On one hand, I believe one can choose to blacklist whoever you want. It's your decision, after all.
On the other hand, I am very careful in not blacklisting anybody for their personal beliefs. Specially with controversial topics (Unless their beliefs include clearly insulting somebody personally)
Comment has been collapsed.
Thank you for your input! I think my approach is similar to yours, after all everything done here is done in good faith (for whatever reason), and blacklisting, in my opinion, except when "justified", goes against that good faith.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sure, for me it is, I wouldn't wanna give games to people who are idk, racist, sexist or homophobic (to name the "standard" few). Also, free speech only applies as long as you're not hurting anyone. You can't just say racist / sexist / homophobic / discriminating stuff and claim it's your freedom of speech.
(I have no idea what got you onto those blacklists, like I said, just naming the standard few)
Comment has been collapsed.
I can see your point of view, can't say I agree with it or disagree, for it is contextual, but I appreciate your input!
Comment has been collapsed.
Not all ppl understand that freedom of speach doesnt mean you can say or do whatever you want.
Comment has been collapsed.
It looks pretty logical and simple for me. I have done it in the past if i feel like you dont have any respect to something i am respectful for, i simply dont want to give you a gift. Not that i blacklisted you or anything i rarely use it but i can understand if someone does that to me.
Comment has been collapsed.
I can understand that clearly, and it's obviously all very subjective, so anything I would retort with would pretty much also be subjective. So thank you for your input!
Comment has been collapsed.
Normally its when someone is being insulting or arguing in bad faith.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thank you for your input - clearly it's all subjective, but are you strict and decisive when blacklisting or are you on the lenient side of things?
Comment has been collapsed.
I am quite indecisive when it comes to doing it - and its very rarely off the back of one comment.
Comment has been collapsed.
I can agree with that. Unless it was something that's completely against your core values (even then I think we should just agree to disagree, but that's just me), it just feels too impulsive and somewhat childish. Once again, it's all subjective.
Comment has been collapsed.
Exactly, in the end there's many people who I disagree with who are freely able to enter my giveaways.
Comment has been collapsed.
Kind of curious what comments I made that made you decide in my case? If you dont mind.
Comment has been collapsed.
I saw many threads asking for similar questions during these years.. and often it comes out that by expressing your opinion or creating threads and such you'll get some blacklists, depending on the tone and so on.. anyways I have 0 users in my blacklist and I'm really not looking forward to add anyone there so it's definitely not a problem of mine, I think there are tons of users that blacklist only for rare and special reasons and they don't do it because of personal opinions and such!
Comment has been collapsed.
Thank you for your input! Yes, it seems expressing unpopular opinions or beliefs can get you on some blacklists, but it's nice to read your view on the topic. It is true you can't agree with everyone though, so getting blacklisted is also understandable in a way.
Comment has been collapsed.
But what sort of system to you have to differentiate weeb from non-weeb? Are there semi-weebs? What about them?
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, if you are sure they aren't just lurking around, hiding in your shadow, watching your every step... I'll agree and let it go.
Comment has been collapsed.
I refuse to live in fear, anyway weebs don't have money, everyone knows, I'm not afraid to be blacklisted by them.
Comment has been collapsed.
Damn, i did not see that clip! Great stuff hahahaha
Comment has been collapsed.
Well as I said my views were somewhat close-minded or conservative, so my conjecture or hypothesis is that I was blacklisted by "open-minded" people that disagreed with my stance. If that ain't hypocrisy I don't know what is.
Comment has been collapsed.
Simpler to assume somebody decided they don't like you - maybe because of something you said.
Pretty complicated to assume that
a) You know which comment occasioned the blacklist.
b) Someone else would characterize that comment as "close-minded."
c) That same someone would also characterize themselves as "open-minded."
That's just a lot of assuming to get all the way from "I've been blacklisted" to "Blacklisting me is hypocrisy."
Comment has been collapsed.
I can see where you're coming from. However, I have less than 100 comments right now (for about 2 years), and have only posted in one "controversial" topic in the timespan I saw the sudden increase in the blacklist numbers.
