
RPG.net bans posts in support of Trump - matt_morgan
https://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?835849-New-Ban-Do-Not-Post-In-Support-of-Trump-or-his-Administration&fbclid=IwAR23N1yA74ZRZVbPVS5ZZEszdRSWVAk66ReriZgxJAI9ojRRke2FnhGMrws
======
tomp
Jesus this is terrible. People are quick to point out that First Ammendment
doesn't apply, but Freedom of Speech isn't just that, it's the principle - _"
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say
it"_. Discussion is what makes peaceful progress possible, otherwise you get
revolutions!

~~~
ryanmercer
>People are quick to point out that First Ammendment doesn't apply, but
Freedom of Speech isn't just that, it's the principle - "I disapprove of what
you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

I'm sorry, if I'm paying for hosting and you come to a page I run and start
saying stuff I don't care for yeahhhh I'm removing it. That's my right. It's
not a public venue, domain names are usually handled as real-property as far
as taxation and hosting fees are a real thing. If you come into my house and
start spouting stuff I don't approve of, I'm showing you the door.

I'm all for free speech, and being allowed to support who and what you believe
in but not on any given website. If you use a website, you have to play by the
owner's rules. If you don't want to do that, go make your own... it's pretty
easy and affordable.

~~~
falcolas
Not to necessarily disagree, but "go make your own... it's pretty easy and
affordable" only holds so long as you can find a hosting provider, network
provider, and DNS registrar.

As has been shown a few times now, this capability can be summarily revoked.

~~~
mrsteveman1
There was a time, brief I'm sure, when making something available on the
internet basically meant paying for a high speed connection to be installed
wherever _you_ were operating, rather than a big cooled building filled with
servers.

The rental model isn't an inherent part of web hosting, it's just much easier
and much of the internet is geared toward things working that way.

I'm quite sure that it would be impossible to do that in some situations and
for some use cases now, and in some areas it would not work out well, but in
other areas it's trivially easy to find "business class" fiber service with at
least 1-Gbit up and down, which is faster than the pipes a lot of hosting
providers offer.

There's a _much_ stronger case to be made against ISPs tampering with or
denying service to those sorts of customers, who are directly paying for a
physical connection to wherever they're located.

------
CivBase
They have the right to do this.

I still think this is terrible.

Echo chambers are becoming more common with the wide-spread adoption of the
internet and people are increasingly worse at handling disagreements. It is so
easy to immerse yourself in communities that validate your ideas. Many online
services push you into these echo chambers because, in general, people engage
more with groups that express ideas they are comfortable with.

The internet is a never-ending record of the adverse effects of echo chambers.
Politics, religion, game consoles, programming languages, frameworks,
operating systems, browsers, text editors... they exist for just about
everything and the effect is always the same. People immersed in echo chambers
gradually stop being able to show empathy to those outside their group.
Perceived public opinion is a powerful thing and we love to point to
popularity as justification[1].

Humans need to be challenged in order to grow. Maybe RPG.net isn't the right
place for people to be challenged politically. Then the mods should just ban
discussions about any real-life politician. Targeting one politician just
creates another echo chamber.

Again, I know they have the right to do this. They should be allowed to do it.

I think it's bad.

[1] Apparently it's called "argumentum ad populum". Cool!
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum)

~~~
muzz
Not sure if a gaming forum is an apt comparison to a politcal echo chamber

~~~
gus_massa
The part that is terrible is that they are not banning all political
discussion, they are just banning the part they don't like. The rule says:

> _New Ban: Do Not Post In Support of Trump or his Administration_

If they want to keep the gamming forum on topic they can ban all political
discussion.

(As a comparison, HN has a ban in political discussion. It's difficult to ban
all political discussion because the is an spectrum between 100% political and
100% technological, and some posts are both political and technological, and
in some case there is not clear threshold.)

~~~
dragonwriter
> If they want to keep the gamming forum on topic they can ban all political
> discussion.

