same sex couples and their children not really differing in things like test scores
Acceptance that the government having a bit more of a watchful eye is necessary to help ensure safety within the country
Abolishing asinine legislation like affirmative action and instead instating tougher penalties on those found to be actively discriminating in a workplace setting
More emphasis on punishing criminals
Tougher laws and punishments with regards to illegal drugs such as weed. Preferably banning alcohol and tobacco as well
Staying consistent with rulings and labeling of criminals


----------



## webkilla (May 24, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Usually I am expecting that the less educated someone is, and the less ability they have to be critical thinkers, the more likely they are to lean right, and the further it goes, the more likely they are to lean extreme or alt right.



Well you are certainly holding your political opponents in high respect there. So by your logic, anyone with a degree or two is automatically left leaning, right?

I cannot even begin to explain how wrong you are. left vs tends to generally be a matter of age - from 18 to 30 people tend to be mostly left leaning, but as they grow older they become more right wing.

Or conversely, do you have ANY proof to back up your claim that low education correlates with right wing politics? I'll give you a clue: The social sciences are very heavily left-leaning - but in the STEM areas? Far more balanced. There ain't no such thing as marxist engineering, but marxist sociology? You bet.





BahgDaddy said:


> And FA happens to be private property and can kick whomever they want off their property. It's not discrimination to hold someone accountable for their beliefs and actions. You apologists seem to want people to be able to get away with whatever hate speech they'd like. I see no reason to endorse a private company allowing hate speech. In fact it's just bad for business.
> 
> Oh. Socialism and communism don't kill people. _People kill people.
> _
> ...



Oh wow... just, wow. You sure are good at making yourself sound very very bad.

1) my issue with the FA CoC is that it's hypocricy to ban one kind of political propaganda and not another. My whole point is specifically that the FA isn't holding antifa supporters accountable to their beliefs and the actions they promote!

2) oh so now I'm an apologist? Apologist for what? the alt right? You amazing hypocrite and liar! Where have I advocated for the alt right!?

But then again, you for make an amazing example to show how antifa supporters are perfectly willing to call anyone who isn't supporting them an alt right fascist. Because that's what I am in your eyes, right? Because I am trying to promote a bit of political equality, which means either banning antifa or allowing alt right stuff on FA? That clearly means I am 100% in support of the alt right, doesn't it?

No it doesn't you moron.

3) socialism and communism doesn't kill people?
Whelp, now we can add historical revisionism to  the list of bullshit you've posted here.

How about this: Number of deaths in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin - Wikipedia - and this is just for the USSR under Stalin. Somewhere between 9 to 50 million human beings.

but no... that wasn't communism or socialism, that was a dictatorship. No, it was communism. But you're clearly of the sort who thinks that "real communism" won't ever hurt anyone - wow... to be in denial like that, what a magical world you must live in.

And you say that its "unfortunate" for people to starve - and then say that gas chambers are worse. You have no clue what you're talking about. Slowly starving to death in a Ukrainian winter - no, that is far far worse.

Here's a new word for you: Holodomor - as in, holocaust - but it means "to kill by starvation"

Holodomor - Wikipedia - somewhere between 3.5 to 9 million ukrainian peasants, starved to death in 1932 to 1933, after the Red Army moved in and systematically confiscated pretty much all of their crops.

Hell, if hungry women went out into the harvested fields and picked up individual grains that had been missed during harvest they would be shot by the Red Army - if they tried to keep them for themselves or their family. It was the property of the people, and the people up north in the russian cities apparently needed it more, and they had to share... at gunpoint.


You know nothing - you accuse me of being an alt right apologist (or apologist for something) - and you clearly have no clue how badly every attempt at socialism and communism on this planet have ended. I haven't even started talking about the Khmer Rouge, or Venezuela.


Oh and fun fact: antifa tends to be surprisingly socialist and communist in its political outlook, but the optics of presenting yourself as a mob of militant and violent mob of masked communists doesn't really sell as well as showing up as a violent mob of anti-fascists. So... no. Just no. FA staff: ammend the CoC, either ban antifa on equal terms with the alt right, or allow for both.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 24, 2018)

Oblique Lynx said:


> Well, generally a more traditional view on social issues mixed in with belief of the needs of one's country coming before any other. Of note, at least more presonally, there's the need for keeping a relatively strong military force and a government that has a good bit more power than what is current.
> 
> Personal views on the matter:
> 
> ...



I am of the belief that your views create a more rigid, less enjoyable, and more criminalized society. Your policies would also damage marginalized people and reduce their chances for success, and stricter punishment for criminals only increases our police state and reduces freedom, true liberty. 



webkilla said:


> Well you are certainly holding your political opponents in high respect there. So by your logic, anyone with a degree or two is automatically left leaning, right?
> 
> I cannot even begin to explain how wrong you are. left vs tends to generally be a matter of age - from 18 to 30 people tend to be mostly left leaning, but as they grow older they become more right wing.
> 
> ...



Okay, you know what, have fun talking to yourself, since you really haven't paid a single wit of attention to anything I've said. I feel like you read someone else's posts and then went on some rant about how bad communism is, which isn't even what we're talking about. Of course communism is bad. 

And yeah. The more educated someone becomes, the [more likely] they are to lean left. This is a natural consequence of becoming a more tolerant and well informed person. This is verifiable through stats. 

