It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionEurope is burning (the terrorism thread)(811 posts) (811 posts) 
(811 posts) 
Pages:
1
10
20
26
27
28
29
30
40
50
55
This is my favourite topic
Posted December 20, 2016
avatar
Maxvorstadt: I`m waiting for a german politician who says."The real blame is on the computergames, we must ban all the games, so even adults can`t play them anymore. Computer gamers are evil!".
That`s exactly what happened after all those incidents.
No more Euro Truck Simulator 2 then :(
Posted December 20, 2016
avatar
timppu: (probably filled with The Witcher 3 boxes),
And you thought that this joke in the face tragedy was appropriate because... why exactly?


Condolences to everyone involved.
Posted December 20, 2016
high rated
avatar
darthspudius: I'm surprised the lefties let this thread live. They did a fine job of destroying the other political based threads with outcries of racism and lies.
Because this thread was opened at a time when most sane individuals went from knee-jerk #notallmuslims reactions to "I'm getting sick of this shit".
Posted December 20, 2016
avatar
Tyrrhia: Fairness reminder: “hatefulness” and “racism” aren’t exclusively White things.
avatar
fables22: Also - no one said they were.
(I meant to write “White and right‐wing” but I noticed too late.) Anyway, no one said they were, but I sure don’t see the same kind of reaction when such stuff comes from a left or minority environment.
Posted December 20, 2016
avatar
darthspudius: I'm surprised the lefties let this thread live.
avatar
Starmaker: I'm surprised your mother let you live.
Has the phrase ''be the change'' ever been communicated to you?
avatar
fables22: No, whether it is OK or not is exactly the question. And no, it's not OK.

Also - no one said they were.
That's the problem though. Many people here think the question is why they don't get to choose by themselves what's OK. A simple hide posts of users feature perhaps?

The question of whether its OK or not really depends on what the people managing the forum wants, ie you guys. To some forum owners, what Bradley said is OK. After all, forum and site rules aren't enforceable laws and what rules are obeyed is virtually fully in the hands of the managers. Its not anyone said online forums must have parity with real world laws beyond not allowing illegal activity.
Post edited December 20, 2016 by Shadowstalker16
Posted December 20, 2016
low rated
avatar
Starmaker: I'm surprised your mother let you live.
avatar
Shadowstalker16: Has the phrase ''be the change'' ever been communicated to you?
avatar
fables22: No, whether it is OK or not is exactly the question. And no, it's not OK.

Also - no one said they were.
avatar
Shadowstalker16: That's the problem though. Many people here think the question is why they don't get to choose by themselves what's OK. A simple hide posts of users feature perhaps?

The question of whether its OK or not really depends on what the people managing the forum wants, ie you guys. To some forum owners, what Bradley said is OK. After all, forum and site rules aren't enforceable laws and what rules are obeyed is virtually fully in the hands of the managers. Its not anyone said online forums must have parity with real world laws beyond not allowing illegal activity.
Yes, but certain things (that do, unfortunately) happen on the forum as well are punishable under hate crime and/or equality laws of many countries. Hence why in some cases people shouldn't have the option to choose what's OK.
Posted December 20, 2016
low rated
avatar
Avogadro6: Condolences for the victims.

American channels report that Isis claimed to be behind the killing, whereas European media are still going for the classic "maybe it was just an accident". So I guess that means it really was an attack, then...
Victims? Eurotards brought all this on themselves, the only thing to be sad about is more people weren't killed.
Posted December 20, 2016
avatar
Shadowstalker16: Has the phrase ''be the change'' ever been communicated to you?

That's the problem though. Many people here think the question is why they don't get to choose by themselves what's OK. A simple hide posts of users feature perhaps?