This isn't about being on topic, as it's a sitewide rule which applies even in
the open-topic forums on the site.

So, criticizing it as not the best way to keep things on-topic is missing the
point.

> As a comparison, HN has a ban in political discussion.

No, it doesn't, though it did as a quite controversial experiment for a few
days a while ago. (If it did, this discussion, which is 100% political, would
be banned.)

------
badwolf
Privately owned and operated forum makes sensible moderation rules on how they
would like to operate themselves. Now to Jim with the weather.

~~~
ryanmercer
>Privately owned

Ding ding ding! A website is effectively the owner's house, if you come
through their door you follow their rules or you leave.

~~~
ameister14
That's not accurate. Do you believe that an owner should be able to deny
services based on political or religious leanings?

~~~
ryanmercer
Absolutely. It's not a public park, it's virtual private space.

If you say something on a website the owner is allowed to remove it, if you
don't like that you are more than welcome to go make your own website for as
cheap as probably 15$ a year with shared hosting.

~~~
ameister14
Well, I'd argue that you are using a service and being denied use of that
service arbitrarily does have some guidelines to it. It's not about how cheap
it is, it's about whether or not it's discriminatory.

------
edkennedy
I am fully in support of this, and actually quite surprised by the negativity
in this thread about this decision. All the major hold outs online, like the
Donald, already do the reverse of this and ban anyone who challenges their
viewpoints.

~~~
CivBase
/r/The_Donald isn't exactly a community I would hold up as an example of this
sort of policy working out.

I have a general distaste for communities like this and it's always
disappointing to me when I see any community voluntarily turn itself into an
obvious echo chamber.

------
umvi
Why not ban just ban all political discussion? That would be more fair than
calling out specific politicians you aren't allowed to support (but you are
allowed to condemn)

~~~
tw04
If you read the link he's explains it in great detail. I won't rehash it all,
but basically: we have 0 issues with conservative ideology, we have a lot of
problems with politicians who support hate groups and promote racism.

------
throwasnakes
To those who say this is OK but net neutrality is something that should be,
why? If people can ban others for speech, because they're the ones providing
the hosting. Should ISPs not be able to throttle whoever they'd like for the
same reason?

~~~
alphabettsy
This is not even a close comparison. In one case the owner is providing a
space at no cost to users where they have many choices.

In the other, a company is proving you a connection to the network and nothing
more, but in exchange for payment and often with no other choices.

------
Tsubasachan
If they ban all politics equally I'm all for it. Off topic moderation. Seeing
American politics being hawked everywhere is rather tiresome. Makes me
appreciate what Canada has to go through every day.

------
LiterallyDoge
Eh it's their website. Personal property. They're idiots though.

------
dogma1138
The infractions section is going to get interesting:
[https://forum.rpg.net/forumdisplay.php?138-Infractions](https://forum.rpg.net/forumdisplay.php?138-Infractions)

------
nisuni
A question for all the “my business, my rules” crowd: do you also support a
cake shop refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple?

~~~
danaris
I'm honestly not sure of my answer to that question, but there's a huge
difference between refusing service to someone because of their sexual
orientation and refusing service to someone because of active support of white
supremacists and other hate groups.

Not only is one discriminating because of what you _are_ and the other because
of what you _do and say_ , but the "do and say" side in this case is doing and
saying things that are unquestionably morally repugnant, and in many cases
actively inciting (or at least condoning) violence against classes of
people...mainly because of what those people _are_.

~~~
zimpenfish
> their sexual orientation

Which I believe is considered a "protected class" \-
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group)
\- whereas being a racist/white supremacist/alt-right (currently) isn't.
That's the difference.

~~~
danaris
While that's true, and the legal definitions are derived from the moral
foundation I'm applying here, they themselves aren't really my point. Rather,
it's that the reason they're protected classes in the first place is because
they're (basically) things people either can't control about themselves.

