Hey, toxic players who pretend that "freedom of speech allows me to insult you"

Photos of Ghosts·Nov 26, 2016·5 votes·1,764 views

In France, 3 newspapers in the last few months have acted against the ignorant and hateful comments under their online articles and on their facebook pages, with 2 of them actually publishing a collection of the worst ones WITH VISIBLE USERNAMES. In Italy, ignorants from the two main populist parties keep insulting and threatening in an unbelievably sexist manner the head of the main house of the Parliament (Government's crap and deserves harsh criticism, but people attack her in particular because she's a woman), so she also decided to collect a few comments on Facebook and publish them with visible names.

68 Comments

HrynaNov 26, 20164 votes

Why is this downvoted.

Photos of GhostsNov 26, 20161 votes

No idea, people are usually pretty fast at jumping at flamers...

Rio RisottoNov 26, 20162 votes

Oh, its simple really, freedom of speech , ya know, protects FREEDOM of speech, although toxic players are an unpleasant bunch YOU are the one advocating for restricting one of the fundamental human rights.

Photos of GhostsNov 26, 20163 votes

Uhm... are you aware that insulting is not freedom of speech? And that we've been repeating that to flame advocates for years?

Rio RisottoNov 26, 20162 votes

Freedom of speech protects the freedom to verbally express oneself, extending to insults , as far as i am aware the only things that is not protected by it is inciting violence.

Z StatisticNov 26, 20161 votes

It's officially 'call to action.' Things can could lead to individuals being physically hurt is not protected. BLM is an example of gray area rhetoric as it is protected to say that you want dead cops. However, more nuanced things like in Milwaukee are not.

JustMonika13Nov 26, 20164 votes

So... do people truly know what "Freedom of Speech" under the U.S. constitution does?

No?

Freedom of Speech (and other articles such as Religion), the First Amendment, simply protects U.S. citizens and residents (legal or not) from any and all attempts at silencing (of any form) of ideas ("speech") on part of the government, the PUBLIC sector. The First Amendment does not extend to PRIVATE institutions. Private sectors can do (almost) whatever the fuck they want when it comes down to rules within the property, including speech, as long as it does not interfere with laws set in place. This applies for anything from large companies such as Riot to even your own personal household.

Photos of GhostsNov 26, 20161 votes

We're talking about the general principle, not US-specific laws. I'd like to remind you that we're talking about a worldwide moderation system. But even if freedom of speech's fully applied, such aggressiveness falls short of its protection.

Z StatisticNov 26, 20161 votes

Your statement is almost at the cusp of true understanding of the situation and why people are upset.

Yes, the Bill of Rights is a contract between the Federal Government, the States, and the People that the Federal Government will not impose upon these rights. This Bill does not grant the rights but assumes and asserts the existence thereof independent of a government. Thus, it is against Federal Law for the Federal Government to infringe upon your right to speech whereas it is not against Federal Law for Riot or Twitter or FB to do so.

Except they still are infringing on the right.

Cheating on your spouse is not illegal even though it's wrong. Lying is not illegal in many cases even though it's generally wrong. Manipulating your spouse through unsightly methods is generally not illegal, but it's wrong. Cheating is not illegal in many cases, but it's still wrong. Do you see the pattern?

The right to free expression is inherent to the individual. That individual can waive their rights at any time such as in agreement to the ToS. It is not illegal for Riot to try to make a safe space for people, but there are real world consequences for going past a certain point. If Riot starts playing favorites or clamping down harder, they will lose business just like Twitter. People don't want to leave League; they enjoy it. As such, when Riot changes their policies to be more authoritarian and less tolerant of certain viewpoints or manner of expressions, they show displeasure just like when Walmart jacks up the price of milk, people will grumble and complain.

It is not illegal for a parent to clamp down on their adult child's expression or speech, but it is infringing upon the child's right, and the child's anger or dissatisfaction is justified. It's not a question of whether Riot can or can't. It's a question of whether they should.

Dominick DestineNov 27, 20163 votes

[{quoted}](name=Z Statistic,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=sER4KAJm,comment-id=00040001,timestamp=2016-11-26T19:33:47.909+0000)

It is not illegal for Riot to try to make a safe space

[begins to violently cough]

Oh god, keep that propaganda out of here. Riot is simply enforcing the summoner code, they are not seeking to pander to any specific group. Riot is neutral.

