River Of Slime |OT| Mission: Impossible

[bork]

I still remember all the fake G.I. Joe PSAs from 14 years ago.

[HaughtyFrank]

[Snoopycat_]

[BisMarckie]

Speaking of horrifying PSAs

spoiler (click to show/hide)

It‘s not a real PSA, only in the style of old PSAs that aired in the 80s

[close]

[benjipwns]

wtf i legitimately thought these things were from just one PSA

[benjipwns]

i get why veterans and stuff are upset about stolen valor dudes, but i've never understood why other people, especially people who have never served, always seem to get even angrier about it

those were the type of people who seemed most pissed about Alvarez for some reason, even though the eponymous dude went to prison for fraud anyway

[benjipwns]

this is my favorite old German TV content:

[NegativeCrepe]

[Rufus]

Did you guys know there are military members playing games online with your kids right now??

Had a cadet (?) try and issue commands over voice chat in Red Orchestra 2 once. He named his unit and everything.

To his credit, he did not say a single word in protest when none of us followed his call to action.

[benjipwns]

Those dudes were all over DoD with their clans (*salutes*), dunno if any of them were actual military though.

Unlike your guy they'd get awful mad at anyone who refused to follow orders even if they weren't in the clan.

[Great Rumbler]

I still remember all the fake G.I. Joe PSAs from 14 years ago.

PORKCHOP SANDWICHES

[Uncle]

OH SHIT GET THE FUCK OUT

[PogiJones]

So what's your opinion on vengeful libel that ruins someone's career? What's your opinion on false rape accusations that lands someone in prison? How about swatting that gets someone killed?

Actions and speech are different things. Just like society and the state are different things. The latter can criminalize actions without criminalizing speech, it's incredibly simple and any potential unfortunate outliers resulting from someone ignoring the law is totally not something for a liberal to hand-wring about much like the whole guilty before innocent presumption also being "abused" by bad actors.

As for libel/defamation, you have no right to determine how others hold your reputation in their minds. In any case it's usually a civil tort, not a crime, not even in the totalitarian hellhole that is the U.K. where until recently you were required by law to defend any libel/defamation claim against you. (See: David Irving for when doing this to make a quick buck goes horribly wrong.)

A false accusation that lands someone in prison and swatting that leads to a death are so hilariously off track from a free speech debate that I won't even pretend to take that nonsense seriously, especially if you aren't stopping to ask why you're ignoring the violent and incorrect actions of the state in both instances and instead thinking it justifies further violent action by the state to remedy "society" in some way.

Just because criminalizing speech makes it easier for the state to imprison and punish people for their speech does not self-justify it as the correct and proper thing to do if we are decidedly pursuing liberal ends. It is in fact a set of illiberal means that can ultimately only come to serve illiberal ends.

The distinction between civil and criminal is meaningless in the case, as the state's authority to uphold civil proceedings is enforced via criminal proceedings. In both civil and criminal, the state is enforcing upon you something that you MUST do; and disobedience to what they say will result in violence upon you. That distinction will not save libel/slander suits for you.

But you seem to reject libel causes of action, so fair enough.

A false accusation that lands someone in prison and swatting that leads to a death are so hilariously off track from a free speech debate that I won't even pretend to take that nonsense seriously

I.e. "Those are too hard for my simplistic view of free speech to address, so I won't."

What exactly is a false accusation? It's speech, by the most basic definition of speech. Criminalized speech. It is the gov't saying "You cannot say this to this person." Does a swatter, using his speech in a way that directly leads to someone's death, commit a crime?

Let's ignore your (actual, not RE variety) whataboutism by saying the state prosecutes the cop for the shooting as well. Do they prosecute the swatter? If so, what do they charge him with? If murder, what action did he take? What is the criminalized action that he did?

[VomKriege]

It feels weird going back to games like Black Ops 1 after having such an awakening on US regime change. They literally have you act out trying to over throw Cuba and framing it as a moral overthrowing.