------
lghh
I was against this until I thought about it this way: if an individual on the
forums posted the opinions that they are quoting Trump as saying they would
likely be banned. For example, if I actively made fun of a disabled person or
sexual assault victim I would rightfully be ostracized from the space. Now
they are saying that showing open support for someone who uses that as their
main rhetorical tactic is as bad as saying it yourself. I'm conflicted about
it, but I understand it.

------
bliblah
Hate to be the one that says this...Why is this being posted on Hacker News? A
privately operated forum is using moderation tools in ways that not everyone
finds agreeable, how is this news in 2018?

We have a lot of discussions on free speech but do we really need to post
every single site that uses these tools to reiterate the same points?

>Pro:Free exchange of ideas is being threatened and is creating an echo
chamber; i don't agree with the ideas but will die for you to say it >Con:
They are privately operated and the first amendment isn't a catch all for
_all_ speech; XKCD comic showing you the door...

Maybe i'm cynical but most discussions just devolves to the same conversations
being repeated with nothing interesting to add to the already long list of FB,
Google, Go Daddy, Twitter posts/groups that have been censored/deplatformed.
At this point it seems everyone already has their opinions firmly placed and
nothing will really convince them otherwise.

------
mooseburger
Hate speech laws, deplatforming, or political bans don't actually accomplish
any of their stated goals. In the Weimar Republic, there were hate speech laws
([https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/copenhagen-
speech-v...](https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/copenhagen-speech-
violence)). Relevant quote:

"Researching my book, I looked into what actually happened in the Weimar
Republic. I found that, contrary to what most people think, Weimar Germany did
have hate-speech laws, and they were applied quite frequently. The assertion
that Nazi propaganda played a significant role in mobilizing anti-Jewish
sentiment is, of course, irrefutable. But to claim that the Holocaust could
have been prevented if only anti-Semitic speech and Nazi propaganda had been
banned has little basis in reality. Leading Nazis such as Joseph Goebbels,
Theodor Fritsch, and Julius Streicher were all prosecuted for anti-Semitic
speech. Streicher served two prison sentences. Rather than deterring the Nazis
and countering anti-Semitism, the many court cases served as effective public-
relations machinery, affording Streicher the kind of attention he would never
have found in a climate of a free and open debate. In the years from 1923 to
1933, Der Stürmer [Streicher's newspaper] was either confiscated or editors
taken to court on no fewer than thirty-six occasions. The more charges
Streicher faced, the greater became the admiration of his supporters. The
courts became an important platform for Streicher's campaign against the Jews.
In the words of a present-day civil-rights campaigner, pre-Hitler Germany had
laws very much like the anti-hate laws of today, and they were enforced with
some vigor. As history so painfully testifies, this type of legislation proved
ineffectual on the one occasion when there was a real argument for it."

Nothing gets stopped by merely refusing to extend some small measure of
legitimacy to whatever is deemed "bigoted". These policies and norms do not
change minds, which is the skill these wannabe social engineers need to
master.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Nothing gets stopped by merely refusing to extend some small measure of
> legitimacy to whatever is deemed "bigoted".

The targets of bigotry being subjected to both the bigotry itself _and_ the
additional insult of the community they are participating in legitimizing it
is, in fact, stopped by the community not legitimizing it.

As that has long been a central purpose of RPG.net policy on acceptable
participation, I think this particular rule is probably doing exactly what is
intended.