Obviously blacklisting me in general is not hypocrisy, but considering the situation some of those blacklistings occurred in I find it a reasonable assumption. So to reply point by point :
a) I only made 1 comment recently (in the timeframe of the blacklists)
b) People in that thread I would say I openly disagreed with with my comment declared themselves as open-minded
c) Pretty much the same as "b"
Of course, I might be completely wrong, but that's what this topic is for, to hear opinions and POVs of others.
Comment has been collapsed.
You can check users if they have any public giveaways. I had similar experiences with controversial topics but there were actually a few ret...extremely open-minded and noble individuals who disagreed with me vehemently and I was surprised to find out that they weren't among my many blacklisters. I instantly gained some grudging respect for them.
Comment has been collapsed.
As long as something is open to discussion, even if there's disagreement that can't be resolved easily (or at all), I feel that's the way it should be. So yes, that respect is earned I guess.
Comment has been collapsed.
Currently I don't have anyone on my blacklist, but isn't blacklisting some kind of free speech as well? Are you giving presents to people you dislike in the "real world"? Blacklisting isn't necessary, but it's neither the worst thing one can do.
If there was a built-in ignore option on Steamgifts, they may have chosen that one. Or both. Would you feel better, if you would know by how many you are ignored (only by functionality and not using that brain ignore thing)?
Comment has been collapsed.
Thank you for your input! I see your point and find nothing to refute - I was just interested how one would choose to blacklist someone and why. I don't give presents to real life people I dislike, that is true. But would you decide you dislike someone based on just one statement that's not directed at you personally? I know it's all relative and subjective, but I am wondering.
Comment has been collapsed.
But would you decide you dislike someone based on just one statement that's not directed at you personally?
Depends on the statement, e.g. if it contains seriously meant racism or if it's very rude/aggressive to me or others without an obvious reason.
I don't know your posting, but your description above makes me think that it might have been negative towards a minority/group/way of living. Of course that isn't a personal attack, but many people identify theirselves by being part of one/few group/s.
Comment has been collapsed.
I can understand your point of view. Indeed, what I had written might be interpreted by others as aggressive/demeaning though if taken at face value and not purposefully misconstrued it is just a statement based in reality and that is all.
Comment has been collapsed.
I tend to block people who are annoying online. At first, I instinctively blacklisted those users but it doesn't really do anything because they still can answer me on threads. Then I blacklisted people who have blacklisted me and still entered my giveaways but two-way blacklist solved that for me. Nowadays I mostly blacklist people who take too long to confirm their wins even when they are online most of the time or if i suspect it is a bot. I'll rarely blacklist someone for being a leecher but only extreme ones. Other than that I don't really blacklist people.
Comment has been collapsed.
That was quite a detailed reply - thank you for your input! Would you explain what you consider "annoying"? Also, I am wondering are you decisive when it comes to blacklisting or do you like to give people benefit of the doubt? Your reply was on the tangent, but it's still clearly related to the topic, so no worries there.
Comment has been collapsed.
I guess annoying would be someone who will randomly attack you over a comment he miss understood or a joke he took too seriously, troll comments, people who insist on replying after you asked them not to. At some point I even got tired of people commenting "thanks" and blacklisted those. It all comes to what annoys you.
As for being decisive, it's kinda hard. At first I would blacklist without hesitate but last year I made an event which involved temporary blacklist and decided to remove everyone before it started, only users I really don't like stayed there. I think I will give most people the benefit of the doubt today. Three years ago, when I joined, I wouldn't. Guess I grew up or something.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks for the clarification. I think part of maturing is seeing that some things aren't worth fretting over and that most life decisions and choices are just shades of gray.
Comment has been collapsed.
I dont blacklist much, i got blacklists for 2 leeches and one bastard that scammed me on a trade. Thats about it, i quickly got bored with blacklisting and do not care about using it
Comment has been collapsed.
I blacklist some rule breakers (I find them when they win one of my giveaways, so not actively hunting for them). That's about it. I'd never blacklist someone for what they say or believe.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thank you for your input! You are like a true neutral-neutral :D
Comment has been collapsed.
I blacklist everyone that uses hate speech. So I have blacklisted 0.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thank you for your input! Hate speech is a complex subject to broach - I think it's hard for people to agree on what constitutes hate speech and that political correctness is sometimes going too far.