Z StatisticNov 27, 20161 votes

I can say 'honkey'. I cannot say the other word.

A summoner made two smurfs: one called 'aznpower' and the other 'whitepower'. While playing the first smurf, he would spew clear Asian supremacist rhetoric while in game and on the forums. He would demean white people in general. This smurf was not banned. While playing on the second one, he would remain civil and do nothing but play the game. This second smurf was banned within 48 hours of his first game. This was done around Season 3.

Most instant punish words and phrases have been slurs against minority groups or women. Talk shit about men, no one cares. Talk shit about women, you can get banned.

Is Riot ideologically driven? No. They are simply responding to the community. Many people think that merely saying the n-word is triggerworthy, like that CNN hostess who couldn't go on because a guest used it in a quotation. As the entirety of League has been played by college students and SJW plague all college campuses, it is not surprising that it bleeds into League more easily than say WoW. However, they are making a safespace where simply saying ggez is banworthy. A lot of players want that. I don't and neither do the people who want free speech. That is insulting and infantilizing to think that we need to be protected from people who say 'ggez'.

Riot is not able to 'protect' these people however hard they try, and attempting to do so is just going to kill the game in the long run like how it killed Twitter. If they start banning people for just having a different political opinion, they will bring this game to an end that much quicker.

Dominick DestineNov 27, 20163 votes

[{quoted}](name=Z Statistic,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=sER4KAJm,comment-id=0004000100000000,timestamp=2016-11-27T01:56:11.929+0000)

I can say 'honkey'. I cannot say the other word. A summoner made two smurfs: one called 'aznpower' and the other 'whitepower'. While playing the first smurf, he would spew clear Asian supremacist rhetoric while in game and on the forums. He would demean white people in general. This smurf was not banned. While playing on the second one, he would remain civil and do nothing but play the game. This second smurf was banned within 48 hours of his first game. This was done around Season 3. Most instant punish words and phrases have been slurs against minority groups or women. Talk shit about men, no one cares. Talk shit about women, you can get banned.Is Riot ideologically driven? No. They are simply responding to the community. Many people think that merely saying the n-word is triggerworthy, like that CNN hostess who couldn't go on because a guest used it in a quotation. As the entirety of League has been played by college students and SJW plague all college campuses, it is not surprising that it bleeds into League more easily than say WoW. However, they are making a safespace where simply saying ggez is banworthy. A lot of players want that. I don't and neither do the people who want free speech. That is insulting and infantilizing to think that we need to be protected from people who say 'ggez'. Riot is not able to 'protect' these people however hard they try, and attempting to do so is just going to kill the game in the long run like how it killed Twitter. If they start banning people for just having a different political opinion, they will bring this game to an end that much quicker.

Didn't bother reading most of that, you are outright saying Riot is hypocritical and I cannot support such statements because I would be punished by Riot.

I criticize the draconian system often, but I don't call Riot bad things in the process. There is very big difference between saying "The draconian system is bad" and "Riot is bad". I do the former, you did the latter. Though I agree with the general sentiment that Riot's draconian system is incredibly bad and hopefully, will one day be removed.

Z StatisticNov 27, 20162 votes

[{quoted}](name=Dominick Destine,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=sER4KAJm,comment-id=00040001000000000000,timestamp=2016-11-27T02:00:27.209+0000)

Didn't bother reading most of that

And that is probably why the rest of your response is non sequitor, responding to something I did not assert.

If you want a tinier bite of it, ok, here's a TL;DR:

Riot is merely supplying the demand of a Social Justice form of punishment.
The bias is not because Riot is bad because there is a bias in the community.
Riot is misguided, and continuing down this path will kill the game eventually.

Dominick DestineNov 27, 20163 votes

[{quoted}](name=Z Statistic,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=sER4KAJm,comment-id=000400010000000000000000,timestamp=2016-11-27T02:16:59.132+0000)

Riot is merely supplying the demand of a Social Justice form of punishment.

