ResetEra - sold for $4.55 million

Lagamorph wrote:It seemed to be a post saying that "Just because someone isn't going into every trans rights thread and proudly proclaiming their support doesn't mean they're transphobic, they may simply be focused on more immediate/personal issues that are affecting them". And I don't particularly see a problem with that when it's made in response to a post that's basically saying if people aren't actively campaigning for that cause then they don't deserve a place on the forum.

The staff member said that members who "actively do not care for trans people" are not welcome there. To me that doesn't read as "every member has to post in support or be banned". It reads as "coming into threads about trans people and choosing to express neutrality/ambivalence about trans rights isn't allowed". Which is reasonable if your goal is to create a space in which progressivism isn't debated.

Lagamorph wrote:

Squinty wrote:

Karl_ wrote:

Squinty wrote:

Karl_ wrote:I vastly prefer the moderation on Era to that of any other mainstream forum. What some people see as overbearing is actually very reassuring if you're part of a minority group, a survivor of sexual abuse, or anything else that would paint a target on your back if you were on a less strictly moderated platform.

Judging from the information in the thread, he hasn't attacked anyone. I can't see this as anything but overbearing.

My understanding (do correct me if you feel I'm misrepresenting!) is that the intention of the Era moderators is to create a platform in which the only sentiment expressed is explicitly in support of minority rights etc. I don't think every platform is obliged to host a debate on whether progressive values are good or not. If people haven't made up their mind on a particular issue they can simply not post about it there. It might not be your cup of tea, but surely you can see how an explicitly positive environment is encouraging if you're a minority who has to witness that kind of debate about your rights on almost every other website?

Yeah, you're right about the intent of it. It does concern me about how heavy handed they can be with slightly diffferent opinions though. I don't see anything transphobic or personally damaging in that post. It's not an attack or something they should feel threatened by.

Thing is the post that Eighthours got Permabanned for didn't even seem to be trying to start a debate, express a contrary opinion, or be dismissive of the issue.

It seemed to be a post saying that "Just because someone isn't going into every trans rights thread and proudly proclaiming their support doesn't mean they're transphobic, they may simply be focused on more immediate/personal issues that are affecting them". And I don't particularly see a problem with that when it's made in response to a post that's basically saying if people aren't actively campaigning for that cause then they don't deserve a place on the forum.

Yep, it certainly wasn't saying anything negative about the importance of trans rights, which it seems to have been interpreted as. I just don't think that not being an obvious activist for a cause should lead to them being essentially being told they're not wanted on a forum. And my Biden post was after I'd read the examples I listed (there are many more) of Era members automatically calling Joe a rapist based on an allegation that even at the time didn't fit the usual pattern of 'yes, this probably happened' allegations. Which I thought was completely ridiculous, and events since then have borne that out. I'm sure I could have worded the post I was permabanned for a bit better if I'd spent more time on it, but a permaban was just laughable.

Just on a wider point, I really do think that no appreciation of nuance sets various causes back a mile. You're either an always-on 100% on something or you need to be cancelled. Meanwhile, no mistakes made by an organisation you support can ever be acknowledged. For me, rllmuk modding is far, far, FAR superior to Era's, it isn't even a contest. And just reading this forum in the past couple of weeks, it's still way better here too.

Karl_ wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:It seemed to be a post saying that "Just because someone isn't going into every trans rights thread and proudly proclaiming their support doesn't mean they're transphobic, they may simply be focused on more immediate/personal issues that are affecting them". And I don't particularly see a problem with that when it's made in response to a post that's basically saying if people aren't actively campaigning for that cause then they don't deserve a place on the forum.

The staff member said that members who "actively do not care for trans people" are not welcome there. To me that doesn't read as "every member has to post in support or be banned". It reads as "coming into threads about trans people and choosing to express neutrality/ambivalence about trans rights isn't allowed". Which is reasonable if your goal is to create a space in which progressivism isn't debated.

I suppose it can all depend on your interpretation of the phrase "actively do not care", to me that can very easily come across as "If you aren't openly declaring your support at every opporunity then you are against the cause or don't care about the issue at all/are fine with the prejudice", especially in the context of how Era can come across at times.

Resetera is the Dark Souls of purity tests.

Lagamorph wrote:

Karl_ wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:It seemed to be a post saying that "Just because someone isn't going into every trans rights thread and proudly proclaiming their support doesn't mean they're transphobic, they may simply be focused on more immediate/personal issues that are affecting them". And I don't particularly see a problem with that when it's made in response to a post that's basically saying if people aren't actively campaigning for that cause then they don't deserve a place on the forum.