> These policies and norms do not change minds

Perhaps, but in this case they aren't intended to, so that's not an argument
against the policy.

~~~
mooseburger
Still don't think it's wise to adopt a burying one's head in the sand
approach. It just leaves the participants unprepared when confronting this
"bigotry" in the real world, as inevitably they will.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Still don't think it's wise to adopt a burying one's head in the sand
> approach.

No one is suggesting that, so I'm not sure why you are beating that strawman.

> It just leaves the participants unprepared when confronting this "bigotry"
> in the real world, as inevitably they will.

Just because I'm quite prepared to (and used to) dealing with inclement
weather in the “real world” doesn't mean I forego HVAC in my home or places I
rent for social gatherings where that weather isn't conducive to the purpose
of the gathering.

------
tlackemann
One moderator wrote:

"No. You know what? Fuck that noise. Ethnic cleansing is not "different
views." Racism is not "different views." White nationalism is not "different
views." Dogwhistling that attacks against your political enemies will continue
if the media doesn't stop saying things you don't like is not "different
views." Putting children in cages is not "different views."

This is not an argument over tax rates or the proper role of government in
education. This is an argument about who will be allowed to exist in America.

Get the fuck out of this thread. Don't post here again."

Whether you agree with their decision to ban Trump support on their (privately
owned) forums, you have to agree we are in a pretty grim state here in
America.

~~~
repolfx
That is indeed very grim, given the number of angry straw men that moderator
came out with.

Has Trump ever supported "ethnic cleansing"? No. Has he even supported racism?
As far as I know, no, despite attempts to cast his criticism of illegal
immigrants as generalised racism.

Those claims are absurd and extreme. This person appears to believe any sort
of functioning immigration system at all is the same thing as mass murder.

It looks to me from my vantage point abroad like a section of American society
has become so totally swamped in righteous anger, that they have concluded -
_but are unwilling to explicitly say_ \- that US immigration controls and
borders should be entirely abolished. The Democrats are not campaigning on
that platform though. So what happens next?

~~~
tlackemann
> This person appears to believe any sort of functioning immigration system at
> all is the same thing as mass murder

Where is that coming from? It seems completely out of context with what was
said.

Trump has been consistently proven to be racist, xenophobic, misogynistic -
none of which are a crime - but should be considered seriously when at command
of the United States.

These aren't straw men points. There are real victims out there suffering real
consequences because of the hate and regression Trump has promoted. Children
ARE being locked in cages. To say it's all Trump's fault would be careless and
wrong however, but at the same time we wouldn't say the civil rights movement
happened without Martin Luther King. Trump happens to be the leader of a
hateful movement no one can hide from. It is indeed very grim.

------
Algurnon
In post-ww2 Germany, they essentially adopted the policy of suppressing Nazi
ideology and it was regarded as a good thing, thought every German except
post-war Nazi holdouts. They came to find out its not all that much dif't in
fx than shouting "fire! in a crowded theater. Not just those who went throught
he war, but especially all those who were born afterwards. This here is just
doing what Germany did except pre-emptively. Like Woody Guthrie's guitar. The
1st Amendment is a great step forward in democracy, but Rupert Murdoch has a )
day exploit on the constitution and pretending he doesn't = owned

------
archagon
Trump literally proclaimed himself a nationalist a few weeks ago. As far as
online communities go, these bans are _long_ overdue.

I’m not interested in sharing an online space with people who are more than
happy to tear my country down.

------
kangnkodos
The title is a little misleading. RPG.net is banning PEOPLE who publicly
support Trump on their forum.

Look at these 5 videos. People on the left are allowed to bring their whole
selves to RPG.net. People on the right are not welcomed to do the same.

[https://www.wsj.com/news/types/voices-from-a-divided-
america](https://www.wsj.com/news/types/voices-from-a-divided-america)

~~~
danaris
If your "whole self" wants to dehumanize and kill entire classes of people
because of their perceived race, sexual orientation, gender, etc, then I don't
think it _should_ be welcomed. Anywhere.

And if your "whole self" actively supports others who espouse such views, even
if you do not directly do so yourself, then while I won't go so far as to say
you're _as_ bad, you're certainly bad enough that you should also not be
welcomed in that way.

~~~
kangnkodos
@danaris - Thank you for stating out loud what many people think a Trump
supporter is. You summed up the stereotype very well. That's important.

Now please take a few minutes and look at the people in the videos (see my
previous comment) who are Trump supporters. Those are real people who support
Trump. Please let me know specifically which ones are bad enough that they
should not be welcomed.