The war on terror did a doozy on the US mind considering how MW1 was just a mishmash of anti Russian anti amorphous middle eastern terror blob.

 

Fantasies of a Cuba overthrow unheard of before Dick Cheney.

[Leadbelly]

So what's your opinion on vengeful libel that ruins someone's career? What's your opinion on false rape accusations that lands someone in prison? How about swatting that gets someone killed?
What exactly is a false accusation? It's speech, by the most basic definition of speech. Criminalized speech. It is the gov't saying "You cannot say this to this person." Does a swatter, using his speech in a way that directly leads to someone's death, commit a crime?

This is semantics, but I suppose you can make a distinction between claiming someone raped you, and reporting it as a crime. Me personally, I would be okay with the former, but not okay with the latter.

[Uncle]

Rate the GI Joe PSAs

1. PORKCHOP SANDWICHES
2. Give him the stick DON'T GIVE HIM THE STICK
3. Hey kid I'mma computer
4. Who wants a body massage
5. mimimimimimimi
6. Look at all your different colored hats!
7. The rest are especially dumb and forgettable

[benjipwns]

The distinction between civil and criminal is meaningless in the case, as the state's authority to uphold civil proceedings is enforced via criminal proceedings. In both civil and criminal, the state is enforcing upon you something that you MUST do; and disobedience to what they say will result in violence upon you. That distinction will not save libel/slander suits for you.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

Absolute nonsense. This is not the case at all and has never been the case. The state has never been bound to enforce civil proceedings through criminal law. It would actually defy the very base claim of the state to allow civil courts to bind it to enforce their verdicts.

What exactly is a false accusation? It's speech, by the most basic definition of speech. Criminalized speech. It is the gov't saying "You cannot say this to this person." Does a swatter, using his speech in a way that directly leads to someone's death, commit a crime?

Again, absolute nonsense. Speech and non-speech are blatantly two separate things. Have always been adjudged to be two different things and even in cases in which speech is criminalized are fully and completely judged to be two separate things.

If not the state would need not pursue a charge for the act of speech, it could simply charge for the actual action and related damages incurred. Again, the state's own actions belay the underlying base of this claim by liberal theory.

Let's ignore your (actual, not RE variety) whataboutism by saying the state prosecutes the cop for the shooting as well. Do they prosecute the swatter? If so, what do they charge him with? If murder, what action did he take? What is the criminalized action that he did?

A consequentialist (who may or may not also be a determinist) would answer that foreseeable consequences are not unintended. In terms of using the state as a proxy to commit violence against their fellow citizens, I may fully agree with them.

[close]

[benjipwns]

Funny thing is Mercenaries 2 doesn't exactly make the invading Americans look all that great.

Literally the only thing I remember about mercs 2 was the "America invading for oil jokes"

shuttttttt upppppp

ITS THE MERC

[benjipwns]

Personally i find it really disturbing that games come out set in some of the worst tragedies of humans history like WW1 or WW2, vietnam etc and the only response you will see for the games on here is hype, or complaining about DLC. People are so normalised to war that they don’t bat an eyelid at it. I think its totally disrespectful to the people and families that lost their lives, when you have a multiplayer game where you are running around trying to rack up as many kills as you can for entertainment, While the locations, sounds, weapons etc are recreated as accurately as possible to put the player in a historical war setting.

[benjipwns]

If I remember correctly, for the first Medal of Honor (PSX) games they used to consult with experts about imagery and the like, in order to not offend victims and veterans. But 20 years have passed and there almost no living people with combat experience in WW2, or Holocaust survivors. So they don't give a fuck anymore.

Is this why COD has moved away from modern warfare? Fictional future wars and old school "good guys vs bad guys" are a lot easier to sell than selling MIC propaganda in this day and age

okay you're all using your alts to post in this thread to troll benji aren't you

[PogiJones]

So what's your opinion on vengeful libel that ruins someone's career? What's your opinion on false rape accusations that lands someone in prison? How about swatting that gets someone killed?
What exactly is a false accusation? It's speech, by the most basic definition of speech. Criminalized speech. It is the gov't saying "You cannot say this to this person." Does a swatter, using his speech in a way that directly leads to someone's death, commit a crime?