The question of whether its OK or not really depends on what the people managing the forum wants, ie you guys. To some forum owners, what Bradley said is OK. After all, forum and site rules aren't enforceable laws and what rules are obeyed is virtually fully in the hands of the managers. Its not anyone said online forums must have parity with real world laws beyond not allowing illegal activity.
avatar
fables22: Yes, but certain things (that do, unfortunately) happen on the forum as well are punishable under hate crime and/or equality laws of many countries. Hence why in some cases people shouldn't have the option to choose what's OK.
Unfortunately, a state of absolute compliance with such laws can never be achieved on a forum, so its the choice of the forum owner whether an example may be an actionable one irl or not. That is, if illegality is the sole measure of removing posts.

An important difference though is that heavy handed laws that curb speech can be legally pursued in court in real life while on the internet, it will just be a gradual imposition of more and more regulations. Ofc any regulations can be had since its not the user's forum, but that's where the question how much control shows up.

I for one certainly don't want moderation like that on the default subs of reddit for example, or neogaf, where the actual rules are ignored and the real rules are little more than agreeing with a position or being banned. Basically, what I'm saying is that I don't think ''conventional'' moderation is not something to aspire to.
Posted December 20, 2016
low rated
avatar
fables22: Yes, but certain things (that do, unfortunately) happen on the forum as well are punishable under hate crime and/or equality laws of many countries. Hence why in some cases people shouldn't have the option to choose what's OK.
avatar
Shadowstalker16: Unfortunately, a state of absolute compliance with such laws can never be achieved on a forum, so its the choice of the forum owner whether an example may be an actionable one irl or not. That is, if illegality is the sole measure of removing posts.

An important difference though is that heavy handed laws that curb speech can be legally pursued in court in real life while on the internet, it will just be a gradual imposition of more and more regulations. Ofc any regulations can be had since its not the user's forum, but that's where the question how much control shows up.

I for one certainly don't want moderation like that on the default subs of reddit for example, or neogaf, where the actual rules are ignored and the real rules are little more than agreeing with a position or being banned. Basically, what I'm saying is that I don't think ''conventional'' moderation is not something to aspire to.
The problem is that "I certainly don't want moderation like on reddit and neogaf" hasn't got an awful lot of value here, because I bet that for every opinion like that, we will get someone who is a 100% convinced that's exactly the level of moderation this forum needs. In other words, someone is always going to be upset. However, I think that if moderation is something that can resurrect the forum and slowly turn it into a place that people actually feel like contributing to, then that maybe is the way to go.

And it's not about having to agree with the mainstream opinion - it's about being able to voice opinions that differ without offending and/or insulting anyone. Which means changes of behaviour must be made on both sides, so we can actually have a meaningful discussion.
Posted December 20, 2016
low rated
avatar
Avogadro6: Condolences for the victims.

American channels report that Isis claimed to be behind the killing, whereas European media are still going for the classic "maybe it was just an accident". So I guess that means it really was an attack, then...
avatar
Dismember77777: Victims? Eurotards brought all this on themselves, the only thing to be sad about is more people weren't killed.
Wow, simply disrespect because we "Europeans" brought this to ourselves? Much appreciated, because you show exactly with no further need for any evidence what the main problem here is: Pure ignorance and hatred!
Posted December 20, 2016
low rated
avatar
Avogadro6: Condolences for the victims.

American channels report that Isis claimed to be behind the killing, whereas European media are still going for the classic "maybe it was just an accident". So I guess that means it really was an attack, then...
avatar
Dismember77777: Victims? Eurotards brought all this on themselves, the only thing to be sad about is more people weren't killed.
Honestly, if you don't have anything better than hateful slurs to say, maybe....don't say anything at all?
avatar
Dismember77777: Victims? Eurotards brought all this on themselves, the only thing to be sad about is more people weren't killed.
avatar
throgh: Wow, simply disrespect because we "Europeans" brought this to ourselves? Much appreciated, because you show exactly with no further need for any evidence what the main problem here is: Pure ignorance and hatred!
Nail on the head.
Post edited December 20, 2016 by fables22
Posted December 20, 2016
avatar
Shadowstalker16: Unfortunately, a state of absolute compliance with such laws can never be achieved on a forum, so its the choice of the forum owner whether an example may be an actionable one irl or not. That is, if illegality is the sole measure of removing posts.