Comment has been collapsed.
If you're really curious about point of view, then:
also realize that this might be another of those "controversial" threads, but, hey, free speech?
Free speech has nothing to do with with communication that is not government-person (or group). You can say whatever you want, but there are consequences. Be it delisting of a game from Steam where the dev threatened Gaben's life (Paranautical Activity), getting punched if you call a guy motherfucker, or getting blacklisted if someone wishes to do so. Everyone can be blacklisted by anyone, that is how equality works on SG.
Also hypocrisy doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. By definition: "the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case." Having different opinions and blacklisting someone for that is not claming having higher standards. It's a bit of intolerance towards the other, but then your "free speech" and free will means that they are free to do so - and if you can't accept that, then that is hypocisy - your opinion being so important that you should not be blacklisted for that, even at the cost of limiting their opinions compared to yours.
Taking a step back from the topic - blacklisting never worth arguing about. Not because getting more (oh, the horror) but because some people use it as the only way to "punish" someone. Or feeling of having any little control over someone, even if that is taking away a supersmall percentage of change of winning - if any. Once I used it as a way to punish people in a way that if they broke rules, then they are not entitled of winning anything from me. I kind of gave up on it because I don't want to care about managing a blacklist really, checking people...they don't worth it.
I still use it in a way that I blacklist a few people I dislike so much (long-term, or short term, it varies) that I don't want to talk to them, I don't want to meet them, I don't want to give anything from me to them. Be it because they are throwing hissy fits, are menchildren, assholes on SG or gasp having different opinions. Not things like them disliking the glorious pineapple pizza, but openly supporting white supremacist movements, being wildly racist or a bigot or some other great things.
It's okay not agreeing with everyone. Having different opinions and views. But everyone is entitled to have a point afterwards they don't want to deal with others. Sometimes it's laughably small about irrelevant things ( someone called me the literal antichrist for not liking Hitman 2 much) but that's their business, they paint a picture of themselves as it is.
Comment has been collapsed.
I appreciate your input! Now, to reply :
- the line you quote was written half-jokingly - but obviously acts have consequences.
- free speech is a term that isn't that clearly defined and in a way depends on your culture/country though. some places don't have it at all.
- my name Is Inigo Montoya - so you wouldn't say that if someone claims to be "open-minded" and then blacklists someone that is "closed-minded" (in his own opinion) is, looked at from the side, hypocritical? How are you then open-minded? If you still disagree there, let's agree to disagree, because I'd rather go with Wikipedia's definition.
- I can accept differing opinions and being blacklisted, this thread was just made in response to what I thought about seeing I was blacklisted, so I wanted to see what others have to say, how they choose whom to blacklist.
- I agree there's no point arguing about blacklists - if you are or did blacklist someone/by someone it is what it is.
Comment has been collapsed.
my name Is Inigo Montoya - so you wouldn't say that if someone claims to be "open-minded" and then blacklists someone that is "closed-minded" (in his own opinion) is, looked at from the side, hypocritical? How are you then open-minded? If you still disagree there, let's agree to disagree, because I'd rather go with Wikipedia's definition.
Please allow me this little "impersonal personal attack":
You are in a group: Seattle
If I say Seattle is a shithole and everyone there should be hooked to oblivion because the city only has hookers, pimps, corruption, assholes and druggies, then I am close-minded.
If you say that no city deserves that, everyone deserves a chance and they should be helped, you are open minded.
Now if you disagree with my master plan of nuking a city, then you are close-minded because you are not accepting of my genocidal plans, hypocrasy!!
Real talk: I do believe that some opinions should never be considered because they are inferior and worse as others, and clearly harmful. While I can be open-minded in a sense that I support ( returnining to the Seattle analogue) helping by sending nurses, giving out free lunches, making jobs for the needy, making drug help programs, decriminalizing drog posession IF they are handing it over, etc. Many-many options, they are helpful in different ways. But being open-minded (IMO) should not include being open to ideas that are harmful for many, only not to get one person's feelings hurt.
I don't know your original topic and take this in a friendly way - I don't care about it, I don't want to get into such discussions, at least not now. So I can't say how far you went and with what idea, but being open-minded does not mean open to whatever clearly bullshit. Just for future reference.