This is semantics, but I suppose you can make a distinction between claiming someone raped you, and reporting it as a crime. Me personally, I would be okay with the former, but not okay with the latter.

Right, but reporting is still speech. Telling the police is speech. All you're doing is pushing the line for where free speech ends up the spectrum. Benji is maintaining the gov't has no right to tell you what you can and cannot say. I'm testing if he really has that resolution, or if he actually does have a line at which he says, "Okay, yeah, saying those words to that person can rightly land you in prison." The only true Free Speech person I've met who has no line is my buddy who believes in zero, absolutely zero gov't. That isn't benji, since he already said the state can criminalize actions. That means he believes the state has authority to imprison you for something it believes you have done. The criminal proceedings for actions heavily rely on witness testimony. So if he believes in that, then I find it highly unlikely that he also believes it is not a crime to lie to the state in such a way that it causes the state to wrongly believe someone committed a crime, imprisoning them.

Based on what benji's said so far, I don't believe he would be okay with a system where people who don't like him can freely lie to the state and accuse benji of pedophilia, imprisoning him for 15 years, and then benji would have to just shrug and say, "That sucks, but I have no right to compensation, because they just used the words in their mouths." I do believe there's a line where benji rejects free speech keeping the gov't out of something, and I'm just trying to find out where that line is for him.

[benjipwns]

Imagine if a game based on Vietnam was being made and for consultation, they bring in Robert McNamara and Henry Kissinger and advise on the efficiency of, "the mass killing of civilians and the premeditated, wholesale destruction of the environment using chemical defoliants such as Agent Orange."

if they brought in McNamara I think we're missing the bigger picture here, dude's been dead for like a decade or more

[nudemacusers]

i get why veterans and stuff are upset about stolen valor dudes, but i've never understood why other people, especially people who have never served, always seem to get even angrier about it

those were the type of people who seemed most pissed about Alvarez for some reason, even though the eponymous dude went to prison for fraud anyway

Ive found randos are always angrier about shit that doesn’t matter (stolen valor, sitting out a national anthem) vs shit that actually does matter (vet healthcare, deployment ops tempo, undermanned career fields crushing morale, poor housing, suicide, etc). The latter doesn’t share well on Facebook tho.

[VomKriege]

If I remember correctly, for the first Medal of Honor (PSX) games they used to consult with experts about imagery and the like, in order to not offend victims and veterans. But 20 years have passed and there almost no living people with combat experience in WW2, or Holocaust survivors. So they don't give a fuck anymore.

Is this why COD has moved away from modern warfare? Fictional future wars and old school "good guys vs bad guys" are a lot easier to sell than selling MIC propaganda in this day and age

okay you're all using your alts to post in this thread to troll benji aren't you

Man, hopefully no one on ERA is remotely familiar with wargames and board games, like the currently popular series birthed by CIA analyst Volko Ruhnke.

[Leadbelly]

So what's your opinion on vengeful libel that ruins someone's career? What's your opinion on false rape accusations that lands someone in prison? How about swatting that gets someone killed?
What exactly is a false accusation? It's speech, by the most basic definition of speech. Criminalized speech. It is the gov't saying "You cannot say this to this person." Does a swatter, using his speech in a way that directly leads to someone's death, commit a crime?

This is semantics, but I suppose you can make a distinction between claiming someone raped you, and reporting it as a crime. Me personally, I would be okay with the former, but not okay with the latter.

Right, but reporting is still speech. Telling the police is speech. All you're doing is pushing the line for where free speech ends up the spectrum. Benji is maintaining the gov't has no right to tell you what you can and cannot say. I'm testing if he really has that resolution, or if he actually does have a line at which he says, "Okay, yeah, saying those words to that person can rightly land you in prison." The only true Free Speech person I've met who has no line is my buddy who believes in zero, absolutely zero gov't. That isn't benji, since he already said the state can criminalize actions. That means he believes the state has authority to imprison you for something it believes you have done. The criminal proceedings for actions heavily rely on witness testimony. So if he believes in that, then I find it highly unlikely that he also believes it is not a crime to lie to the state in such a way that it causes the state to wrongly believe someone committed a crime, imprisoning them.