Very well, I concede. The draconian system is a result of Riot's leftist/feminist policies, as you say or at least heavily imply.

The bias is not because Riot is bad because there is a bias in the community.

Nonsense. Riot makes rules, we do not make the rules.

I am not going to disregard the need for authority. I am not one of those whackos who believes it MUST be either one extreme or the other. A certain level of authority is necessary and Riot exercises this might in many ways far worse than simply ignoring "a bias in the community". They could just NOT submit to the negative element.

Riot is misguided, and continuing down this path will kill the game eventually.

I tend to agree.

The draconian system and the basis that it is predicated from (I.e. leftism/feminism) have NO PLACE in a competitive video game environment. This is why I respectfully protest the draconian system regularly. I want Riot to succeed, I want League to continue strong for many years but they are doing things that are not correct.

So again very well, I concede, you win.

Z StatisticNov 27, 20162 votes

The current system is based on Tribunal data. Tribunal data was based on the players, not the Rioters.

So, yes, it is a bias in the community.

Dominick DestineNov 27, 20162 votes

[{quoted}](name=Z Statistic,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=sER4KAJm,comment-id=00040001000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2016-11-27T02:23:36.679+0000)

The current system is based on Tribunal data. Tribunal data was based on the players, not the Rioters. So, yes, it is a bias in the community.

That's absolute nonsense.

You speak as if Riot didn't have a choice in implementing the draconian system. Of course they did, they have the power, not us.

Z StatisticNov 27, 20162 votes

Almost. Now ask yourself why did Riot make the decision to implement this system based on Tribunal data?

Dominick DestineNov 27, 20162 votes

Because they chose to.

What part of that are you not able to understand, sir?

Z StatisticNov 27, 20162 votes

Asserting that they chose so 'because' is saying they did so axiomatically. Axiomatically means that it leads into their overall philosophy. And if it's a philosophy, then they chose so ideologically. That's a contradiction.

Here is why they use the authoritarian system:

They have data from the community about behavior
They want to automate it.
The players are happy with the system of the Tribunal; it was successful
So Riot decided to use an automated version of what was historically successful

It's pretty straightforward. Instead of developing a brand new system with no data whatsoever, they based it on what they already had. And what they had was data based on self-selected members of the community.

The community built its own noose because they told Riot they wanted a noose and Riot wanted to please the community. So...

[{quoted}](name=Dominick Destine,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=sER4KAJm,comment-id=00040001000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2016-11-27T03:10:29.296+0000)

What part of that are you not able to understand, sir?

Dominick DestineNov 27, 20162 votes

[{quoted}](name=Z Statistic,realm=NA,application-id=ZGEFLEUQ,discussion-id=sER4KAJm,comment-id=000400010000000000000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2016-11-27T03:23:32.052+0000)

Asserting that they chose so because is saying they did so axiomatically.

That's right.

What's your point...? did you think there was a point there?

Axiomatically means that it leads into their overall philosophy.

No, axiomatically means it's an axiom, as in something that is self-evident and indisputable; For example, we know the sun exists and provides the earth with heat and energy. This is an axiom and we can base much of our knowledge around how the earth functions mechanically in relation to the sun.

It has nothing to do with "leading into a philosophy", it has everything to do with the concept of parsimony which is a somewhat pretentious way of saying pragmatism, which is still a somewhat pretentious way of saying, what works for them with the least effort/highest reward (or at least as they choose to pursue such a path).

Which leads right back to my point; They chose to do it. People do things because they choose to do things. It's not complicated.

Here is why they use the authoritarian system

I prefer the term "Draconian system" but alright, let's use the term "authoritarian".

They have data from the community about behavior

Irrelevant.

They want to automate it.

Irrelevant.

The players are happy with the system of the Tribunal; it was successful

Irrelevant.

So Riot decided to use an automated version of what was historically successful

Relevant.

Point #4 was the only one even remotely related to what is being discussed. Riot chose to do it... now if you want to over motivations that's fine, but ultimately Riot is under zero obligation to do anything other than what they desire and thus, point #1 through #3 are irrelevant.

The community built its own noose

Nope.