And no. The current generation is staying liberal. Yay!


----------



## Oblique Lynx (May 24, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I am of the belief that your views create a more rigid, less enjoyable, and more criminalized society. Your policies would also damage marginalized people and reduce their chances for success, and stricter punishment for criminals only increases our police state and reduces freedom, true liberty.


Rigid, yes, but it wouldn't make it more criminalized. Secondly, tougher response to crime is needed. We're much too lax on it as it is, when a government refuses to call law breakers criminals. Lastly, I believe we get _too_ _much _in terms of help from the government. It feels like with all of these systems in place it's the government saying "hey, we think you're pretty lame and not able to prove yourself, so we're just gonna make things super easy for you."


----------



## webkilla (May 24, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Okay, you know what, have fun talking to yourself, since you really haven't paid a single wit of attention to anything I've said. I feel like you read someone else's posts and then went on some rant about how bad communism is, which isn't even what we're talking about. Of course communism is bad.
> 
> And yeah. The more educated someone becomes, the [more likely] they are to lean left. This is a natural consequence of becoming a more tolerant and well informed person. This is verifiable through stats.



wow... just wow

You clearly have not been reading what I've been posting either - so right back at you there buddy. Also you never explained what I was an apologist for, nice dodge there skippy.

And there is NO proof that getting educated makes you more left leaning. None - but feel free to prove me wrong by citing a source on that.

No, hold that phone: www.npr.org: Why Are Highly Educated Americans Getting More Liberal? - Only problem is that this article *completely fails *to take into consideration what kind of degrees these people are getting.  A lot more people (sadly, many of them women) are getting useless studies and gender studies degrees - which usually includes a ton of indoctrination into left-leaning political activism.

source: articles.niche.com: The Most Popular College Majors - and these numbers are from 2017

as I've already noted: the humanities tend to be overwhelmingly left leaning - so more humanities graduates, means that graduates appear to be more left leaning, more liberal, so of course that'll shift the stats - but that doesn't mean that all the other graduates are suddenly more left leaning as well. The current generation might stay partially liberal, but it'll be the other part that'll end up actually making money - you know, the ones with real degrees instead of gender study degrees.


oh and didn't you say earlier that communism didn't kill anyone? Yes you did - at least bloody admit you were wrong.

and don't forget - the antifa bike-lock basher was an adjunct professor of philosophy at Berkeley - you really have to wonder what exactly he taught his students, right? Which philosophies do you think he favored?


Antifa = bad news, either ban them on par with the alt right - or open the flood gates and be over with it.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 24, 2018)

Oblique Lynx said:


> Rigid, yes, but it wouldn't make it more criminalized. Secondly, tougher response to crime is needed. We're much too lax on it as it is, when a government refuses to call law breakers criminals. Lastly, I believe we get _too_ _much _in terms of help from the government. It feels like with all of these systems in place it's the government saying "hey, we think you're pretty lame and not able to prove yourself, so we're just gonna make things super easy for you."



It would though. We already tried to make a more "peaceful" society with the war on drugs. All it did was throw hundreds of thousands in jail for the mere crime of smoking a largely harmless plant. 

We tried the war on alcohol. It created a huge black market and many criminals. 

We don't need to crack down on crime. Crime is a symptom of social unrest. When we target the things that are causing the unrest, then you will have a more peaceable society. 

As for affirmative action. It's designed to give people who are disadvanted in some way a leg up so they can have a fair shot at things in life. Europe does far more to help their disadvantaged than we do, and it works. We have too many in America who think that poor people are poor because they're lazy, stupid, etc. This is absolutely not true.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 24, 2018)

webkilla said:


> wow... just wow
> 
> You clearly have not been reading what I've been posting either - so right back at you there buddy. Also you never explained what I was an apologist for, nice dodge there skippy.
> 
> ...



Your arguments are completely based on opinion, falsehood, and knee jerk reactions. 

Yes. The more educated you become, you more likely you are to lean left. 

www.pewresearch.org: Educational divide in vote preferences on track to be wider than in recent elections

As again:

www.people-press.org: A Deep Dive Into Party Affiliation

And I never said communism didn't kill anyone.

I'm curious. What exactly is your education level?


----------



## Oblique Lynx (May 24, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> It would though. We already tried to make a more "peaceful" society with the war on drugs. All it did was throw hundreds of thousands in jail for the mere crime of smoking a largely harmless plant.
> 
> We tried the war on alcohol. It created a huge black market and many criminals.
> 
> ...


And being thrown in jail for taking an illegal drug is pretty justified. I know of prohibition and of the storm it caused, but it's still preferable to be rid of it at least officially

Maybe for some instances, but taking a hard stance to criminality in the process is definitely needed for any direction.

There's a point where you're being given more than you deserve to make up. Like I stated, I'm already being given more than enough. So much so that it's insulting to me as a person. It's less about proving yourself now and more about being given thrown at businesses that have to tread carefully about whether they're gonna hire me or not.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 24, 2018)

Oblique Lynx said:


> And being thrown in jail for taking an illegal drug is pretty justified. I know of prohibition and of the storm it caused, but it's still preferable to be rid of it at least officially
> 
> Maybe for some instances, but taking a hard stance to criminality in the process is definitely needed for any direction.
> 
> There's a point where you're being given more than you deserve to make up. Like I stated, I'm already being given more than enough. So much so that it's insulting to me as a person. It's less about proving yourself now and more about being given thrown at businesses that have to tread carefully about whether they're gonna hire me or not.



