That's funny, I never personally established Linko's gender. I might have used the "he" pronoun, but that was mainly from common usage here in the forum. Gender is baseless in forums like this unless you know the member personally, and I try not to bring judgement based on assumed gender.

1) Agreed

2) I didn't think it was necessary to go into detail to defend the work of four of the most respected academics in the UK. And in truth, it is not necessary, all their methods are published openly for anyone to examine and verify.

3) Might be true IF that wasn't one of many questions which cross-referenced each other to ensure the reliability of their variables. Their work is clearly constructed with variable validity; they didn't just ask: "do you dislike Political Correctness, they asked a large multiple page survey with many questions all addressing different aspects of the definition of political correctness. Their work is obviously internally valid (just look at their methods and data) and externally valid as no serious academic is going to challenge a survey of 8,000 people demographically representative of boarder population. Have you not questioned why no mainstream or left-leaning source has challenged this findings? What do you know that they don't?

4) Potentially true as this is a topic I have studied a lot in the past few months and have come to some conclusions based a rather lot of research into the topic. However (you can believe me or not) I genuinely remain open to being convinced otherwise - that said, most of the responses from progressive activists here can be put into 3 categories:

a) This study (unchallenged by other sources and conducted by universally respected leftist academics) is invalid and therefore biased against the left. Therefore those "offended" by Linko90's tweets are the mainstream majority. Clearly not a convincing agreement.

b) Saying that Linko90 is not free say anything he wants at work. This is of course the best argument and I can see why others often retreat to this argument after being shown to be false on the other two points. But here is where the point a is so important. I would venture that about 93% of the public would agree that the earth is not flat (https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2017/11/28/americas-flat-earth-movement-appears-to-be-growing). And we would all agree that no one should be fired for referencing that in PR materials. So if 93% of us all either agree (or don't care) that Linko90's tweet wasn't offensive, than we can all agree that saying the he should be fired is just as outlandish a claim as that the earth is flat. So again, not a convincing argument if taken to its logical conclusion.

c) Beeping and/or swearing. Not even an agruement really...

And of course "hate speech" is bad, almost all of us agree on that, just as almost all of us agree that political correctness has gone too far. But thinking it is bad and thinking people should lose their liveihood and/or be imprisoned for saying what 7% of the population defines as "offensive" things are two very different things. I, for example, am not conversely advocating that progressive activists be imprisoned. This is not a purely academic point, as we speak, 3,000+ people a year in the UK are being arrested for saying things on the internet that 7% of the population find offensive.

Or go ahead and try to make the argument that Linko90 did something criminal. I'll wait.

Dont,hold your breath.

Personally I don't think that 'hate speech' is necessarily a bad thing, only because of the flexible definition used. There have been cries of 'hate speech' when someone is giving a perfectly reasonable and rational point, people claim hate speech if you give facts, as well as the traditional forms of 'hate speech' that involve racism and sexism. I would say that racism and sexism, whether against white people, minorities, men or women is bad, but not the other things. "hate speech" has nothing to do with the content of the speech, but only of the person saying it. If you don't agree with them, it doesn't matter what you're saying, they will dismiss it out of hand and it falls under their definition of 'hate speech'.

It's really just an impotent attempt to make opponents to their ideology seem like bad people, and dismiss their arguments without engaging them. I could do the same thing to them easily enough. Just find a word with negative connotations, then apply it to them. Let's say, protesting against free speech is a form of 'despair speech', as they try to spread despair and sorrow against innocents. No reasonable person would agree with allowing them to spread despair speech. Another good example of despair speech is claiming that gender is a social construct. They can't understand what it's like to identify with reality and the daily struggles innocent people must endure being told that our sex isn't real by leftists, and how despair speech so deeply hurts us. I don't think we should allow despair on our college campuses, and we should have 'secure places' where only rational and critical thinking is allowed to protect students from those trying to spread despair. Companies that encourage the spread of despair speech should be called out for it.