They (Riot) chose to. I have explained this numerous times, Ariel the Cruel has been proven wrong once again. I am somewhat amused by the fact that invoking "Ariel the Cruel" is my own personal meme that only probably he and I understand (No gems).

Not that it matters, but english is not my native language and I have had many patients tell me that my 'speech' is "college educated level", which they may have been bullshitting me just for flattery purposes but I doubt it because they seemed sincere. I have no reason to add this other than somewhat bragging. I love the way I speak, yum.... sometimes I google myself and find such sexy posts from 7-8 years ago, mmm.

Pill SlingerNov 26, 20162 votes

Don't feed and you won't get "flamed". Simple.

Photos of GhostsNov 26, 20162 votes

False, been flamed on many a time for doing the right thing.
Losing is not a choice.
I don't care if it's towards me, an injustice is an injustice.

Pill SlingerNov 26, 20162 votes

Never said don't lose. Said don't feed. Big difference that's easy to understand.

Oh, by the way, there's a mute button.

Photos of GhostsNov 26, 20162 votes

The consequence is meaningless, the act is the issue. I can mute or not, depending on how I feel. But the flamer must be punished for trying to impact me negatively - even though he's generally going to fail miserably. Same goes if the target is anyone else, obv.

Pill SlingerNov 26, 20162 votes

And if you're feeding, you're impacting your team negatively. :)

Atlas The BirdDec 18, 20161 votes

There's also a report button. I choose to use both ^.^

Z StatisticNov 26, 20162 votes

How is this evidence that freedom of speech does not include insults? This is just an example of a SJL politician doxxing people.

The head of the DFL party in Minnesota decided to label people who criticized her as 'racist white supremacists' and doxxed them, but specifically doxxed them in the official BLM hashtag for the State. You know, that group that assassinates cops and burns down stores and beats up white people for the crime of being white?

Honestly, you people need to learn the difference between being sexist and using the fact the a person is a woman as a method of insult and banter.

Photos of GhostsNov 26, 20161 votes

Hm, so saying to someone that they're a mindless slut that should be raped by the refugees until she drops dead isn't a sexist insult?

Z StatisticNov 26, 20164 votes

No, because an insult against a single woman is not an insult against all women?

And honestly, if you take off your feminist goggles, you can see some very specific things:

They think the politician is an idiot who has nothing valuable to give to society other than her looks or sexual appeal
She is advocating foolishly for increase in refugees in their country despite the fact that
The government cannot or will not discriminate between refugees and migrants, and these people have radically different values from the Europeans that mean that
100% of the rapes in Norway in 2015 iirc were committed by migrants and murder has gone up specifically because of these migrants so that
the constituents of this politician are sarcastically telling her to actually suffer the physical consequences of accepting a massive amount of people who don't assimilate into European culture instead being protected by her ivory tower of PC politics while subjecting her constituents to the ramifications of her policies.

People do not insult randomly or with non-sequitors. That's a sign of immaturity. It's very specific to the situation at hand.

Photos of GhostsNov 26, 20161 votes

First off, if you think that's ok you're sick. Secondly, the Norway one is certainly a hoax - and if it's not, it might have to do with the unbelievably lower crime rates in Norway than in other countries of Europe. Where I'm from, migrants make no difference because 80% of rapes were and are still from someone the victim knew closely. Taking in refugees is not a choice. We created the issue, we have to solve it. More specifically you created the issue. And these guys are not sarcastic, they're fascists that in real life are too afraid to say those things until some imbecile of a populist politician comes up and justifies them.

Z StatisticNov 26, 20162 votes

If you're assuming I think it's part of civil discourse, no, I don't think that. I'm merely stating it's not sexist. And no, the Norway statistic is not a hoax. There is a statistically significant difference before and after the influx of migrants. The only question is if the practical difference. So, you tell me. Is 131 out of 152 rape victims being from non-Europeans a practical difference from simply the ~20 rapes per year in Oslo?. I'd link the police report, but it's not in English.

But, love, I don't know where you are from. If you're from the US, unchanged rape stats don't surprise me. If you're from Canada, same thing. England? A little odd seeing as there are child trafficking in one of the larger cities. If you're from Germany or Sweden or France, how's that Cologne party? I heard it was a real banging up. How's life in a country under martial law? How about a country that has politicians and activist who would rather be raped than be racist?