Based on what benji's said so far, I don't believe he would be okay with a system where people who don't like him can freely lie to the state and accuse benji of pedophilia, imprisoning him for 15 years, and then benji would have to just shrug and say, "That sucks, but I have no right to compensation, because they just used the words in their mouths." I do believe there's a line where benji rejects free speech keeping the gov't out of something, and I'm just trying to find out where that line is for him.

Again it is semantics. In some sense you could argue it is free speech, but I suppose you could argue it is an action also. Reporting a crime is a process. The details of the crime are obviously part of it, but you are also actualising certain procedures that then take place.

[benjipwns]

sitting out the national anthem seems like the more American thing to do, we didn't have one until 1931 because only the tarded countries did that shit

also they picked one of the lamer America songs imo, but that's me, like Hail to the Chief's equivalent lameness (also blatantly monarchical trappings, like wtf again something for tarded countries, we're republicans dammit!)

[shosta]

opening the trash thread to find a free speech debate

[PogiJones]

The distinction between civil and criminal is meaningless in the case, as the state's authority to uphold civil proceedings is enforced via criminal proceedings. In both civil and criminal, the state is enforcing upon you something that you MUST do; and disobedience to what they say will result in violence upon you. That distinction will not save libel/slander suits for you.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

Absolute nonsense. This is not the case at all and has never been the case. The state has never been bound to enforce civil proceedings through criminal law. It would actually defy the very base claim of the state to allow civil courts to bind it to enforce their verdicts.

What exactly is a false accusation? It's speech, by the most basic definition of speech. Criminalized speech. It is the gov't saying "You cannot say this to this person." Does a swatter, using his speech in a way that directly leads to someone's death, commit a crime?

Again, absolute nonsense. Speech and non-speech are blatantly two separate things. Have always been adjudged to be two different things and even in cases in which speech is criminalized are fully and completely judged to be two separate things.

If not the state would need not pursue a charge for the act of speech, it could simply charge for the actual action and related damages incurred. Again, the state's own actions belay the underlying base of this claim by liberal theory.

Let's ignore your (actual, not RE variety) whataboutism by saying the state prosecutes the cop for the shooting as well. Do they prosecute the swatter? If so, what do they charge him with? If murder, what action did he take? What is the criminalized action that he did?

A consequentialist (who may or may not also be a determinist) would answer that foreseeable consequences are not unintended. In terms of using the state as a proxy to commit violence against their fellow citizens, I may fully agree with them.

[close]

A civil case results in a judgment against you. If you refuse to pay a judgment against you, this can result in property seizure. If you resist that seizure, you can be imprisoned. Hence, civil cases are upheld by the violent arm of the state.

As for the rest, yeah, I found your line: If the speech incites violence against someone, and such violence is foreseeable, you favor a person being imprisoned for something they said, because it's as though the harming action is their own.

[benjipwns]

Based on what benji's said so far, I don't believe he would be okay with a system where people who don't like him can freely lie to the state and accuse benji of pedophilia, imprisoning him for 15 years, and then benji would have to just shrug and say, "That sucks, but I have no right to compensation, because they just used the words in their mouths." I do believe there's a line where benji rejects free speech keeping the gov't out of something, and I'm just trying to find out where that line is for him.

My problem with that system would be the state's convicting and imprisoning someone despite a complete lack of evidence. Not the asshole who made the original false charge. I would never pursue him for just compensation considering who harmed me. (Everyone who refuses to deny the legitimacy of the state in the first place.)

As for the rest, yeah, I found your line: If the speech incites violence against someone, and such violence is foreseeable, you favor a person being imprisoned for something they said, because it's as though the harming action is their own.