~~~
danaris
Trump espouses the views I enumerated. He supports the dehumanization of, and
in some cases violence against, women, LGBT+ people, and people who are not
white.

Therefore, anyone supporting _him_ also supports these things, and should not
be welcomed.

~~~
kangnkodos
I conclude from that, that you do not welcome Scott Bowen, the Bi/Gay man in
this video, to participate in conversations with you.

[https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-shouldnt-
exist-1540823580](https://www.wsj.com/articles/i-shouldnt-exist-1540823580)

I'm disappointed in you, @danaris.

~~~
danaris
Well, I haven't watched the video (skimmed the article), but if he's a Trump
supporter who's also LGBT+, then he's not only supporting fascism,
nationalism, and bigotry, he's also kinda dumb for supporting an ideology that
wants to eradicate him.

The article says he's a fiscal conservative, so that explains _why_ he's a
Trump supporter, if he is (it doesn't actually outright state that, just says
that he's a conservative), but I don't consider it to be a good enough excuse.
Maybe two years ago before we knew just what kind of politician and President
he would be, but not now.

I understand the dilemma the Republican party has right now. Many of them
don't actually believe in the horrible things that Trump supports, but feel
like they don't have any choice because the Democratic party opposes so many
of their policy positions.

But policy should take a back seat when you're confronted with actual evil,
and that's what we're dealing with right now. Nazis. Literal, not-even-
slightly-kidding gas-the-Jews lynch-the-blacks ethnic-cleansing white-power
Nazis are what Trump truly represents right now, and the Republican party
leaders, by and large, won't even denounce them and say they don't support
that shit.

If you support Trump, _now_ , you support the rise of literal Nazis, and I
don't care what else you believe in or support, that's something I can't see
any value in even allowing in the debate.

------
gedy
It's their perogative, no problem there, but I do find it a little childish
that a moderater in that thread can keep their post footer as:

"Eisenhower got elected President for overseeing a war that was ALL ABOUT
killing Nazis. We should return to those days." — Cessna"

Why not just ban all political posts?

~~~
edkennedy
Because they are taking a stand.

~~~
gedy
Yeah, some real modern day Eisenhowers there.

------
kylnew
I’m surprised by some of the response; I actually think they were pretty
articulate about exactly what they were banning and it certainly wasn’t all
political speech. Trump stands for so much hatred and bigotry and it’s hard to
vocalize support for him without implicitly/explicitly supporting that stuff
yourself. We need to stop pretending like this is political discourse.

Intolerance of intolerance is the only acceptable form of intolerance. I think
that this intolerance for others through trump support is what they are
banning first and foremost.

~~~
balt_s
> Intolerance of intolerance is the only acceptable form of intolerance.

This seems vulnerable to a meta-level attack: "who gets to decide what is
intolerable?"

~~~
kylnew
I wish I had the definitive answer but in my books that line has been crossed
in this context. I don’t think it’s as gray as we might want to pretend it is
right now. The state of discourse online seems like some level of indicator
something has happened recently that is descending us into chaos. Personally I
do blame Trump and RPG.net seems to share a similar sentiment.

~~~
mooseburger
The state of discourse online is such because of the Culture War, and the
Culture War predates Trump, and possibly caused Trump to be elected in the
first place. The current phase of the Culture War began with universities
getting creative with their definitions of "bigotry", "white supremacy",
"racism", and "sexism". The worldview promulgated there eventually percolated
to the mainstream and is a massive driver of the ongoing cultural conflict.

~~~
kylnew
Thanks. Trump is certainly a symptom of something that existed before he took
the stage. I don't think that absolves him but the problem isn't going to go
away just be putting him out of sight and out of mind.

(p.s. the Thanks is generally for your response. Just want to be appreciative
for peoples thoughts while discussing this topic)

------
bovermyer
Can't see the actual site/post because of overly eager nanny firewall at the
client, so I'm just going to comment on the title.

So? It's a privately-run forum.