From what I've seen the end goal is communism for some strange reason? Just from most of the people I've been able to have discussions with, usually the people trying to push nonsense and things that oppose reality, logic, or rationalism are trying to do that intentionally to try and make their idea not seem as ridiculous and harmful as it is. It's not as much about snowflakes as much as it is about destroying civilization; which I don't understand since they're still technically part of civilization. I suppose things are too good in life now and they get bored, need a hobby. Which is ironic, because they're trying to get rid of people's hobbies too. They've chosen the hobby of getting rid of other people's hobbies, I wish they would take up something harmless like stamp collecting or gaming instead, the world would be better for it.

In any case, hate speech isn't even a real thing, much less a bad thing. We could easily go back to normal civility like we had 20 years ago and be just fine.

Well, you largely miss the point, be it deliberately or sloppily. I can't be arsed to go check at which point you joined the "discussion" and, thus, which excuse you have or have not, but let's say in (hopefully) short :

- The issue is not even the report itself, but the intellectually dishonest usage that is being made of it in this threads. It's an issue with multiple layers, criticizing the report's own categories is just one point. Turns out, the report's authors are aware of how blurry its categories are (while the forumers who use this report, including you, STILL aren't - even after having quoted it on that). The real problem is the inference made by forumers based on this blurry category, which can't be used in support for specific exemples (it's about a conglomerate of vague feelings on heterogeneous things, it tells you nothing about how many of the individual polled people would consider this or that specific exemple as crossing the line and as illustrative of own personally defined category). I've wrote enough about that, re-read if you care (spoiler: you don't). Your points 2-3-4 are an attempt to let the report's "legitimacy" bleed unto the fallacies that takes it as a basis, to hide behind it, as if the core of the criticism wasn't about this forum's posts themselves.

Again, if you cared, the best you could do is to apply your syllogism to less ideologically convenient categories, in order to make the fallacy more visible to you, instead of dodging the issue. "78% of people consider that justice is too lenient" can't be used to justify "78% of people think that copyright must be enforced more strictly". Especially if the source is a report stating "yeah, we know, all these people have very different objects in mind, but we just wanted a general feeling".

- I've already stated my support of Linko many times since the very start of that polemic. Saying that "you are waiting" for my opinion on it further shows that you're only about empty rhetorics.

Actually, people did and he banned them. I think it's mostly because of that.

Remember rtcvb? Kept spamming the forum with "Save Tommeh" threads, got banned.
Remember initialpresence? After the no politics rules, he made a "General politics thread" that he gently guided towards his white surpemacist agenda, got banned.
I believe it was this "heads on poles" approach that got people to pay attention.

Whatever gave you the impression he was a white supremacist? :P

Ah yes, those anti-white SJWs. Always trying to curtail the white agenda. What is the white agenda anyways? Are we fighting to have country music be the only recognized art form now? I can never remember what I’m supposed to fight for as a white guy.

Marschmusik! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBPC7nIw7l4

Finally, a cause I can get behind.

I see you think that having to use a different pronoun for a person means the destruction of civilisation. You confuse sex and gender, purposefully, with sole intent to provoke a violent response. I'm seeing many walls of text from you that are practically identical and point at a thoroughly radicalized identity. Sure, you mostly retain a "civil tone", but still you call in no uncertain terms for extremely wide ranging censorship and the suppression of scientific as well as humanist ideas on college campus.

It's textbook incitement to hatred, and whenever you're confronted with an actually appropriate tone in a debate in which you consistently argue to deprive people of basic rights, you deplore the loss of civility. But that is what you brought on yourself. Suppression of free speech on college campuses, man, so that the oh so perverse and harmful idea that trans people are real people doesn't spread and muddle with the heads of your poor youth. That's your cup of tea. It would be entirely "reasonable" to assume that your idea of Napola colleges, where all that communist nonsense is banned, is meeting with some resistance of the vehement kind.

You'd have to shut up though, which I don't see happening. The ideology that you seem to hate so much, it's been there in the late 80s already. Back when Republicans in the US weren't all complete xenophobes, didn't boo at a gay soldier during primaries and shit.


