librechad @ librechad @lemm.ee

Posts

6

Comments

133

Joined

2 yr. ago

In response to the point you've raised, the issue of platform moderation does involve a complex balance between allowing diversity of opinion and restricting what is considered harmful or intolerant. However, it's crucial to note that not all forms of censorship or moderation are created equal.

Your argument posits that the 'Kill All Children' mod and the pronoun-removal mod are qualitatively different, based on the intent or impact behind them. The latter, you say, has real-world implications, as it aims to negate the existence of a specific group, while the former is seen as "extremely unpleasant role-playing" that isn't necessarily a call for real-world action against children.

Yet, the stance seems to be rooted in the assumption that everyone who would use the pronoun-removal mod does so with malicious intent to deny the existence of non-binary or transgender people. While that might be true for some, it could also simply be a matter of personal preference for others, without carrying any ideological baggage.

The use of Popper's paradox of tolerance in this discussion is intriguing but might oversimplify the complexities involved in moderating a digital platform. While intolerance shouldn't be tolerated, determining what constitutes 'intolerance' is often subjective and open to interpretation. Therefore, it's crucial for platform moderators to engage in transparent and reasoned decision-making processes when determining what is allowed and what is not.

Your last point suggests that it's not just permissible but necessary to restrict the free speech of those considered intolerant to protect free speech for all. However, this approach can easily lead to a slippery slope where the definition of 'intolerance' becomes malleable, potentially leading to an erosion of the very free speech rights that the policy aims to protect.

The issue is not straightforward, and the boundaries of what should or shouldn't be tolerated in an online community are often fluid. Thus, there remains a need for a nuanced conversation around these topics, which goes beyond labelling something as intolerant and calling for its suppression.

I completely agree with your perspective. The essence of a Bethesda game, and many other sandbox-style games, is the freedom to tailor the experience to one's own preferences. Removing a mod that is essentially harmless takes away from that freedom and raises questions about the influence of ideological stances in the moderation process.

As you suggested, locking the comments could serve as a reasonable compromise. It would allow those who wish to use the mod to do so, while mitigating the potential for inflammatory discussions. This way, the community retains its diversity of choice without being subjected to a single viewpoint.

You're point is valid about the two-way street that is ideological moderation, whether it's done by modders or platform moderators. While some argue that removing certain features serves to make a political statement, the same could be said for removing mods themselves. Both actions can be seen as influenced by the ideological beliefs of those making the decisions. In this case, the main question is: who gets to decide what crosses the line and what doesn't? And should these decisions be open to discussion within the community?

I understand the concept of dog whistles and the historical usage of coded language to advance certain agendas. My primary concern here is not the mod itself, but rather how moderation decisions are made and the criteria used. If we can't openly discuss these topics, it's hard to determine what is or isn't acceptable. I'm not advocating for intolerance; I'm advocating for clarity in community guidelines.

I understand your perspective on the mod and its likely intent. My original aim was not to discuss the mod per se, but to explore how moderation decisions are made. If we can't have an open debate, it becomes difficult to understand where we draw the line on what is or isn't acceptable content.

While the concerns you've raised resonate with many, it's worth remembering JFK's words, 'Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.' As a society, we must consider the nuance that exists in any debate, even one as sensitive as this. Open discussion should serve as a mechanism to understand what defines intolerance and how to appropriately combat it, rather than shutting down dialogue altogether.

I understand that the topic at hand is emotionally charged and has been the subject of intense political debate. However, it appears that my original intent might have been misunderstood. I'm not advocating for or against the mod in question.

Instead, my focus is on the criteria that platform moderators use to decide what content should or should not be allowed. This discussion is not about endorsing intolerance but about understanding how these moderation decisions are made. I believe that it is possible to discuss this aspect without necessarily taking a stance on the mod's content itself.

The intent of my original post was not to advocate for intolerance, but to question how moderation decisions are made, especially when there appears to be inconsistency. In doing so, I hoped to promote reasoned debate on that specific issue, not to engage in bad faith discussions.

While I understand that certain topics may be inherently fraught, the objective was to consider how platform moderation intersects with issues of free choice and community standards. That said, if the prevailing consensus is that some subjects are too divisive for productive discourse, then that too is a topic worth discussing.

I'd like to clarify that my argument is centered around the role of platform moderation and how they determine what content crosses ethical or moral lines. While you've offered an extreme example with the hypothetical mod that removes black people, the comparison doesn't precisely align with the mod under discussion.

I used the 'Kill All Children' mod for Skyrim as an example to point out inconsistencies in moderation decisions. The objective is to question where the line should be drawn and who gets to draw it, not to endorse intolerant or bigoted views.

This would be the funniest movie if someone actually made it.

OK fine, I don't want to argue with someone who's obviously closed minded and can't debate on simple issues.

Keep it classy bro.

Not at all. I believe that people should have freedom of choice for how they want to play their games. Everyone has a different escape from reality.

I understand that Nexus Mods have the right to choose what they want to host, that's not the point. I believe that the moderators of the site need to choose what really crosses the line. The mod itself is harmless. Do you agree with hosting the Kill All Children mod for Skyrim still? If so, why?

The recent exchange surrounding that post has raised serious concerns about the quality of discourse on this platform. Rather than engaging in reasoned debate to dissect the complexities of the issue, many participants seem to resort to inflammatory rhetoric. This unfortunate trend undermines the very purpose of a discussion forum and has led me to reconsider my continued participation here.

Stereotyping people and overgeneralizing things without actually debating your point is ridiculous. Grow up man.

Thanks for proving my point.

If the primary objective here is to engage in constructive dialogue, then name-calling and overgeneralization serve no purpose and only fuel the fire. The issue at hand has been conflated to be about political affiliations like Republican vs. Democrat, when that's not the core point of discussion at all. We're here to debate the merits and drawbacks of mod removal, not to stereotype one another based on our political leanings or otherwise.

I must point out, albeit reluctantly, that much of the stereotyping and overgeneralizing in this thread seems to be coming from those who are in favor of the mod's removal. This does little to advance a constructive conversation and only serves to deepen divisions.

If we're truly interested in finding common ground or at least understanding the other side of the argument, we need to stop dismissing each other's viewpoints out of hand. Only through respectful and open discussion can we hope to reach a resolution that considers the full complexity of the issue.

Who the hell are you to say that I hate black and gay people? You're overgeneralizing a group, how much different are you in this case? Stop with that man, this is why we can't have actual debates.

Finally, someone who isn't just calling one side stupid and dismissing peoples points.

The rhetorical question highlights the complex nature of the debates around modding and game customization. The term "censorship" can indeed be used selectively to further one's viewpoint, whether it's calling for the removal of political elements from games or protesting the removal of a mod.

However, maybe it's worth considering that people may hold these opinions without necessarily harboring bigoted intentions. The desire to keep politics out of games, for some, might stem from the view that games should be an escape from real-world issues. Conversely, concerns about censorship could arise from a belief in preserving the open nature of modding communities.

What we're really grappling with is how to balance the broad spectrum of user needs and societal responsibilities. Accusations of bigotry or censorship often serve to shut down dialogue rather than facilitate a nuanced discussion about these complex issues.

So while your question is rhetorical, it does bring to light the need for more open and honest conversations about the competing values that are in play here.