...you killed my father. Prepare to die!
Comment has been collapsed.
You made a super lengthy post, and I feel that if I were to reply on each point individually it would exponentially grow to insane lengths xD
Regarding the Seattle metaphor - I'll be honest, I was invited to that group because the group tag "SEA", was super cool while we were gaming as a team.
To summarize the open/closed-minded debate on my end - I just find it hypocritical that someone that claims to be open-minded would act in a unfriendly manner (such as blacklisting for example) with someone that just disagrees with their POV. To illustrate it like this -
"Hypocritical open-minded person" - Hey, I am open to ideas, but not your ideas, you close-minded bigot!
(at least that's how I see it, it just makes you close-minded but with a different point-of-view).
And yes, I do agree not all ideas are good ideas and that some shouldn't even be considered. I appreciate as well that you don't care about the original topic, for it's not the topic of discussion here :P
Princess Bride is one of the better adventure comedies I have seen in my life so far!
Comment has been collapsed.
Free speech has nothing to do with with communication that is not government-person (or group).
You've got to separate the concept of free speech from the protections afforded to free speech in the First Amendment of the Constitution (or whatever laws apply in your country of origin).
I see this argument a lot with tech companies like Facebook, Twitter, Youtube etc arbitrarily banning people with no recourse. Many people claim that it's not infringing on free speech because they're private companies, they can do whatever they want with their platform, etc. I agree with this from a legal standpoint, yes they're not breaking the law or violating the First Amendment, and yes they can do what they want with their site.
However, they are restricting speech and creating a controlled, sanitized environment only allowing the viewpoints that they want to project and creating a nice little filter bubble for their advertisers. This should absolutely be criticized as oppression of speech, and users should switch to more open, decentralized, or federated platforms where they're not being manipulated by a giant corporation with an agenda.
You can say whatever you want, but there are consequences.
Yep, totally agree with you here. Only example I might take issue with is getting punched if you call a guy motherfucker, that's assault and illegal. But still technically a repercussion for expressing yourself.
Anyhow, sorry for jumping in with my little rant that may not even be relevant to what you were trying to express. I do that sometimes ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
No problem, you're very right about the tech companies. While it's not unlawful what they are doing, it doesn't feel good morally, that is a classic issue with many situations. They are way too much integrated into our lives/online presence
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree with you on the part about free speech. People should be free to speak their opinion without worrying that it's illegal and they'll be arrested. But free speech does not mean no consequences, and one will (and should) take responsibility for their speech, which could come in the form of social consequences (being punched or getting blacklisted).
Comment has been collapsed.
That's quite something - kinda unexpected. Thank you for your honest reply though!
Comment has been collapsed.
I only have a few people blacklisted, mostly people that are really mean or toxic on the forums. I also have a couple people blacklisted with hundreds of wins, no giveaways and thousands of games on Steam. I understand and have no problem if you can't afford to make giveaways, but if you have thousands of games and aren't contributing I don't want my GA to be just another +1 for you. I've also blacklisted people for really unethical behavior, like that developer that was scamming dev keys for giveaways.
I also tend to empty my blacklist from time to time. I wouldn't blacklist someone for their opinions, but it's a personal decision and you're bound to pick up a few blacklists if you participate here at all. I could care less if someone blacklists me for expressing my opinion, even more so now with mutual blacklists.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thanks for your input! Yes, I can see why blacklisting leechers could be a positive step for the community as a whole. Haven't done any of that yet though. Might think about it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Blacklist idiots, rule breakers, mega leeches and those who flaunt their autojoins...
Comment has been collapsed.
Oooh, unlucky 13... aren't you scared? :P
Thanks for your input!
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't blacklist often, but a few examples of reasons I've blacklisted people:
- They were advertising a group with the Nazi swastika as their banner.
- They advertised that the keys they gave away were ones they'd stolen
- They blacklisted everyone in an entire group (that I was in) just because they were banned from it for breaking rules.
Comment has been collapsed.
The system works like this - you can blacklist anyone for any reason, or without one, and anyone can blacklist you for any reason, or without one. And I can't see any hypocrisy here.
