This post is about the current arguements taking place in the post called “Nexus Mods Fine With Bigots Leaving Over Removed Starfield ‘Pronoun’ Mod”

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.

The aim of this post is to encourage a constructive and respectful discussion around mod removals in gaming communities. Name-calling, political labeling, and overgeneralization serve only to fuel divisiveness and distract from the main issue. Rather than resorting to stereotypes or making sweeping statements about each other’s viewpoints, let’s aim to engage in a balanced and open dialogue that acknowledges the complexities of the subject matter. We all have strong feelings about this topic, but constructive conversations require that we steer clear of actions that deepen divisions.

  • librechad@lemm.eeOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Good Girl [she/they]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The topic begins and ends at “Intolerance is not tolerated”, further discussion would be a thinly veiled attempt at justifying displays of intolerance.

      • librechad@lemm.eeOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I appreciate your input, but I’m puzzled as to why you chose to comment on a post explicitly seeking constructive dialogue if you’re not interested in having a nuanced discussion. My original question aimed to understand the criteria behind platform moderation decisions. I believe it’s an issue that can be discussed without necessarily endorsing or disavowing the content of the mod in question. Would you be open to discussing that aspect?

        • Good Girl [she/they]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          nUaNcED dIscuSSioN

          Gross dude, the criteria is whatever the site says it is, in this case it was a mod with bigoted intention. What nuance is there to this discussion? Do you want to discuss what level of bigotry should be accepted? Homosexuals are off limits but trans people are fair game? Is that the nuance you want to address?

          further discussion would be a thinly veiled attempt at justifying displays of intolerance.

          • librechad@lemm.eeOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            While I’ve already acknowledged that the mod in question was rightly removed due to bigoted comments in its description, that’s not the focal point of my inquiry. What I’m driving at is the more general issue of content moderation and what warrants removal. I’m not asking for any form of bigotry to be permitted; I’m questioning how we, as a community, decide what crosses the line. It’s curious that you label my pursuit of a nuanced dialogue as ‘gross,’ especially given the content you freely share. It seems our standards for what is acceptable differ considerably.

              • librechad@lemm.eeOP
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Your accusation of a ‘thinly veiled attempt at justifying displays of intolerance’ ignores my stated objective: to foster a conversation about how platforms decide what content to remove. I’ve already acknowledged the mod’s removal was warranted due to its author’s bigoted comments. My interest lies in examining the broader principles behind such decisions.

                However, as Mark Twain once said, ‘Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.’ It seems we’re unlikely to engage in the meaningful dialogue I was hoping for, so perhaps it’s best to leave it at that.

                • Good Girl [she/they]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  ‘Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.’

                  I love how unabashedly unaware you are of yourself.