I won't belittle his work on these forums. He had a knack for knowing when to strike, and I especially laud that eventually he removed one reactionary extremist after another while still leaving them guessing whether he secretly was on their side, especially after that horrible gamergate tweet (and apparently his subsequent playing of the victim card in Discord chat). I still think that his tweets (both that we can clearly tie to him without small leaps of logic at least) were an expression of his political leanings, which made his success in cleaning up this forum all the more impressive, as he was continuously throwing his brothers in arms out.

The tides have changed all too quickly here though. People have tested the limits of the new rule, and saw there were none to speak of - at least none that would be a hindrance to their causes. Yet the new limit testing was of course disrespectful already, especially after honeying up in the first round. And, yes, I think that was in no small part due to the gender constellation.

They relentlessly tortured Fables after she dared to introduce clear cut forum rules. Then they of course accepted the "good people on both sides" guy, also because evidently he'd ignore right-wing extremism. For him to be ostracised, the guy had to literally pour gallons of condescension over the community during the great privacy schism, after which he was torn to shreds from all sides, regardless how much I pleaded. And then Linko, who DID crack down on the My Attorney Got Arrested creeps, had to literally oust himself with a vengeance during his sixth month on the job ... well. There's some prejudice here that isn't quite so easily explained away, I hope we can agree on that.

This thread wouldn't have been made under Linko, and Linko would have closed it long ago.

*shudder*

While I don't entirely disagree with the idea that normal civility would be the easiest solution to the problem, I think it is at best naive to use that as a realistic example of how to solve the problem. I agree if everyone would just stop being an asshole then the problem would mostly be solved, but that depends on everyone agreeing on what actions make someone an asshole and expecting people to change.

Saying that everyone was civil 20 years ago doesn't make any sense. IF that were true how do explain all the bad things that people did to each other 20 years ago? This idea that people have that there was a golden age in the 50s or 60s when everything was perfect is kind of stupid. Some things may have been better, some things were worse, some things were better hidden.

Also, how is hate speech not a thing? It has a definition and everything: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hate%20speech

It is obviously possible to say something to offend someone based on one of their traits such as sex or religion, therefor hate speech is a thing, as defined. You call for civility that never existed under the guise of saying that hate speech isn't a real thing? And you view the end goal of people using the term hate speech to be communism? That shows a very weak grasp of what communism is.

You appear to just be jumbling up a bunch of talking points you found on a mens rights forum without really connecting the dots.

"hate speech isn't even a real thing" :O Exactly what someone who has never been the victim of it says.

I give up man. I GIVE UP!

I WANT OFF OF THIS PLANET!

I'm struggling to connect the quote of mine with your reply. Makes no sense. 2 + 2 = pine tree.

But what the hell.

Yes, I don't think the "voices of white supremacists should be given much weight in the public sqaure". Because I hope the people hearing the voices in the public square are smart enough to understand white supremacy is a load of BS. Nowhere do I say groups should not be able to spout their nonsense in that public square / social media, etc. My opinion is that one part of helping to end it is for the people to hear it - and then flat-out reject it after making their own considerations on the matter. Ditto a whole bunch of other issues out there.

If you're also implying that I'm okay with doxing and putting out private info on employees, then I think you have not really read my posts. That isn't protest / discussion / argument. That's harassment.

My overall point was: previous experience shows that some folks / groups will go to those lengths to cause problems when they get irritated, so don't post things that will again irritate them. And if one DOES willingly irritate them again, then the consequences should surprise nobody. Further, if putting that stuff on a marketing channel doesn't further a store's goal of selling its products and services, then don't do it.

Not sure how that gets turned into me making any claims about this or that group having a voice, so maybe there's a simple misunderstanding.

So if someone writes or says something that irritates a white supremacist group and get in trouble, according to your logic thats ok, and "the consequences should surprise nobody"?
Actually i cant think of any example of people getting fired from their jobs or getting media flak for speaking against white supremacists, but as the cases of James Diamore and Roseane Barr show, you can and will get fired for the slightest transgression against the dominant doctrine.
Here is yet another example of a scientist getting attacked for presenting scientific data that goes against the prevailing doctrine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOCIke7zLMo&t=832s