I think you read too much into my comment. I was speaking more in general terms than commenting on the specific instance, and my use of "historically speaking" should be a clue that I am not including your current efforts in my estimation of GOG's communication skills ;-)

Hey. I heard you liked polls, so here’s a new one for you (found on websites with a political alignment close to yours):
http://web.archive.org/web/20170227002944/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/can-we-finally-talk-about_b_828037.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20170226210420/https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/may/07/muslims-britain-france-germany-homosexuality

Your pals don’t seem to like your former pals.

Edit. Didn’t use an archive link for the first article. Also, “new one” isn’t used in the sense of “it just came out” (just wanted to clarify).

I do not condone muslims holding homophobic (and misogynist) views in the same way I do not condone homosexuals – like Milo Yiannopoulos – holding islamophobic (and misogynist) views.

Is the PM system (considered) part of the store?



He's not carrying the world with his mouth.

Of course not! He might break his teeth, and then how would he get the biting done?

You kind of make my point - carrying the world on his shoulder does not prevent him from biting in the face. Or elsewhere.

Let's maybe just point out that, in the current state of gog forums, within the current local subculture :

is a statement that gets "low rated". Right now, the self-moderation tool signals this claim as unwelcome on the gog forums.

Just an idea of what is going on, how, between what sorts of people, with what stakes.

Let me propose a different cause: Vain's post may have been downvoted not because of any content it may/may not have contained, but rather because it was a post by Vain.

That would require there to be lots of people – or, alternatively, some people with lots of alternate accounts – who would routinely downvote my comments regardless of content, i.e. out of a personal dislike. Which would of course be an especially grave abuse of the reputation system.

If that's a theory you'd want to work with, we surely could.

I would hardly be the first person, even within the last hour, to suggest that serial downvoting of posts based on the post's source occurs on this forum. Even how much such serial downvoting actually matters has been repeatedly disputed.

Let's rename this to "General virtue signalling and denunciation thread"

Context matters, believe it or not!

And a statement like
in reply to two articles which state that 100% (!) of polled British muslims hold strongly anti-gay views (and act on those convictions in rather frightening manners) is nothing but a cowardly cop-out.

So, Vaina, which arbitrary tag should I assign to you? Islamophobe? Or massive fucking hypocrite? Choose one.

And this is coming from someone who - shock and awe! - didn't even downvote Vaina's timid condemnation (the temptation was certainly there).

Leading to this. Which is the point.

A certain mentality is required in order to downvote per username instead of per post. And ultimately, it leads to downrating antiracist posts.

It's a very typical political issue. Sides are formed, contents are lost ("friend of my friend", "enemy of my enemy", etc). An issue that, ironically enough, Vain' often points out.

And it can be extrapolated to identities. Structurally, it's not very different from default hostility to all members of a national/religious/sexual identity, disregarding the "content" of individuals. The later case ignores an even more profound dissociation, but the general mindset is the same.

So, if you're proposing an explanation, it is partly valid. If you propose it as a justification, you're shooting your foot to pieces.

Let's, for a second, to humour the mods and dtgreene, assume this to be a good faith discussion (which it certainly isn't, as the gog forums have taught me so far).

Your point would be valid if and only if Vain's "muslims holding homophobic views" is assumed to be a pleonasm. That is, if 100% of muslims are homophobic. Do you believe this ? Do you personally know zero non-homophobic muslim ? You referring to a local british study which results (so, I'd say, methodology) are already dubious due to the discrepancy with other studies (both local, and abroad), and due to its implicit negation of muslim homosexual themselves (do you believe their is zero muslim homosexual in the UK ?). But even if, for some unspecified reason, the UK was devoid of homosexual muslims and non-homophobic muslims, Vain's post would be a cop out only if you extrapolated this to the world. That is, cherry-pick one study in opposition to all others - including those mentionned in your very article.

Scientifically, it doesn't work. What you make of it is your decision.

I have this entirely wild idea. It's so crazy it just might work:

First, lets ask Fables to close this thread, since it has become a hopelessly derailed mess and start a new "we are under attack vol 2" thread to actually serve for it's intended purpose.

Secondly, let's all agree to what I think every decent person no matter their views and personal issues with other users can agree- that regardless of the subject matter and personal opinion calling people "subhuman trash" etc., advocating and supporting violence and insulting other users is unacceptable and we need moderation to get rid of it.

Thirdly, let everyone who does not agree with it seek greener, insult and hate friendly pastures elsewhere in wide indoors of the internet, of which this is only a tiny, private corner.

And that's it. Let's just try to have civil discussions about games and stuff like that from that point on, and see how tht goes.

Or we can keep repeating things that everyone has already said to each other on all those political subjects, keep arguing and keep all those grudges going.

sounds good to me
I actually do have other places I can go to if I want to yell at someone.