This. When I first started modding here, the topic of what is and isnt racism came up a lot irt posters calling each other racists. So I started a thread titled What is your definition of racism. It ran about a year with just over 800 posts. But it wasnt a collection of racist posts, with people then debating whether or not whites were superior to other groups, and other such things.

It's posts like this btw that cause people to give you crap about your modding. What he said was super benign-- so benign that after you deleted and went back and requoted it so that people could see it. It was basically "The Cultural Marixsts hate white people even though they contribute the most to GDP"-- which isn't anything close to what you're implying he's trying to say. People here (myself included) wouldn't even agree that contributing the most to GDP is some virtue.

You guys are essentially off in some fantasy world where Luciom says something and you're interpreting it to fit some weird agenda of seeing monsters under the bed.

Is this what he actually wrote or at least the gist of it?

Browser deleted the full post but then excerpted out this part here, but yes that is the gist of it-- it was a long rant about cultural Marxism.

I suppose "net aggregate contributions to human welfare" isn't exactly GDP but that was my take.

Your version of what he wrote and what was quoted is not quite the same, IMO. I am not going to say that it is full-blown racist, but the phrasing isn't exactly not racist either.l

You know they're never going to stop.

It's only the first line that means anything-- if you think some of the others are racist then ok but it is true that I'm in Colombia right now posting on an Apple computer and using electricity. I'm not going to give white people all the credit for that because probably without them I'd be doing something better.

It isn't current gdp because it's mostly about the past.

They did things that then and now allow people to live better than they would otherwise.

An antibiotic in many countries is 3 euros or equivalent, and it can save a child. That's not 3 euros of contribution to human welfare, rather a "tad more".

Some for electricity, you pay 100 or whatever a month, your benefit is a "tad" higher than that.

Good grief. His Marxist rants that everything he considers wrong in the world somehow ties back to cultural Marxism had nothing to do with the racist warning. That's why I didn't quote that part. I don't selectively edit posts after all the feedback I got about either leaving a post up entirely or deleting it. I only quoted those lines when OP said he didn't think any were racists.

yes, we are aware.

the problem with those websites/forums is that they are largely populated by morons, whereas here there is a minor filtering process by virtue of the site being (or at least was) largely a strategy site for a complex game. that makes the discussion more stimulating.

i've been around long enough to have seen the goalposts moved on what is and what isn't racist. it used to be slurs were what got you in trouble. now its gotten to sacred cow territory where you have to tiptoe around issues to the degree where its basically impossible to have discourse on the subject unless you only talk with extremists. which sucks.

i will say that i have found that the more protected a certain subject is the more i think that the truth is what's being stifled and not racism/sexism/anti fill in the blank.

lol there are a lot of things that I think could be done better that have nothing to do with Marxism.

I don't consider pineapple pizza to be a Marxist concoction for example

do you think Europeans were better off when they were killing each other in large numbers because they disagreed on how to read the bible?

It is the brain. Gender may be a role defined by society but we discover where we fit because of who we are.

I have a topic I'd like to hear members input on. It's what, if any mod procedures should be involved with videos that are embedded in posts. It's impossible for mods to actually take the time to watch all the videos posted, whether they are 5 mins or 3 hours in length. So to date, Ive only gotten involved if the thumbnail showing in the post violates a rule, such as bypassing the profanity filter.

Otoh, members may view a video and find it contains very inappropriate material as it relates to our guidelines. Just to use an extreme example lets say someone links to a video from a white supremacy group filled with vile comments comparing nonwhites to animals.

Should posts like that be deleted? Require some sort of warning statement and spoilers? Or just left alone? Please leave any thoughts you have on the way you think these should be handled.

Thanks

A view reached by some previous mods was to ban links to extreme sites/etc entirely because it was unreasonable to expect us to check the links. Breitbart for example

It met a lot of opposition from an unexpected few but I still think it's correct.

I could understand actual extremism (like places where they train terrorists and so on) but lol at consider Breitbart one

Let me clarify my wording. I used an example of a link to an extreme site. But Im mainly concerned about things like a youtube video of things like a podcast or interview, where the people involve in the course of the video present the offensive material. So all a forum member has to do is hit the play button on the post. Its impossible to know what's in the video without watching it.

content which is legal in the jurisdiction the forum is in shouldn't be banned.

but if you decide some content is banned then once someone reports to you a video containing bannable content you should delete it as you would with a long wall of text post that contains forbidden content.

It's tricky but the worst videos tend to come from the usual sites.

We have to be able to discuss things that people are discussing out there in the real world or this forum has no purpose, and if those things include youtubes that include offensive and even racist material I don't think they should be banned but ridiculed.

not sure now that Twitter censors far less tbh.

I wouldnt worry about youtube in particular but for other sites/podcasts I dunno. many people on this forum find anything supportive of not murdering Palestinians to be antisemitic and deserving of censorship.

I'm not sure that I understand the question. If a poster is posting links or videos to overtly white supremacist propaganda, the poster should be banned and the post should be deleted. I think that has always been the procedure.

If the link or the video is to a legitimate news report of a race-charged event--for example, the Charlottesville "Unite the Right" event -- the link or video should remain and there should be no adverse consequences for the poster, even if there are a bunch of offensive statements in the comments. If you can't find a way to ignore trolls that post responses to youtube videos, then you probably shouldn't bother watching youtube videos, especially on political topics, because those sorts of comments are unavoidable.

Also, I don't think you have to watch every video in the first instance. If someone is posting videos that are clearly out of bounds, you will hear about it soon enough.

Why? By that logic, the moderators of a forum devoted to gardening should permit repeated posting of hard core pornography.