The staff member said that members who "actively do not care for trans people" are not welcome there. To me that doesn't read as "every member has to post in support or be banned". It reads as "coming into threads about trans people and choosing to express neutrality/ambivalence about trans rights isn't allowed". Which is reasonable if your goal is to create a space in which progressivism isn't debated.

I suppose it can all depend on your interpretation of the phrase "actively do not care", to me that can very easily come across as "If you aren't openly declaring your support at every opporunity then you are against the cause or don't care about the issue at all/are fine with the prejudice", especially in the context of how Era can come across at times.

That was how I interpreted it at the time, but I can also see how Karl's interpretation has merit. Oh look, nuance! Fancy that!

Lagamorph wrote:

Karl_ wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:It seemed to be a post saying that "Just because someone isn't going into every trans rights thread and proudly proclaiming their support doesn't mean they're transphobic, they may simply be focused on more immediate/personal issues that are affecting them". And I don't particularly see a problem with that when it's made in response to a post that's basically saying if people aren't actively campaigning for that cause then they don't deserve a place on the forum.

The staff member said that members who "actively do not care for trans people" are not welcome there. To me that doesn't read as "every member has to post in support or be banned". It reads as "coming into threads about trans people and choosing to express neutrality/ambivalence about trans rights isn't allowed". Which is reasonable if your goal is to create a space in which progressivism isn't debated.

I suppose it can all depend on your interpretation of the phrase "actively do not care", to me that can very easily come across as "If you aren't openly declaring your support at every opporunity then you are against the cause or don't care about the issue at all/are fine with the prejudice", especially in the context of how Era can come across at times.

I think what you’re saying is “actively do not care about trans rights” and “do not actively care about trans rights” are the same thing, but they’re not.

jiggles wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:

Karl_ wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:It seemed to be a post saying that "Just because someone isn't going into every trans rights thread and proudly proclaiming their support doesn't mean they're transphobic, they may simply be focused on more immediate/personal issues that are affecting them". And I don't particularly see a problem with that when it's made in response to a post that's basically saying if people aren't actively campaigning for that cause then they don't deserve a place on the forum.

The staff member said that members who "actively do not care for trans people" are not welcome there. To me that doesn't read as "every member has to post in support or be banned". It reads as "coming into threads about trans people and choosing to express neutrality/ambivalence about trans rights isn't allowed". Which is reasonable if your goal is to create a space in which progressivism isn't debated.

I suppose it can all depend on your interpretation of the phrase "actively do not care", to me that can very easily come across as "If you aren't openly declaring your support at every opporunity then you are against the cause or don't care about the issue at all/are fine with the prejudice", especially in the context of how Era can come across at times.

I think what you’re saying is “actively do not care about trans rights” and “do not actively care about trans rights” are the same thing, but they’re not.

I'm not saying those things are the same, but that they can be seen as the same, which seems to be what ended up happening here.

Lagamorph wrote:

jiggles wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:

Karl_ wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:It seemed to be a post saying that "Just because someone isn't going into every trans rights thread and proudly proclaiming their support doesn't mean they're transphobic, they may simply be focused on more immediate/personal issues that are affecting them". And I don't particularly see a problem with that when it's made in response to a post that's basically saying if people aren't actively campaigning for that cause then they don't deserve a place on the forum.

The staff member said that members who "actively do not care for trans people" are not welcome there. To me that doesn't read as "every member has to post in support or be banned". It reads as "coming into threads about trans people and choosing to express neutrality/ambivalence about trans rights isn't allowed". Which is reasonable if your goal is to create a space in which progressivism isn't debated.

I suppose it can all depend on your interpretation of the phrase "actively do not care", to me that can very easily come across as "If you aren't openly declaring your support at every opporunity then you are against the cause or don't care about the issue at all/are fine with the prejudice", especially in the context of how Era can come across at times.

I think what you’re saying is “actively do not care about trans rights” and “do not actively care about trans rights” are the same thing, but they’re not.

I'm not saying those things are the same, but that they can be seen as the same, which seems to be what ended up happening here.

Sorry, yeah, not meaning to put words in your mouth. Just don’t see how they could be interpreted as the same, unless by misreading the sentence. Doesn’t seem ambiguous at all, is what I’m driving at.

jiggles wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:

jiggles wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:

Karl_ wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:It seemed to be a post saying that "Just because someone isn't going into every trans rights thread and proudly proclaiming their support doesn't mean they're transphobic, they may simply be focused on more immediate/personal issues that are affecting them". And I don't particularly see a problem with that when it's made in response to a post that's basically saying if people aren't actively campaigning for that cause then they don't deserve a place on the forum.

