Railey2 wrote:
B1rd wrote:
Free speech works fine in forums, you're exercising de facto free-speech right now by virtue of the fact that no one is repressing it.
Getting banned from a forum for voicing unpopular opinions/being annoying is not a violation of free speech. Getting arrested by the state for voicing an unpopular opinion is a violation of free speech. Forums got nothing to do with it.
B1rd wrote:
The "rules" are tantamount to "do what I say, don't say anything I don't want you to say or say anything that my arbitrarily decided in-group doesn't want you to say".
Yes, that's kind of how it works when you have a small circle of people that just want to be among themselves and aren't looking for annoying, drawn-out fights. Tuuba is a forum for said in-group. If you don't fit and constantly clash with other users, you are no longer wanted. This is no different to how it works irl, by the way. You consistently provocate people and generally act in annoying ways? Eventually you're gonna get kicked out. Would you then complain about "missing impartiality" the same way you're complaining here? Have some common sense, man.
Here you even admit to being an annoying prick:
B1rd wrote:
And it wasn't even about "me being an ass" (which is completely subjective, btw). The reason was literally because I was posting Trump memes, not directed at anyone, and a vocal minority were complaining about their safe space was being invaded and that certain forms of politics be banned from Tuuba's ITT. That is why I mocked those two and they definitely deserved it.
Yeah, you being an ass is subjectiv, that's the whole point! It's subjective to THEM, so THEY banned YOU because THEY don't want to deal with ASSES.
But to sum this up: You broke the rules by posting politics in a place where it wasn't wanted. In other words: You were being annoying, even more so after mocking them afterwards. Now you double down on it by basically calling them all pussies who need "safe spaces" (very patronizing). Charming as always.
Are you really surprised that they wanted to get rid of you?
But this is the kicker:
B1rd wrote:
I only provoked other people because I needed to verify the "rules".
who on earth does something like that? Being annoying on purpose to verify the rules, excuse me what? No wonder they banned you, lol.
Do you not have any experience with RL social interaction? Are you a sociopath? What's going on here?
I really don't dislike you that much, in my book you're just one hell of a weird guy. But damn this looks like you really need to get out of your cave. You got banned on fucking tuuba my man. If that's not a sign that you need to reconsider your life choices, then I don't know what is.
Your post is wrong in many areas. Read all sides, not just one PM from a biased individual.
You are wrong because
-I didn't get banned, I left
-free speech is an ideal that has more implications than only being about state protection for individuals
-there was no collective "them", my posts were deleted by one person, and there were only three people who that were being vocal against my posts. There were people that support/supported me. I was always arguing for a democratic system to decide matters instead of an autocratic system. A majority ruling on conduct I could have accepted
-there were no formal "rules" put in place. Only the server administrator saying I should do this as the drama came up but there was no mention of formal ruleset which I must obey. The suggestions of one individual, whether he owns the server or not, isn't rule of law
The argument was over a specific set of political content,
Trump memes, because that very specific content offended a minority of left-wingers who said they were feeling emotionally fragile because of the election, while I was feeling jubilant. I wasn't seeking to cause controversy, only share my feelings on a momentous event such as is the purpose of such forums. If Hillary had won, no doubt they would be ecstatic and be posting about it in ITT, and no doubt I would be feeling depressed, yet I wouldn't ever think to try and ban them from posting because it hurt my feelings. Just because a minority is offended by something, doesn't give said minority the right to enforce their special interests upon the majority. It's the same as you hear with the feminists constantly escalating standards of behaviour on the majority ad nauseum: trigger warnings, how men sit in trains, what people are allowed to joke about, what haircuts and Halloween costumes people are allowed to wear, et cetera. This behaviour is the very definition of a space space and I refuse to take part in a forum which institutes a safe space. The people were free to go to any other part of the forum besides a general thread specifically for general and all-purpose discussion, and I wouldn't have posted anything that offended them there. As I've pointed out many times, having a small minority of people be able to ban content they don't like is a completely illogical and dysfunctional system to put in place. If they were able to ban things that offended them, why weren't I allowed to call for bans on content they posted that offended me and other people? It's a completely logically inconsistent way to run a forum, but I have received no rebuttal to this point. It's a shining example of having a general rule (no political content) that is inconsistently applied and thus a mark of corruption in which one special interest group is allowed to oppress another group they don't like. IppE himself stated that he never was against
all political content, only a certain type of political content, and the criteria that defined which political content wasn't allowed seemed to be determined solely on whether it offended a certain minority group.
To have well-functioning system of governance of any kind, it is essential to have impartiality as a corner stone, and this was not present in Tuuba.The reason I put a provocative post - which was not just edgy and offensive, but which some Tuuba members said was funny, it was satirical and relevant - was because I don't operate in environments with threats looming above my head. I had to see whether the statements were actual threats or just suggestions, the latter of which I can respect.
I get sick of your bias against me in all matters. It is tedious. In this instance I'm right, it was nothing short of a betrayal; I helped found the forum, I donated money to help with the server costs, I was an active member who tried to contribute in the ways that I can, and I helped draft the rules and I worked in my position as a moderator as much as I could to advocate for and to maintain an environment that featured a diverse range of high-quality discussion, in which everyone's right to post was respected and which was mutually beneficial for everyone. I noted all my experiences of how forums work, how good discussions in a forum spring up and are maintained, and tried to implement that in a practical way. But it was trying to achieve that end - trying to inject some integrity into a forum rather than have it devolve in to a petty autocracy as is so common with forums and people with power in forums - that I was ousted. Indeed, maybe I can be overly-provocative at times and need to keep that in mind so I don't needlessly create an unpleasant environment for other people, but I don't take back anything I said (that I can remember), because there were indeed some whiny people who wanted a safe space and deserved to be the target of satire and banter, such as is common in any social environment. No matter which way you cut it, I'm the one who was treated unfairly here.
I implore you to read what I wrote carefully, because in this instance I'd rather not provoke antagonism but rather want to make people aware of what really happened.