Absolutely not. I reject the validity of all "incitement of violence" claims as they rest on no legitimate evidence, purely the word of the committer that someone else caused them to act and they would not have otherwise. Complete rubbish.

[benjipwns]

opening the trash thread to find a free speech debate

(Image removed from quote.)

not surprised to see a rejected against his will ResetERA.com moderator promoting this view

how much did the CIA pay you to try and silence me?

[benjipwns]

Man, hopefully no one on ERA is remotely familiar with wargames and board games, like the currently popular series birthed by CIA analyst Volko Ruhnke.

oh god at everything that ResetERA.com could fill their servers with if they ever paid any attention to the content/authors of board games

[Transhuman]

Fast and the Furious 1-4 
Fast and the Furious 5-whatever they’re on now

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

That scene was so sexist, and scientifically implausible. They managed to get his fingerprints off her bikini because he grabbed her ass? Is it made of carbon paper?

It is a nice ass tho

[PogiJones]

Based on what benji's said so far, I don't believe he would be okay with a system where people who don't like him can freely lie to the state and accuse benji of pedophilia, imprisoning him for 15 years, and then benji would have to just shrug and say, "That sucks, but I have no right to compensation, because they just used the words in their mouths." I do believe there's a line where benji rejects free speech keeping the gov't out of something, and I'm just trying to find out where that line is for him.

My problem with that system would be the state's convicting and imprisoning someone despite a complete lack of evidence. Not the asshole who made the original false charge. I would never pursue him for just compensation considering who harmed me. (Everyone who refuses to deny the legitimacy of the state in the first place.)

As for the rest, yeah, I found your line: If the speech incites violence against someone, and such violence is foreseeable, you favor a person being imprisoned for something they said, because it's as though the harming action is their own.

Absolutely not. I reject the validity of all "incitement of violence" claims as they rest on no legitimate evidence, purely the word of the committer that someone else caused them to act and they would not have otherwise. Complete rubbish.

What? You just said you would ("may"), even if you didn't use the term "incitement of violence." A swatter is using his words to incite the state to action, and you said you "may" fully agree with the idea that his words should be cause to imprison him since the violent action his words led to was foreseeable:

A consequentialist (who may or may not also be a determinist) would answer that foreseeable consequences are not unintended. In terms of using the state as a proxy to commit violence against their fellow citizens, I may fully agree with them.

As for the state imprisoning you with "no evidence," often in a sexual abuse case the state must rely completely on testimony. Do you reject testimony as valid evidence?

[PogiJones]

The problem, benji, is that instead of drawing a line and saying, "This is where the 'free' in free speech ends," you're drawing a line at the same place and saying, "This is where the 'speech' in free speech ends."

Those words leading to his death don't count as speech for some reason, because you want to maintain that free speech is absolute, when in fact it is not, so you redefine what is and isn't speech in such a way where you get to have your cake and eat it too.

[benjipwns]

As for the state imprisoning you with "no evidence," often in a sexual abuse case the state must rely completely on testimony. Do you reject testimony as valid evidence?

What? Victim testimony (nor witness testimony) is absolutely not considered valid evidence by itself in criminal courts any more. (Well, after you appeal enough maybe.) A conviction based purely on a single persons testimony and nothing else is absolutely a miscarriage of justice no matter if the allegations actually happened. I have zero problem with that position as I consider the presumption of innocence to be essential to a liberal society.

The problem, benji, is that instead of drawing a line and saying, "This is where the 'free' in free speech ends," you're drawing a line at the same place and saying, "This is where the 'speech' in free speech ends."

I think this attempt at distinction well illustrates the problem of the presumption that all speech shall not be not inherently free from criminal prosecution by the state. And the underlying assumption that the burden is on the speech to prove itself worthy of protection aka "being free" natch.

[PogiJones]

I didn't say "a single person's testimony." If 5 teachers testify that they walked in on another teacher molesting a kid, and the kid testifies that the teacher was molesting him, would you not convict if you were on the jury?

[Pepinappe]

Rachael Leigh Cook.