The staff member said that members who "actively do not care for trans people" are not welcome there. To me that doesn't read as "every member has to post in support or be banned". It reads as "coming into threads about trans people and choosing to express neutrality/ambivalence about trans rights isn't allowed". Which is reasonable if your goal is to create a space in which progressivism isn't debated.

I suppose it can all depend on your interpretation of the phrase "actively do not care", to me that can very easily come across as "If you aren't openly declaring your support at every opporunity then you are against the cause or don't care about the issue at all/are fine with the prejudice", especially in the context of how Era can come across at times.

I think what you’re saying is “actively do not care about trans rights” and “do not actively care about trans rights” are the same thing, but they’re not.

I'm not saying those things are the same, but that they can be seen as the same, which seems to be what ended up happening here.

Sorry, yeah, not meaning to put words in your mouth. Just don’t see how they could be interpreted as the same, unless by misreading the sentence. Doesn’t seem ambiguous at all, is what I’m driving at.

I can see how they can be interpreted the same, but part of that comes from it being in the context of a ResetEra post and knowing that the forum can at times have a very "you're either for us or against us" mentality.

Lagamorph wrote:

jiggles wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:

jiggles wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:

Karl_ wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:It seemed to be a post saying that "Just because someone isn't going into every trans rights thread and proudly proclaiming their support doesn't mean they're transphobic, they may simply be focused on more immediate/personal issues that are affecting them". And I don't particularly see a problem with that when it's made in response to a post that's basically saying if people aren't actively campaigning for that cause then they don't deserve a place on the forum.

The staff member said that members who "actively do not care for trans people" are not welcome there. To me that doesn't read as "every member has to post in support or be banned". It reads as "coming into threads about trans people and choosing to express neutrality/ambivalence about trans rights isn't allowed". Which is reasonable if your goal is to create a space in which progressivism isn't debated.

I suppose it can all depend on your interpretation of the phrase "actively do not care", to me that can very easily come across as "If you aren't openly declaring your support at every opporunity then you are against the cause or don't care about the issue at all/are fine with the prejudice", especially in the context of how Era can come across at times.

I think what you’re saying is “actively do not care about trans rights” and “do not actively care about trans rights” are the same thing, but they’re not.

I'm not saying those things are the same, but that they can be seen as the same, which seems to be what ended up happening here.

Sorry, yeah, not meaning to put words in your mouth. Just don’t see how they could be interpreted as the same, unless by misreading the sentence. Doesn’t seem ambiguous at all, is what I’m driving at.

I can see how they can be interpreted the same, but part of that comes from it being in the context of a ResetEra post and knowing that the forum can at times have a very "you're either for us or against us" mentality.

Exactamundo.

I think "actively do not care" is self-contradictory language. Not caring about something is inherently passive and every debate on the internet is more interesting when it becomes semantic.

From the Nintendo Treehouse thread after they revealed the mystery game to be something not as good as people had hoped:

This reveal might be the biggest insult by a major gaming company in the past decade. I literally screamed "strawberry float YOU" at my screen. I knew they said it wasn't going to be Metroid but the hype they created made me think they were just going to surprise us with it anyway. Absolutely unacceptable to do this to us. Once they knew Metroid was expected, they should've cancelled the announcement.

The hype they created = announcing the event via a tweet yesterday.

Saint of Killers wrote:From the Nintendo Treehouse thread after they revealed the mystery game to be something not as good as people had hoped:

This reveal might be the biggest insult by a major gaming company in the past decade. I literally screamed "strawberry float YOU" at my screen. I knew they said it wasn't going to be Metroid but the hype they created made me think they were just going to surprise us with it anyway. Absolutely unacceptable to do this to us. Once they knew Metroid was expected, they should've cancelled the announcement.

"They specifically said it wasn't going to be Metroid, so it is entirely their fault that I expected Metroid".

strawberry floating bunch of weirdo virgin dorks.

MULTIPLE INFRACTIONS

https://www.resetera.com/threads/the-ps ... t-39366874

Victor Mildew wrote:MULTIPLE INFRACTIONS

https://www.resetera.com/threads/the-ps ... t-39366874

Yikes!

Victor Mildew wrote:MULTIPLE INFRACTIONS

https://www.resetera.com/threads/the-ps ... t-39366874

I'm surprised that the OP wasn't also banned for suggesting the PS5 isn't the greatest, most powerful machine ever.

This thread gave me a good laugh on my lunch break. The video of the guy making a pizza is a particular highlight.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/so-app ... ow.248443/

https://www.resetera.com/threads/twitch ... t-39852115

Victor Mildew wrote:This thread gave me a good laugh on my lunch break. The video of the guy making a pizza is a particular highlight.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/so-app ... ow.248443/

Oh my god.