I can agree on the affirmative action part a bit. 

But what gives you the moral authority to dictate what people can and cannot voluntarily put into their bodies?


----------



## Oblique Lynx (May 24, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I can agree on the affirmative action part a bit.
> 
> But what gives you the moral authority to dictate what people can and cannot voluntarily put into their bodies?


Personal and public safety. Drug-addled people pose a threat both physically and mentally while drug-addicts pose the risk of taking space in medical institutions that would otherwise have been better utilized


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 24, 2018)

webkilla said:


> How about you tell the rest of us your education level first - as a show of good faith? You seem to think that you have the answers to everything.
> 
> 
> ...and yet you claim that my arguments are completely based on opinion? Dude, can you lie any more blatantly? How many links to sources haven't I posted already?
> ...



Nah. I don't feel like telling you anything about me. Your unwillingness to respond is telling, though. 

My "communism doesn't kill" comment was a jab at the pro gun crowd. I'm sorry your sense of humor is damaged. You know what they say about people who don't get the joke soon enough, right?

And yeah. Your willingness to throw entire types of degrees out the window they they "indoctrinate" people is called cherry picking. I bet you've never set foot in a college class.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 24, 2018)

Oblique Lynx said:


> Personal and public safety. Drug-addled people pose a threat both physically and mentally while drug-addicts pose the risk of taking space in medical institutions that would otherwise have been better utilized



Throwing hard drugs into another debate, what about alchohol and marijuana? People using marijuana pose no social risk unless they drive while high, same if driving while intoxicated. The overall effects of legalizing marijuana have been resoundingly positive. Your stance flies in the face of reality. You can't, and shouldn't, force people to do things they don't want to.


----------



## Oblique Lynx (May 24, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Throwing hard drugs into another debate, what about alchohol and marijuana? People using marijuana pose no social risk unless they drive while high, same if driving while intoxicated. The overall effects of legalizing marijuana have been resoundingly positive. Your stance flies in the face of reality. You can't, and shouldn't, force people to do things they don't want to.


I've stated my opinion on alcohol and being rid of it.

Drugs like marijuana still pose the risk of dependency and addiction. Illicit drugs like that also make it easy to overdose and, again, pose the risk of wasting hospital space due to such things


----------



## webkilla (May 24, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Nah. I don't feel like telling you anything about me. Your unwillingness to respond is telling, though.
> 
> My "communism doesn't kill" comment was a jab at the pro gun crowd. I'm sorry your sense of humor is damaged. You know what they say about people who don't get the joke soon enough, right?
> 
> And yeah. Your willingness to throw entire types of degrees out the window they they "indoctrinate" people is called cherry picking. I bet you've never set foot in a college class.



Well in that case you just lost that bet bucko, lost it hard. In a month or so I'll be getting my third degree - an engineering degree in mechanical engineering. Prior to that I got a bachelor and masters degree in UX engineering. You need user interface design or structural stress simulations done? Fluid flow simulations? Calculate specs on some heat exchangers or cooling units? I'm your guy.

But again - your scorn is quite telling: You seem to assume that anyone who disagrees with you, is automatically stupid. That's not very smart. You should respect your oponent in a political debate - they might know something you don't.

Let me guess: You're in college, working on your first (and what will likely be your only) degree? Cute.


Also nice backpedal on your communism "jab" - why not just admit that you were wrong? Because there's nothing wrong with my sense of humor - I think you're hilarious AND pathetic 

Finally, me throwing an entire type of degrees out the window is based on a reasonably credible source, namely one Jordan B Peterson - who has pointed out how the US college humanities have been effectively taken over by post modernist marxists. I can't wait for you to tell me that he's some kind of alt right bad guy too.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 24, 2018)

Oblique Lynx said:


> I've stated my opinion on alcohol and being rid of it.
> 
> Drugs like marijuana still pose the risk of dependency and addiction. Illicit drugs like that also make it easy to overdose and, again, pose the risk of wasting hospital space due to such things



No, sorry, the facts don't support that, in areas where it's been legalized. A very small amount of people who'll become addicted. Rehabilitation isn't usually necceary, it's similar in addictuve quality to tobacco. There's also no real way to overdose on pot unless you are doing something unusually stupid with it that I'm not aware of. 

And. Wasted hospital space? What do you mean by this?


----------



## Reshizard (May 24, 2018)

@Oblique Lynx 

You want to make all drugs including tobacco and alcohol illegal correct? You know how bad that would be for the economy and how many conservatives would turn on you?


----------



## Cawdabra (May 24, 2018)

Off-topic but, my counter argument for being tougher on crime and the justice system in general: Look at the recidivism rates in the US


----------



## AppleButt (May 24, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Usually I am expecting that the less educated someone is, and the less ability they have to be critical thinkers, the more likely they are to lean right.



Come on, man.  Don’t be that guy that thinks most people who lean right are unintelligent.

I don’t know if you’re trying to say going to college automatically makes you smarter or what. 

I’m a liberal.  I didn’t go to college (well I did for a semester).  Admittingly college came harder to me than most people, and I dropped out.  I am not dumber because of it.