An important difference though is that heavy handed laws that curb speech can be legally pursued in court in real life while on the internet, it will just be a gradual imposition of more and more regulations. Ofc any regulations can be had since its not the user's forum, but that's where the question how much control shows up.

I for one certainly don't want moderation like that on the default subs of reddit for example, or neogaf, where the actual rules are ignored and the real rules are little more than agreeing with a position or being banned. Basically, what I'm saying is that I don't think ''conventional'' moderation is not something to aspire to.
avatar
fables22: The problem is that "I certainly don't want moderation like on reddit and neogaf" hasn't got an awful lot of value here, because I bet that for every opinion like that, we will get someone who is a 100% convinced that's exactly the level of moderation this forum needs. In other words, someone is always going to be upset. However, I think that if moderation is something that can resurrect the forum and slowly turn it into a place that people actually feel like contributing to, then that maybe is the way to go.

And it's not about having to agree with the mainstream opinion - it's about being able to voice opinions that differ without offending and/or insulting anyone. Which means changes of behaviour must be made on both sides, so we can actually have a meaningful discussion.
Yes, what you said is true, someone will be mad at whatever change happens. So I guess the only option is to select a method that makes a balanced compromise? But the question remains, if any type of moderation is to be implemented, what will it focus on?
Posted December 20, 2016
low rated
avatar
fables22: The problem is that "I certainly don't want moderation like on reddit and neogaf" hasn't got an awful lot of value here, because I bet that for every opinion like that, we will get someone who is a 100% convinced that's exactly the level of moderation this forum needs. In other words, someone is always going to be upset. However, I think that if moderation is something that can resurrect the forum and slowly turn it into a place that people actually feel like contributing to, then that maybe is the way to go.

And it's not about having to agree with the mainstream opinion - it's about being able to voice opinions that differ without offending and/or insulting anyone. Which means changes of behaviour must be made on both sides, so we can actually have a meaningful discussion.
avatar
Shadowstalker16: Yes, what you said is true, someone will be mad at whatever change happens. So I guess the only option is to select a method that makes a balanced compromise? But the question remains, if any type of moderation is to be implemented, what will it focus on?
Why would it need to focus on something? Or else - what should it focus on? Something other than making this forum a place where one doesn't feel like respect and dignity are long forgotten?
Posted December 20, 2016
avatar
Shadowstalker16: Yes, what you said is true, someone will be mad at whatever change happens. So I guess the only option is to select a method that makes a balanced compromise? But the question remains, if any type of moderation is to be implemented, what will it focus on?
avatar
fables22: Why would it need to focus on something? Or else - what should it focus on? Something other than making this forum a place where one doesn't feel like respect and dignity are long forgotten?
Ie what will it target? Shouldn't it have a more well defined goal? Ie stop the alt account and report and rep abuse or this ''hostility'' problem. If curing the forum is the objective, what the primary diseases are should be found out beforehand, right? Doesn't make sense to fight an invisible enemy.
Posted December 20, 2016
high rated
Muhammad is the perfect role model of Islam. Muhammad was uncertain that he would reach Heaven. Yet the Quran offers a few guarantees of reaching Heaven.

-Immigrating to another country, bringing the message of Allah and dying in the process. "And whosoever leaves his home as an emigrant unto Allah and His Messenger, and death overtakes him, his reward is then surely incumbent upon Allah."
-Jihad in the cause of Allah. "Let those (believers) who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter fight in the Cause of Allah, and whoso fights in the Cause of Allah, and is killed or gets victory, We shall bestow on him a great reward (Surah 4:74)".

Yet you people either wonder why these acts are being committed or call those of us bringing this to your attention hate mongers. THE TERRORISTS ARE THE TRUE BELIEVERS!

Here come the down votes.
Pages:
1
10
20
26
27
28
29
30
40
50
55
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionEurope is burning (the terrorism thread)(811 posts) (811 posts) 
(811 posts)