If you really curious why I'm personally blacklist people - then I'm mostly don't. I have exactly six blacklist entries for a very long time, mostly for rule violations like multiple accounts on sg and transferring account to another person. There is also one despicable jerk, but it happened so that he also had multiple accounts, so I can just say I blacklist for serious rule violations.
Comment has been collapsed.
Thank you for your input!
I see no faults with the system, I think it's fair and objective. I was just wondering about the human factor, as in simply why and how people choose whom to blacklist. And the hypocrisy was from my personal point-of-view, it was the reason I wanted to explore this topic.
Comment has been collapsed.
Doubt you will see any reasoning from the mass blacklisters and if you did you would be thoroughly disappointed
Comment has been collapsed.
You are probably correct - yet today I feel open to discussion. It's also interesting to find people that are sensible, and that has been my experience so far with the people that have replied in this thread.
Comment has been collapsed.
Free speech means that you can dissent against authority without fear of being jailed/murdered by your government or their allies. It's a good principle for democracy because those with authority often don't act in the peoples' best interest and the maintenance of this principle holds them to task.
If you look into the arguments of people who cite "free speech" on the internet, they are often mixing it up with "consequence-free speech", wherein they somehow have a right to yell out their terrible opinions and everyone else has to just kind of accept it. It's actually pretty easy to be a dick irl and get away with it, as long as you're not overtly advertising your awful worldview. Basically the only thing you do when you're chatting on the internet is advertise your value system so you should either prepare to face the consequences of outing yourself as someone that many people wouldn't want to associate with, or just keep those opinions to yourself.
Comment has been collapsed.
I do agree with what you've said. Now do people want to express themselves or no is purely subjective of course, but there are consequences either-way (probably less consequences if you don't interact). It wasn't really the point of this thread, but still, thank you for your input!
Comment has been collapsed.
You allow your friend to say "NIGGER" on your Steam page. It's been there a month. I'm sure you are a swell person.
Comment has been collapsed.
Correct. He is not offended by it and neither am I. Now if I'm a swell person or not is not something for me to judge, but I can understand that such comments could make me less-liked. And yet it is what it is.
Comment has been collapsed.
Eh, it's easier to avoid using a word that's a slur than to purposefully insert it where ever you can, I'd say.
Regardless, edginess for a good reason is fine. Edginess for edginess sake just turns into cringe and honestly, being cringeworthy's worse than actually using slurs since after a while you'll probably look back at it and start beating yourself up about it. You'll be your own worst critic and cringe just doesn't get so easily erased from one's memory.
Comment has been collapsed.
You don't know if OP is black. If he's black, he can use this word anytime he wants.
Comment has been collapsed.
Can't really think of a better way to say "I still hold racist beliefs" than by saying "it's fine to do x as long as you're a specific race". Examples like certain bus seats, water fountains and schools come to mind.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not racist, but "Insert excuse about your black friend"
I don't care about words, people who get mad or something about this are easy targets to mock.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't care about words
The whole "If he's black, he can use this word anytime he wants." thing made me think otherwise :D
Comment has been collapsed.
I suppose it's oddly true. People of certain groups are allowed to use certain words on each other and are often more a term of endearment than attack when it's within their group/community. It's when an outsider uses it, that it becomes negative.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's more about context than "you need to be this or that for it to be OK to talk or joke about (whatever)."
I don't fully know the context of the case in question, but let's say it's either 1 or 2, for the sake of argument.
1) A friend jokingly calls another friend a racist word and neither of them are actually racist (humor can be used to ridicule/disarm harmful words, for instance).
2) A friend jokingly calls another friend a racist word, and they're actually being racist, making fun of other people based on their skin color.
1 may be seen as distasteful/offensive by some, but let's not pretend like we're being objective about it. It's entirely down to subjective opinions and it's not racism.
2 is clearly completely different and is based on actual racism.
Comment has been collapsed.
How is what you said any different from what I just said?
Trust me, I understand these things. I have been called some pretty xenophobic things online because I'm Irish lol... but the same things we might say to each other and never get offended. We're allowed poke fun at ourselves, or sorta own the words and make them positive. There is no reason for anyone outside of a particular group to use certain derogatory terms unless they have permission to do so. When outsiders do it, it's almost certainly never with good intentions.