----------



## Oblique Lynx (May 24, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> No, sorry, the facts don't support that, in areas where it's been legalized. A very small amount of people who'll become addicted. Rehabilitation isn't usually necceary, it's similar in addictuve quality to tobacco. There's also no real way to overdose on pot unless you are doing something unusually stupid with it that I'm not aware of.
> 
> And. Wasted hospital space? What do you mean by this?


Tobacco is _extremely _addictive because of its properties and how the body reacts to that smoke leaving the lungs. While marijuana doesn't play on ACh receptors, marijuana still affects your release of dopamine causing that gratification. The more one smokes, the more they need to feel that same feeling, posing a risk to addiction to feel that same "high". Overdosing on pot can be rather easy depending on the method one consumes it. While not really fatal in itself, it _does _cause alterations to one's perceptions which greatly increase risk of serious injury

Wasted space as in they're taking up a slot that would have better been left open for someone actually requiring those resources.



Reshizard said:


> @Oblique Lynx
> 
> You want to make all drugs including tobacco and alcohol illegal correct? You know how bad that would be for the economy and how many conservatives would turn on you?


I'm aware that it does play on our economy and I've no doubt that some would turn on me


----------



## Reshizard (May 24, 2018)

Oblique Lynx said:


> Tobacco is _extremely _addictive because of its properties and how the body reacts to that smoke leaving the lungs. While marijuana doesn't play on ACh receptors, marijuana still affects your release of dopamine causing that gratification. The more one smokes, the more they need to feel that same feeling, posing a risk to addiction to feel that same "high". Overdosing on pot can be rather easy depending on the method one consumes it. While not really fatal in itself, it _does _cause alterations to one's perceptions which greatly increase risk of serious injury
> 
> Wasted space as in they're taking up a slot that would have better been left open for someone actually requiring those resources.
> 
> ...



Legalizing and taxing pot benefits the economy and the government. Plus making drugs illegal doesnt make them go away. You wind up with a black market and even in countries with Sharia law in effect, you have a black market for alcohol. Making drugs such as pot and LSD illegal hurts society and the economy. Plus there's the issue of overcrowding prisons when people are arrested for merely possessing the drug.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 24, 2018)

Reshizard said:


> Legalizing and taxing pot benefits the economy and the government. Plus making drugs illegal doesnt make them go away. You wind up with a black market and even in countries with Sharia law in effect, you have a black market for alcohol. Making drugs such as pot and LSD illegal hurts society and the economy. Plus there's the issue of overcrowding prisons when people are arrested for merely possessing the drug.



LSD?  Really?  Psychedelics now?

I mean, I don't know if I'm one to talk, but I'm pretty sure alcohol and drugs haven't done people not society a lick of good.

Taking really bad shit, taxing it to Hell, and pretending that it's a good thing just because the government is the dealer now doesn't make a better society.


----------



## Reshizard (May 24, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> LSD?  Really?  Psychedelics now?
> 
> I mean, I don't know if I'm one to talk, but I'm pretty sure alcohol and drugs haven't done people not society a lick of good.
> 
> Taking really bad shit, taxing it to Hell, and pretending that it's a good thing just because the government is the dealer now doesn't make a better society.



Yet we have McDonalds, Burger King and other fast food places and the health effects of those are documented


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 24, 2018)

AppleButt said:


> Come on, man.  Don’t be that guy that thinks most people who lean right are unintelligent.
> 
> I don’t know if you’re trying to say going to college automatically makes you smarter or what.
> 
> I’m a liberal.  I didn’t go to college (well I did for a semester).  Admittingly college came harder to me than most people, and I dropped out.  I am not dumber because of it.



Honestly no, it doesn't neccearily make you smarter. But hopefully it teaches people better critical thinking skills. It might be the left is continuing to see the benefit of higher education, while right wingers are increasingly seeing it as indoctrination, so are going to College less. Would beninterstjg to see those stats.



Oblique Lynx said:


> Tobacco is _extremely _addictive because of its properties and how the body reacts to that smoke leaving the lungs. While marijuana doesn't play on ACh receptors, marijuana still affects your release of dopamine causing that gratification. The more one smokes, the more they need to feel that same feeling, posing a risk to addiction to feel that same "high". Overdosing on pot can be rather easy depending on the method one consumes it. While not really fatal in itself, it _does _cause alterations to one's perceptions which greatly increase risk of serious injury
> 
> Wasted space as in they're taking up a slot that would have better been left open for someone actually requiring those resources.
> 
> ...



By that reasoning, people can be addicted to happy music, so that should be banned, or anything that releases dopamine, such as porn.

And why are those people undeserving of hospital attention? Seems like you'd be willing to dictate who gets life Saving medical attention and who doesn't. That seems rather unethical to me.


ResolutionBlaze said:


> LSD?  Really?  Psychedelics now?
> 
> I mean, I don't know if I'm one to talk, but I'm pretty sure alcohol and drugs haven't done people not society a lick of good.
> 
> Taking really bad shit, taxing it to Hell, and pretending that it's a good thing just because the government is the dealer now doesn't make a better society.



I can drink alcohol and consume marijuana safely and in moderation and only when I want to. Why do your morals get to take precedence over mine?