 

[benjipwns]

I didn't say "a single person's testimony." If 5 teachers testify that they walked in on another teacher molesting a kid, and the kid testifies that the teacher was molesting him, would you not convict if you were on the jury?

You already told me they were testifying falsely, so no.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

[GreatSageEqualOfHeaven]

Kind of a cop out to claim that no speech is illegal, when speech considered to be deemed criminal behaviour within many legislatures has specific criminal charges to describe it - such as sedition, conspiracy to ____, incitement to ____, etc

[PogiJones]

Lol, come on. You don't have god-knowledge in the hypothetical. And it's a new hypothetical anyway. I didn't say it was false this time.

spoiler (click to show/hide)

You got me, thought you were serious

[close]

[benjipwns]

Kind of a cop out to claim that no speech is illegal, when speech considered to be deemed criminal behaviour within many legislatures has specific criminal charges to describe it - such as sedition, conspiracy to ____, incitement to ____, etc

Those legislatures are clearly backwards and tyrannical if they criminalize pure acts of speech. They should attempt to become sane societies by adopting liberalism and rejecting theories held in esteem by Canada.

[shosta]

not surprised to see a rejected against his will ResetERA.com moderator promoting this view

how much did the CIA pay you to try and silence me?

I think you misunderstand, I post rule 34 of interspecies copulation in solidarity with other registered libertarians

[PogiJones]

Well, as benji kept cutting out of quotes bit-by-bit the points he had the hardest time rebutting, and I eventually whittled him down to a joke post, I feel satisfied.

[benjipwns]

"I don't believe in the no-win scenario."

edit: I personally, no, I would never vote to convict purely on testimony. Sorry. I don't accept the trolley problem either. See: Admiral Kirk above.

[Transhuman]

I feel like without the restrictions on incitement to violence, there would be a LOT more protests with the protestors espousing extremely violent rhetoric. If it works, it works

[benjipwns]

I think you misunderstand, I post rule 34 of interspecies copulation in solidarity with other registered libertarians

It's well known that all registered libertarians are actually federal agents.

[shosta]

The truth is, I misunderstood the causal relationship and thought that was an alternate way to apply for a law enforcement job.

[benjipwns]

Wrath of Khan quotes > 3D liberal theory > 2D reactionary theories as espoused by PogiJones, proud and well known unbanned member of ResetERA.com

got em finally

 

[PogiJones]

unbanned member of ResetERA.com

[thisismyusername]

Fast and the Furious 1-4 
Fast and the Furious 5-whatever they’re on now

spoiler (click to show/hide)

[close]

The original Fast and the Furious is good in a cheesy 00's way.

Everything after that before 5 is , agreed. But I wouldn't knock the original film.

[pancakesandsex]

Speaking of horrifying PSAs

spoiler (click to show/hide)

It‘s not a real PSA, only in the style of old PSAs that aired in the 80s

[close]

I still link this to people regularly who have never seen it and it's great every time.

[benjipwns]

The sound design and escalation in this Klaus PSA truly is amazing.

Thank god he was certified, imagine what could have happened.

[benjipwns]

And you guys were worried about a lack of Community Manager:

Community Spotlight sign-ups are open once again for both Gaming and EtcetEra Hangout threads! If you want to shine a spotlight on your community, please register now.

https://www.resetera.com/threads/community-spotlights-sign-ups-open-again.112805/

Howdy y'all!

If you’ve been a member of this community for some time, you are likely already familiar with Community Spotlights. Community Spotlights is a feature that has been running for over a year now, and its purpose is to introduce more members to the fantastic communities we have in the Hangouts. On a weekly basis, we move over one |OT| from each Hangouts section to the corresponding main forum and pin it. The idea is to help communities grow by shining a spotlight on them one by one. We are happy to announce that we will now be reopening sign-ups! Check here for the Etcetera thread.

How to include your community:

This process requires opt-ins. This is neither mandatory nor automated. In order for your community to opt-in, your current |OT| creator/thread holder needs to reply to this post to state that your community is interested and provide a link to your current OT. The only way a community will be opted in is if the current thread holder for your community does this.