And where the fuck do you get off by saying that I created the issue? You don't know shit about me. You don't know my politics, how I vote, or where I even am. You don't know if I'm a public servant creating life changing policies or some shmuck cleaning up vomit in theaters during the week. You don't even know my comment history beyond what's on the League boards.

You want to advocate that the overwhelming majority of migrants from North Africa and the middle east share western values of freedom and self-determination? Well, I'm sorry, but they don't.

The only argument that can really be made is that condemning a group wholesale does little to the innocent people slandered or to protect others. That's true. Unfortunately, we're not talking about the whole group. We're talking about a widespread series of cases that can't be fixed because people are too afraid of being called 'racist' and having a proverbial lynching.

Photos of GhostsNov 26, 20161 votes

I never said they share anything. They have older, more brutal cultures that need to be changed regardless of what happens to their country, to which they'll have to eventually return - but we CAN'T let them die in the sea. I'm from Italy, and everyday hundreds of people arrive on the coast of the Lampedusa island and we have to take care of them. Because we have humanity.

Z StatisticNov 26, 20161 votes

Your country is going to collapse economically within hours of Britain leaving the EU. Italy has the second worst GDP to debt ratio in the world. Then everyone, migrants and Italians alike, will live like shit. Then they'll die in the streets instead of in the water. In the absence of welfare, I think free immigration is perfectly fine with the other caveat that rule of law is preserved at least at a basic level everywhere.

However, it's not, and Italy has massive welfare. And you're incredibly naive. Why would they return to their country if they can be taken care of from cradle to grave?

What you label as 'humanity', I label as inhumane. You are lying to yourself, your peers, and the subjects of your 'kindness' that you can give them long term security. It is more humane to tell people, "if you don't work, you don't eat" "if you don't respect rule of law, you will be jailed" "if you try to step over people who have been patiently waiting their whole lives to get in, you will be deported."

I can't help but have gallows humor at the situation though; Italy has been invaded, reinvaded, conquered, destroyed, built up, and then destroyed again for roughly 3000 years. First it was the Romans, then Carthage, then the Barbarians, then the Huns, then the Moors, then the French, then the Germans, and now the Muslims.

Photos of GhostsNov 26, 20161 votes

Britain will collapse within hours of leaving. We have the second most important Stock Exchange in Europe, and the Londinian one will soon be pointless, since it's not going to be connected to the economic pole of europe. Also, we have the second most important industrial area after the Ruhr German cities.

Z StatisticNov 26, 20161 votes

You're right one thing; Britain will not be connected to the largest economic pole in Europe. Instead, it will be connected to the largest one in the world (the New York Stock Exchange) without the bureaucracy of the EU getting in the way. Honestly, the way you talk you sound like you think Britain is dependent on the EU, as if Britain is not providing more economic contribution to the EU than any other member country.

And 'Carthage did not get far'? It got within 3 miles of ROME. Hannibal destroyed much of what he invaded. Te legions LEFT Rome, which allowed the Huns, the Goths, and the Vandals to invade.

The Left in the US has rewritten much of history to make very nuanced situations defacto against the the white people. I'm curious if they have done the same for Italy and the Roman Empire

Photos of GhostsNov 26, 20161 votes

Also Carthage didn't make it far, they came up through Spain and France first if you have to put it that way, the "barbarians" were the Roman legions that we miserably failed to pay once we reached the limits of possible expansion (desert south, desert+empire east, thick forests and too sparse and animalistic population northeast) and couldn't keep on our war-based economy.

Photos of GhostsNov 26, 20161 votes

Lol https://www.google.it/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=hoax+norway+100%25+rapes+immigrants it's being thrown around since 2010, sure it has to do with the refugee crisis? Also somewhere it says they were all muslim, somewhere it says they were all non-european, somewhere it says it's 50 cases, somewhere 150, somewhere 300... It seems the first time it appeared it was on a fascist israeli website claiming that hiding this info was a plot not to let Israel take more violent policies on muslims...