ETA: also LSD has medical properties and can heal people. It should also be legal for medical reason.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 24, 2018)

Reshizard said:


> Yet we have McDonalds, Burger King and other fast food places and the health effects of those are documented



>Suggests that fast food more dangerous than psychedelics

Your science is laughably outdated.

www.google.com: Junk Food Might Not Be Addictive, After All

Not even mentioning that rat studies have been used and such studies are typically unreliable.


----------



## Reshizard (May 24, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> >Suggests that fast food more dangerous than psychedelics
> 
> Your science is laughably outdated.
> 
> ...


Even if its not addictive, it contributes heavily to our obesity epidemic


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 24, 2018)

Reshizard said:


> Even if its not addictive, it contributes heavily to our obesity epidemic



Not saying it doesn't.  But it's certainly no justification for psychedelic drugs.

You admit that something doesn't have to be addictive to be damaging.  Why do drugs get the same pass?  Unlike marijuana, LSD is CAN be very dangerous despite not necessarily being as addictive as other drugs.


----------



## Kumali (May 24, 2018)

Oblique Lynx said:


> I've stated my opinion on alcohol and being rid of it.
> 
> Drugs like marijuana still pose the risk of dependency and addiction. Illicit drugs like that also make it easy to overdose and, again, pose the risk of wasting hospital space due to such things



A little off-topic, but: am I the only one who sees hilarious irony in someone who writes posts like this using a quote from Alan Watts as his sig line?


----------



## Reshizard (May 24, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> Not saying it doesn't.  But it's certainly no justification for psychedelic drugs.
> 
> You admit that something doesn't have to be addictive to be damaging.  Why do drugs get the same pass?  Unlike marijuana, LSD is CAN be very dangerous despite not necessarily being as addictive as other drugs.


Because you think addictive is the only qualifier for damaging and fast food is even more damaging to society than drugs but drugs continue to be the focus of major criticism


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 24, 2018)

Y'all know the main reason pot is illegal is because after the Prohibition ended, some politicians needed another scapegoat right? And that it turned into a massive black market affair, crony capitalism, threw a disproportionate amount of minorities in prison, and all they even issued a propoganda campaign comparing hippies to pot smokers in order to deligitimize anti war sentiments. 

It was never about the *plant*


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 24, 2018)

Reshizard said:


> Because you think addictive is the only qualifier for damaging and fast food is even more damaging to society than drugs but drugs continue to be the focus of major criticism



I... never stated this.  In fact I stated the exact opposite of what you accuse me of.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 24, 2018)

Kumali said:


> A little off-topic, but: am I the only one who sees hilarious irony in someone who writes posts like this using a quote from Alan Watts as his sig line?



 I didn't notice this. Apparently this person uses quotes from people who've been banished from the science community and write completely bonsense garbage blogs.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 24, 2018)

webkilla said:


> Well in that case you just lost that bet bucko, lost it hard. In a month or so I'll be getting my third degree - an engineering degree in mechanical engineering. Prior to that I got a bachelor and masters degree in UX engineering. You need user interface design or structural stress simulations done? Fluid flow simulations? Calculate specs on some heat exchangers or cooling units? I'm your guy.
> 
> But again - your scorn is quite telling: You seem to assume that anyone who disagrees with you, is automatically stupid. That's not very smart. You should respect your oponent in a political debate - they might know something you don't.
> 
> ...



Your degrees give you authority to speak in terms of how to make mechanical entities function better. That fact that you think they're worth more than other degrees such as humanities, philosophy, anthropology, psychology, etc. is really rather quaint, and your superior complex is quite unbecoming.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 24, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I didn't notice this. Apparently this person uses quotes from people who've been banished from the science community and write completely bonsense garbage blogs.


>Science community
We have failed as a species when "Science" becomes a clique.


----------



## Ginza (May 24, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> No, sorry, the facts don't support that, in areas where it's been legalized. A very small amount of people who'll become addicted. Rehabilitation isn't usually necceary, it's similar in addictuve quality to tobacco. There's also no real way to overdose on pot unless you are doing something unusually stupid with it that I'm not aware of.
> 
> And. Wasted hospital space? What do you mean by this?



You’d have to consume a shit ton of weed within a 15 minute period to fatally overdose lmao


----------



## Reshizard (May 24, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> I... never stated this.  In fact I stated the exact opposite of what you accuse me of.


Considering you said this 

”You admit that something doesn't have to be addictive to be damaging."

I had a hunch that was the reason you tossed me that link about fast food despite the fact i consider fast food's availability and contributions to the obesity crisis a more damaging item as opposed to drugs


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 24, 2018)

Ginza said:


> You’d have to consume a shit ton of weed within a 15 minute period to fatally overdose lmao


Put some Bane tubes on.  Permanent MLG status.


----------



## Kumali (May 24, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> I didn't notice this. Apparently this person uses quotes from people who've been banished from the science community and write completely bonsense garbage blogs.



I'm not sure we're thinking of the same Alan Watts - the one I'm thinking of (and whose _The Book on the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are_ I was just re-reading today, as chance would have it) never wrote any blogs, since he died in 1973.

Alan Watts - Wikipedia


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 24, 2018)

ResolutionBlaze said:


> >Science community
> We have failed as a species when "Science" becomes a clique.