In the event of a disagreement within a community or the community and a thread holder or any other issue of the sort, please reach out to staff directly via the contact form.

This system will operate on a rotating schedule set in random order, and will include every community that opts-in. That full schedule will be posted here so every community will know in advance when their turn is coming. If any community misses the initial sign-up period, they will be added to the end of the schedule. However, for certain events (such as a new game release), we may choose to highlight the relevant community that week.

Sign-ups are open now and will remain open until Sunday 5th May 2019. At that point, we will create the schedule, post it publicly, and move the first community the next day.

As always, please feel free to ask questions or provide feedback.

Thanks partner!

[shosta]

Howdy y'all!

[...]

Thanks partner!

I know we're going for a smooth transition here but replacing someone from the south doesn't mean you have to dress your posts like this

[benjipwns]

Ignore any feelings about Musk/Tesla/etc., just focus on the warning for this:

User warned: antagonising other members

I’m not going to put this man on a pedestal because he’s a privileged white guy with problematic issues and his fans are rabid. This incident was posted and it’s cause for concern, yet you come in defending him like you’re Grimes... sorry, c.

He worked his ass off to be where he is now. His detractors are just as rabid.

How fragile. Like two people "shat on Tesla" and you went on a youtube/google/whatever rush to point to the other guys.

I did so because this forum has never given Elon a fair shake, and apparently never will.

Won't be commenting on Tesla threads anymore because there's apparently no good discourse to be had. Enjoy your echo-chamber, people.

[benjipwns]

User Banned (Duration Pending): Inflammatory generalizations, cross-forum drama, and attacking the community

No. Considering one of the most prominent members of the old place was literally arrested for child porn, which plenty of people knew him well enough to band around him to donate money to before the allegations came out, you have to remember a lot of the community migrated from there to here.

There are also plenty of great people here too, but unlike 4chan or reddit, the shitheads know they’ll get instantly banned for being shitheads, so instead of outting themselves they hide away and passive aggressively chip away at discussion/virtue signal/concern troll to try and get it out of their system. There is only one real topic that allows everyone to be as vitriolic as they want without reprecussion on here, I think that goes without saying what it is, and maybe you can observe and get a glimpse of a poster’s true colors. But other than that you need to follow the hivemind. The average poster - myself included - had no idea just how fucked up Amir0x was before the arrest, he was even pretty outspoken against bigotry, misogyny, and did his fair share of virtue signaling.


This place is very far from normal and shouldn’t be an accurate representation of what the general consensus is in real life. Every poster shouldn’t automatically be taken in on the merits of “well, they’re an ERA member so they must be progressive and intelligent, there must be a reason for <x>” and every discussion shouldn’t be taken as analogous to how the majority of people in the real world think.

That said, it can be a pretty neat place for discussion about certain subjects and it’s up there with reddit for me in terms of SFW forum posting

[benjipwns]

Two bans within the same thread, spot the difference

(Image removed from quote.)

found what may be the reason for the first guys thread to try and get banned:
https://www.resetera.com/threads/what-does-the-term-%E2%80%9Cporch-monkeys%E2%80%9D-mean.112640/

User Warned: Insensitive thread

I live in the south and hear this a lot among people that are near me. I’m afraid to ask what it means, but if any place I guess Era is the best place to ask.

Don’t shoot the messenger. I just want to know.

[PogiJones]

Well, as benji kept cutting out of quotes bit-by-bit the points he had the hardest time rebutting, and I eventually whittled him down to a joke post, I feel satisfied.
(Image removed from quote.)

[benjipwns]

okay Bronx-Man, the enemy of my enemy is my friend and this was pretty good 

to be fair that's not really much worse than, uh, the entire last page

We always can make it better at any time. I’m just surprised they didn’t find a way to mention T***P in it.

[Transhuman]

"Problematic"
"Gaslight"
"Signal Boosting"
"Dog whistle"

Has terminology gone too far