Two friends I know online, one Mexican and one African American say some pretty terrible things to each other. It got so bad that we asked them to tone it down in front of others since people don't get right away that they are kidding. Didn't want to to look like we were condoning racism to outsiders. That's not racism though, it's just two idiot friends. But when it's in text and you can't see the people doing it, you can't tell. lol
Comment has been collapsed.
It is different because you're setting specific rules for other people, to take offense on their behalf, or policing their behavior, when what's most important is their intentions and that they know each other well enough to be able to joke about such things. Anyone observing it can just ignore it and move on, why do they need to take a stance on it? I don't see "uninvolved people observing it might get offended" as a good argument. Though if it gets excessive/obnoxious and it's in public, I understand why you'd tell your friends to tone it down.
Like I said, it's more about context than "you need to be this or that for it to be OK to talk or joke about (whatever)."
Comment has been collapsed.
I was not setting specific rules for people. You are just finding an argument in what I said for the sake of finding an argument in what I said. It isn't any different to what you're saying. Just phrased differently. As for my chatroom, you'd have to have been there to see how bad that got and how other people visiting might think it was okay to be racist too. We had people complain about it who didn't know their background, so yes, people do take offense. Not everyone thinks the same way.
I am not an SJW and I don't champion that. I've offended both SJWs and Alt-right folks because I don't take any nonsense from the extremes of either side. I treat everyone equally in that respect. If I think someone's being an obnoxious douchenozzle, they'll know.
Sure, it's context. But you wouldn't deliberately walk up to a stranger and use a derogatory term toward their race/ethnicity, no matter your intent. If you do that, you're part of the problem. So what I said is still the same as what you said.
This right here is a bit of a strawman argument though because we're saying the same thing in different ways. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Ah. So to an extent I misinterpreted your use of the word "group" as in race, skin color, nationality, etc, excluding the context of whether they know each other or are friends. And the word "outsider" as in anyone with a different race, skin color, nationality, etc, no matter the context. Because you responded to this:
If he's black, he can use this word anytime he wants.
With this:
I suppose it's oddly true. People of certain groups are allowed to use certain words on each other and are often more a term of endearment than attack when it's within their group/community. It's when an outsider uses it, that it becomes negative.
And to an extent you are correct, though I felt that this was a bit too black and white (pun unintended). You definitely should be careful with using derogatory terms to people you've never met before, even with no ill intent. We completely agree on that. My point was just that the context of how something is said and how the recipient of said words feels about it should matter much more than whether you're part of the thing you're using a derogatory term against. Though of course it's possible to go over the line when you're among other people and it can be obnoxious. But I'm careful with using words such as "racist." That word has been misused so much it's almost lost its meaning.
So we mostly, if not completely agree. :)
Comment has been collapsed.
We do agree.
Well, yes. To be honest, I think the next generation, the people who are in their early 20s now are a bunch of marshmallows. They don't know how to have a clean, open and honest debate without throwing words like racist around and running to their safe space to cry and hyperventilate. Unfortunately, Irish young people are becoming indoctrinated into the same behaviour.
There are people who deserve the term "racist" but I have indeed seen it used in stupid context to win arguments.
Being a political moderate, I dislike Trump and the above people equally. None of them are making a better world. LOL!
Comment has been collapsed.
It was just a little shitposting to see what I could get.
Sadly he didn't amazed me.
Comment has been collapsed.
Who cares? I just blackisted you just because I can.
No reason at all :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, what can I say - thank you for your input?
But I also like this passive-aggressive sentence : Have the day you deserve! :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Here's the thing - you could read some "controversial" topics recently, and of course, ignoring them would change nothing, but I noted that after expressing what most would consider an unpopular opinion/stance on a matter I find myself on quite a few blacklists, and find it somewhat amusing. One could say my stance was conservative and closed-minded sure, but is that reason enough (obviously one does not need any actual reason, but for the sake of discussion) to blacklist someone - just because you disagree with something they said? It's not that important, I just find it curious. I also realize that this might be another of those "controversial" threads, but, hey, free speech? I'm also interested in the POV of others of course, otherwise I wouldn't even ask.
Comment has been collapsed.