Yes, there's a certain amount of tribalism in the community. However, people only get "kicked out" if they fail to use the most basic of scientific principles.


----------



## webkilla (May 24, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Your degrees give you authority to speak in terms of how to make mechanical entities function better. That fact that you think they're worth more than other degrees such as humanities, philosophy, anthropology, psychology, etc. is really rather quaint, and your superior complex is quite unbecoming.



Sweet jesus you thick piece of work.

YOU BET that I had never set foot in a college class. I answered and showed you wrong - yet somehow you've managed to twist that into me being the bad guy?

No, you silly little thing. Just admit that you were wrong. You wanted to paint me as some uneducated rube that you could lord over - instead you find yourself talking to an intellectual you cannot argue against! Also, funny you mention anthropology and psyschology - because my UX degrees included a fair bit of that, so you're wrong once again, you silly little thing.


Also, for the third time you slanderous muppet: what am I an apologist for, for you said I was one earlier:



BahgDaddy said:


> You apologists seem to want people to be able to get away with whatever hate speech they'd like


 - you said this in response to something I said, so I can only assume that I'm part of the "you" group you refer to there.

And considering that the US supreme court has ruled that 'hate speech' is protected under the first amendment, then you really don't have much of a leg to stand on there: www.washingtonexaminer.com: In wake of the Supreme Court's ruling on hate speech and the First Amendment, more good news may be on the way

then again - the very notion of "hate speech" seems incredibly vague. Doesn't antifa hate fascists? So it and its supporters voicing that, is that hate speech? I think hate speech is against the CoC rules... whoopsie? Or is it ok to hate people if those people are violent right wing idiots? What about hating on violent left wing idiots?


----------



## Reshizard (May 24, 2018)

webkilla said:


> And considering that the US supreme court has ruled that 'hate speech' is protected under the first amendment, then you really don't have much of a leg to stand on there: www.washingtonexaminer.com: In wake of the Supreme Court's ruling on hate speech and the First Amendment, more good news may be on the way


You are using the conservative website the washington examiner. Even if this is true, private institutions such as Furaffinity can still kick people who use hate speech constantly


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 24, 2018)

Kumali said:


> I'm not sure we're thinking of the same Alan Watts - the one I'm thinking of (and whose _The Book on the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are_ I was just re-reading today, as chance would have it) never wrote any blogs, since he died in 1973.
> 
> Alan Watts - Wikipedia



Oops, disregard, I was thinking of Anthony Watts, notable climate change denier.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 24, 2018)

webkilla said:


> Sweet jesus you thick piece of work.
> 
> YOU BET that I had never set foot in a college class. I answered and showed you wrong - yet somehow you've managed to twist that into me being the bad guy?
> 
> ...



Sure, my bad for the college class comment, but it's obvious that becoming highly learned in one field does nothing for the Capacity in another field. In other words, you might be good (or bad, I don't know you) at engineering, but you are obviously extremely bad at serious discussions. It's regrettable - critical thinking and logic really ought to be a required course in colleges.

So again, you're using your degree in a completely unrelated field to give yourself props. Do you realize how this makes you look?


----------



## webkilla (May 24, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Sure, my bad for the college class comment, but it's obvious that becoming highly learned in one field does nothing for the Capacity in another field. In other words, you might be good (or bad, I don't know you) at engineering, but you are obviously extremely bad at serious discussions. It's regrettable - critical thinking and logic really ought to be a required course in colleges.
> 
> So again, you're using your degree in a completely unrelated field to give yourself props. Do you realize how this makes you look?



And you're for the THIRD TIME dodging my question - what am I an apologist for. Answer the god damn question bag-boy!

You're just clinging to this education thing - which at this point is completely off-topic - to avoid answering that. Good grief you are pathetic, and yet you have the gall to claim I can't do serious discussion?

Lets do a quick recap:

So far, over the last few days, you've demonstrated incredible ignorance of the death-toll inflicted on humanity by socialism and communism - though you also claimed that the soviet union wasn't practicing "real" socialism or communism, and I'm honestly not sure which is worse.

You've implied that anyone who isn't as left leaning as you is poorly educated - and yet you now complain I somehow lord my education over you? I just proved you wrong, but you don't seem to like that, do you? Pathetic.

You've ignored loads of examples of antifa violence - to the point of claiming that antifa being for violence is some kind of red herring! Dude, "bike lock basher", the guy was caught and is standing trial for that shit! I linked a dozen pro-antifa pictures from FA all in support of violence and intimidation against antifa's enemies.

You ignore reality, you substitute your own, and then you say I'm the one who can't do serious conversation? mate, are you on drugs or something?


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 24, 2018)

webkilla said:


> And you're for the THIRD TIME dodging my question - what am I an apologist for. Answer the god damn question bag-boy!
> 
> You're just clinging to this education thing - which at this point is completely off-topic - to avoid answering that. Good grief you are pathetic, and yet you have the gall to claim I can't do serious discussion?
> 
> ...



Nope, I am not on drugs, although I did try some marijuana once. I found it relaxing but it made my room smell like a skunk bomb, so, no more of that for now. 

"what am I an apologist for."

Hmm? I haven't said you were an apologist for anything. What makes you think that?

"claim I can't do serious discussion?"