Z StatisticNov 26, 20161 votes

I can't read Norwegian or whatever they speak/write, so I can't read the report. However, I did find the following article in English: http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/12/gil-ronens-fabricated-statistics-about-oslo-rapists-being-all-muslim/

I read through the entirety and found one curious aspect: it simply asserted that these allegations were false or misrepresenting the police report...without actually providing the evidence to demonstrate that they are in fact wrong. If the allegations or interpretations are easily contradicted by reality, I would like to see the contradiction. Merely stating the contradiction exists doesn't, you know, demonstrate what the contradiction is.

Also, the only link on page one from 2010 or before was about Denmark. On page two, there was only one that was referencing a 2009 police report (different report).

So either, all of these years are 100% (unlikely) or people are getting the year mixed up but it doesn't matter because they're all ridiculously high regardless (more likely.)

Photos of GhostsNov 26, 20161 votes

mboiiii (gotta scroll a bit for the debunk) https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/debunked-zionist-and-islamophobic-libel-rape-epidemic-muslims-norway

Z StatisticNov 27, 20161 votes

There is some wriggle room in that it doesn't go into the heritage, immigrant status, or previous history, but if I had never heard of the rape crisis and looked at this data, I would not conclude that there was anything to worry about in terms of Muslims raping women. So, for the sake of innocent until proven guilty, if this is the quality of evidence that people are spreading as evidence of guilt, it is poor.

Everything beyond that in the article is shit to the point that I guess a broken clock is right at least once a day.

Honestly, it's very difficult to research the truth on this matter. I can find any number of sources that will say it's true, but when I look for devil's advocate, I see shitty articles that have some partially decent information that is buried within buzzwords and virtue signalling.

And considering the history that is actual known fact in the media, I don't even know if they are parroting or colluding with government to make propaganda in the guise of truth. I only trust statistical reports really because at least I can examine the methodology and cross validate stuff.

This is the problem with media: when you label everyone on the other side as an x-ist, it makes it very difficult to take you seriously when the people actually are being x-ist.

Photos of GhostsDec 17, 20161 votes

:^) http://www.lesinrocks.com/2016/12/news/francais-surestiment-largement-nombre-de-musulmans-pays/

ReadyxPlayerxOneNov 26, 20162 votes

In government and public speech there's a completely different reason for why those people are allowed to express themselves. In a private game in what's essentially a sports club... it really doesn't equate.

In politics and press... expressing opinions both popular and unpopular have proven over thousands of years to be appropriate and necessary in order for opposing viewpoints to be heard, understood and accounted for in decisions that affect the entire country or world. Even the flamers... even the trolls. Even that evil piece of shit in their mom's basement. In the age of the internet... now all of that is visible. There shouldn't be naming and shaming associated with it. The media attempted to do that with Trump and it basically gave him a free 5 billion dollar ad budget and won him the election. It's wrong in league and it's probably wrong IRL. Let people voice their opinions and suffer the consequences. There's no need to give them a megaphone and a spotlight too.

MartensiticNov 26, 20161 votes

WITH VISIBLE USERNAMES.

They will surely be scared because of that yeeees...

Photos of GhostsNov 26, 20161 votes

On Facebook, the username is most of the time your name, and you're going to be visible to all your friends and family on the news as an imbecile.

MartensiticNov 26, 20161 votes

That may be so for stupid people.

Look up my username. The only thing you will find, is a crystalline microstructure of Steel ^^

Photos of GhostsNov 26, 20161 votes

How can I look you up on Facebook? I don't know your name.

MartensiticNov 26, 20162 votes

Impressive.

You managed to see the exact point I was making, and at the same time, you fail to realize it completely :D

Photos of GhostsNov 26, 20161 votes

What. We're talking about facebook comments, with name and pic.

Rio RisottoNov 26, 20162 votes

So you are basically advocating doxing and hate mongering?

bad arcade kittyDec 17, 20161 votes

currently there is huge press on the freedom of speech, like the certain kinds of speech are routinely excluded from the constitutional protection, i mean that they literally outlawed stuff like "hate speech". it is certainly not nice and the homebrew censorship like we have in the lol doesn't help either albeit it is not related to the freedom of speech per se

as for the newspapers, they easily can be sued for disclosing personal information or even for defamation, if they disclosed something which can allow the poster to be identified