Yes, all indications point to you not being capable of serious discussion. You use personal insults, red herrings, go off an tangents, cite suspicious sources, use appeal to athortity logical fallacies (using your degrees as props), and also point blank make up things I haven't said and attack those things instead of what I've actually said. Not only is this boring, it's also quite unethical. 

"you've demonstrated incredible ignorance of the death-toll inflicted on humanity by socialism and communism"

Europe is doing quite well with a blend of socialism and free market enterprise systems. Socialism is not evil, but it can be used in evil manners. 

Communism on the other hand, point blank doesn't work. 

"though you also claimed that the soviet union wasn't practicing "real" socialism or communism"

*Can you find this exact quote?* You've said I used the word "real," so make sure that word is in my message you quote. 

"You've implied that anyone who isn't as left leaning as you is poorly educated"

I've never made any comparison to myself. That's in rather poor taste. 

You've said no less than 4 things in this post about me that are either false or misconstrue my point. Your debate tactics are, to say the least, _appalling_.


----------



## JakeCWolf (May 24, 2018)

I love how this turned into a mud slinging shitfest of a thread. Seems we forgot why we all came here in the first place huh?


----------



## Yakamaru (May 24, 2018)

Can this thread and the other one just be locked, please? It's doing nothing but drive people further apart.


----------



## LuciantheHugmage (May 24, 2018)

Yakamaru said:


> Can this thread and the other one just be locked, please? It's doing nothing but drive people further apart.


Yes. I haven't even participated, and I'm finding this a little bit headache inducing.

Guys, no amount of quoting and mudslinging is going to change each other's minds. If you can't agree on something, just drop it and let it go. 

We don't need to make the mod's job harder than it already is. And we don't need to push ourselves apart, that doesn't do our community any good.


----------



## DeeTheDragon (May 24, 2018)

Time to assume parental status :V

"I don't care who started it, I want you to stop it!"


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 24, 2018)

I've just been having fun. I'll stop now. :3


----------



## webkilla (May 25, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> Nope, I am not on drugs, although I did try some marijuana once. I found it relaxing but it made my room smell like a skunk bomb, so, no more of that for now.
> 
> "what am I an apologist for."
> 
> ...



Apologist? I quoted you saying that two posts ago - and you ignored it! Good heavens you are thick!



BahgDaddy said:


> You apologists seem to want people to be able to get away with whatever hate speech they'd like.



You seemed to be talking to me at that time - seemed kinda obvious that you were lumping me in with these apologists. Freaking own up to your own insults before complaining about mine.

I site suspicous sources? YOU HAVE DONE NOTHING TO DEBUNK MY SOURCES! And yet now you just dismiss them all suspicous out of hand? How shallow and illogical can you be?

And again you claim that I use my degrees as props - YOU CLAIMED I WAS UNEDUATED, I SIMPLY PROVED YOU WRONG. Again you lie.

That (Northern) Europe has a couple of reasonably functional welfare states is irrelevant - do not dodge the question! They are not socialist in the slightest, because you clearly don't understand what it means for a state to be socialist. There's a huge difference between a state having welfare programs, and then being a socialist state. Venezuela is a socialist state, and look at what's happening there.



BahgDaddy said:


> Oh. Socialism and communism don't kill people. _People kill people.
> _
> Did that sound stupid? Because that's what pro 2nd amendment people sound like.
> 
> Seriously though, dictatorship is what caused those situations to fail.



You seemed quite willing to dismiss that it was in seeking to effect socialist and communist policies that places like the soviet union, or maoist china, became hellholes full of death camps. I can assure you, citing fun and happy books like The Gulag Archipelago if you want some insight into communist thinking at its worst: 


and what the hell do you then call this here statement:



BahgDaddy said:


> And yeah. The more educated someone becomes, the [more likely] they are to lean left. This is a natural consequence of becoming a more tolerant and well informed person.



It seemed rather obvious that you were implying that you - a stated socialist - consider yourself among the better educated in this context. Either way you essentially decried all right wingers as stupid, uninformed and intolerant.


but you're right - we should stop talking - because you're obviously not conducting this "debate" in good faith.

You have repeatedly ignored evidence, including videos, of antifa being violent. I think I'll just dismiss you as a lefty-troll and just post more damning evidence against antifa


----------



## LuxVolans (May 25, 2018)

Connor J. Coyote said:


> The antifa v. alt-right controversy is a rather divisive topic, and I try to avoid it when I can.. It's like an out-of-control monster, that's just gotten bigger and bigger over time, and the local Furry townsfolk (in the community) are all stuggling to cope with it, and not get eaten alive.
> 
> But I think another Chill Pill (needs to be dispensed) on this thread.
> 
> If needed, (take 2 of these) - and hopefully you'll feel better in the morning:




Okay there dude, calm down dude. Take a chill pill.  Don't have a chill pill, take one of those chill strips!  Ya put it on your tongue, it dissolves...  _Chill_...


----------



## webkilla (May 25, 2018)

Remember at the Berkeley riots, where an antifa black-block assaulted a group of Milo Yanopolis fans?

This was spraypainted on the walls of a college building, quite likely by an antifa member:






So ya - antifa, peaceful right?


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 25, 2018)

webkilla said:


> Apologist? I quoted you saying that two posts ago - and you ignored it! Good heavens you are thick!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All right, I had fun leading you around with a bunch of bait and switch. But, now you just keep repeating yourself. Kinda boring, bigly sad. I think I'll block you now.


----------



## Connor J. Coyote (May 25, 2018)

LuxVolans said:


> Okay there dude, calm down dude. Take a chill pill.  Don't have a chill pill, take one of those chill strips!  Ya put it on your tongue, it dissolves...  _Chill_...


yes.. take your own advice, please.


----------



## AK_Sandfire (May 25, 2018)

How is this still going? How have people not figured out that fascist = bad yet?


----------



## webkilla (May 25, 2018)

AK_Sandfire said:


> How is this still going? How have people not figured out that fascist = bad yet?



I don't think that's the issue here - nobody here is defending the alt right.

The trouble is that a lot of people don't seem to recognize how dangerous antifa is - be it because they're blinding by youthful enthusiasm for what promotes itself as a righteous cause of social justice, or because they just don't think they're dangerous.


----------



## Yakamaru (May 25, 2018)

webkilla said:


> I don't think that's the issue here - nobody here is defending the alt right.
> 
> The trouble is that a lot of people don't seem to recognize how dangerous antifa is - be it because they're blinding by youthful enthusiasm for what promotes itself as a righteous cause of social justice, or because they just don't think they're dangerous.


Aaaand you took the obvious bait.. -.-


----------



## webkilla (May 25, 2018)

webkilla said:


> I don't think that's the issue here - nobody here is defending the alt right.
> 
> The trouble is that a lot of people don't seem to recognize how dangerous antifa is - be it because they're blinding by youthful enthusiasm for what promotes itself as a righteous cause of social justice, or because they just don't think they're dangerous.



Bait or not - it needs to be said

here, have a CNN video:


----------



## Ginza (May 25, 2018)

webkilla said:


> Bait or not - it needs to be said
> 
> here, have a CNN video:



They don’t care. You won’t change anyone’s minds by posting this. This is a losing battle, and isn’t worth anyone’s time nor breath. Just let it go


----------



## webkilla (May 26, 2018)

Ginza said:


> They don’t care. You won’t change anyone’s minds by posting this. This is a losing battle, and isn’t worth anyone’s time nor breath. Just let it go



We'll see

Considering that FA still seems to allow conservatives in general on the site - cigarskunk, Naylor, people who are Pro-Trump - then I don't see how any 'real' antifa groups are going to accept FA as a pro-antifa site any time soon.

Quite the contrary really - though I don't think they be sending any black blocks to assault furry cons either  I'm thinking they'll just dismiss FA's administration as posers and tryhards


----------



## ElFantastico (May 26, 2018)

> That's a _really_ flawed assumption.



Assumption?  Practical approximation of unknowable information based on a history of observable events and behaviors -- within and beyond the context being discussed -- is not without merit..
Would you rather I presume that the actors are characterized by misguided goodwill, but also chronically unable to hear or understand objection over the course of repeated patterns of behavior?
Could it be that feedback is not merely unavailable to this process, but undesired?

Yes, comments are always full of trash.  When you see stark escalation, it's not spurred by the positions of the stars..
Comments are blocked because they were being used in an increasing amount by individuals of divided views -- in response to the content of the posts.
The agitation and division in the comments is a reflection of the post itself, the history of the posts, and how they fit into the culture of divisive bullshit across the site and beyond.
Of course they get unhelpful and voluminous.  That's what happens when you act directly to divide people.  It's either a desired outcome or a _warning sign_.
Sweeping it under the rug and continuing without consideration isn't a respectable behavior -- regardless of what you presume.


----------



## Cawdabra (May 26, 2018)

webkilla said:


> Considering that FA still seems to allow conservatives in general on the site - *cigarskunk*, Naylor, people who are Pro-Trump.


Actually he was banned.


----------



## webkilla (May 26, 2018)

Well color me surprised - I thought he just stopped using the site. Hmm, well his account was suspended, what do you know.

It doesn't matter though - my point was that there are still plenty of people to the right of antifa on FA. Hell, I'd argue that 99% of FA's users are probably politically to the right of antifa - since at its core, when its comes to politics, antifa is based on an anarcho-communist ideology. I don't think most FA users want to abolish private property, especially not when it comes to forking over their own stuff to the communal share pile.

Then again, that just goes to show why antifa is so popular with youngsters: Its well known that young people tend to be a lot more left leaning than +30 year olds. On average anyway. FA's userbase, being mainly of a younger persuasion (teens looking for free furry porn and whatnot, plus most of the artists) then it'd make sense that there'd be more antifa supporters than extreme right-wingers when you look at the total numbers.

Still, doesn't mean that antifa should be let off the hook on that account. I still think FA's admins should update the CoC to clarify that antifa is counted as well when it comes to the rules against propaganda or promoting violence.


----------



## ResolutionBlaze (May 26, 2018)

BahgDaddy said:


> All right, I had fun leading you around with a bunch of bait and switch. But, now you just keep repeating yourself. Kinda boring, bigly sad. I think I'll block you now.


Oh how the mighty have fallen.


----------



## BahgDaddy (May 26, 2018)

Cawdabra said:


> Actually he was banned.



Too bad. I've never seen that many insults in one post before :3


----------



## SSJ3Mewtwo (May 29, 2018)

Closing this thread for review.


----------

