How is it possible to have a discussion about race without it being called race baiting? Discrepancies noted.

I notice threads discussing race where white people are emphasized as the perpetrator (see "White supremacist stabs..." thread) - they're left open. The point of this thread is that a white person was stabbing someone, purportedly because they were a white supremacist. Even though that was confirmed to be false, that thread is left open, painting a picture that white people are racist and stab people who aren't white.

I notice if I start a thread discussing race where white people are emphasized as the victims (see White baby tortured by black daycare worker) - they're closed. Note that I never attacked black people in this thread or did any "baiting" whatsoever. All I did was argue that there's a racial angle to a story being covered up. How's that baiting? I see threads with racial angles all the time (like the one I noted above).

I notice the term "race baiting" simply depends on the mod and how he personally decides to apply the term. I see no consistent appliance of said rule. Based on this pattern I would even go as far to say as I'm observing definite racism in the moderator community. Can anyone prove me wrong? Or am I going to get censored for simply pointing this out? I'm not trying to make a fuss, I just want to know what's going on here because I'm genuinely confused by how and when these policies are applied.

So, please explain, so I can follow policy, why is it race baiting when a thread victimizes a white person, but it's not if it's painting a white person as a perpetrator?

Better yet - how are we supposed to have intellectual, honest discussions about the state of racial relations when moderators are censoring topics that don't fit the agenda of their worldview?

I already sense someone is going to lock this thread without even explaining to me why other people are allowed to make threads similar to the ones I make which get closed, but I would actually love to get some answers and have an honest discussion on this topic so I'm not overstepping boundaries that seem arbitrarily applied. If it's not arbitrary, but there's something specifically I did in my thread that other people aren't doing in their threads about white perpetrators, I'd like to know what it is I did.

That way I can put the thread back up, following what specificity of whatever rules you're about to lay out.

If all you see is race in both threads then sure, I can see why you might think them both the same. Let me see if I can help you.

The thread about Jeremy Joseph Christian is in relation to the fatal stabbing of two people who were defending two Muslim women who were being harassed by a man yelling racial slurs. Whether you personally believe he's actually a white supremacist or not, the hate speech would go a long way towards suggesting that race and/or religion were a factor in the attacks. The hate speech was mentioned by the police and pretty much every news outlet that reported on the story reported on the fact that race appeared to have something to do with it.

The problem with your thread is that you went out of your way to take a crime where a black attacker killed a white victim and declare it racially motivated where none of the news sources, nor the police, suggested that race had anything to do with it. Additionally, you went on to suggest that race was the only likely motive even though there's nothing to support that and you then went even further when you suggested that someone who disagreed with you on your logic was racist.

Even if the races were flipped in your article, it would have gotten the same treatment because the thread reads like someone trying desperately to make race the culprit even though the data doesn't support it.

And now you're in here asking why we can't "have intellectual, honest discussions about the state of racial relations". The answer is that our members can, but your thread was miles off from what you claim is your goal. Even the bulk of the community members who replied to your thread told you that you were reaching pretty badly on that one.

-Byshop

Thanks Byshop, I appreciate the reply. Now before you get into the bulk of what I wrote, I'm sensing a lot of subjectivity and ambiguity in a matter where I think rules can be objectively applied to prevent a sense of partisan censorship in the GS community. Reading your post, the basis for you closing my thread was that you disagree with me and my source. AFAIK disagreeing with a thread isn't grounds for closing it. I wasn't even being half as aggressive about my opinion as you are currently being about yours.

So let's address this

your thread was miles off from what you claim is your goal.

I appreciate that you're trying to regulate the community. But I know what my goals are with my threads. It's not your place to say for me that I'm trolling, or race-baiting, or anything of the sort. It's your job to provide evidence that I'm doing that, but in my opinion you've failed to cite anything concrete to back up your opinion that my goal was anything other than to have an honest discussion on the subject.

The thread about Jeremy Joseph Christian is in relation to the fatal stabbing of two people who were defending two Muslim women who were being harassed by a man yelling racial slurs. Whether you personally believe he's actually a white supremacist or not, the hate speech would go a long way towards suggesting that race and/or religion were a factor in the attacks

Here's the game you're playing, "the person in your article was racist, the person in the other article was mentally ill, and my opinion is fact".That's the debate, dude. Your opinion isn't fact. You can't take your political opinion, pretend it's fact, and then use it as the basis for shutting down threads. There's a mountain of evidence to support that Joseph Christian was mentally ill, but I don't see the evidence showing the person in my article was mentally ill. If that evidence exists, then argue it.

The problem with your thread is that you went out of your way to take a crime where a black attacker killed a white victim and declare it racially motivated where none of the news sources, nor the police, suggested that race had anything to do with it.

My thread was based on and cited an article as a source that focused not on just the murder but the media cover-up of the racial angle of this story. I'm allowed to use any articles I want that follow the TOS (which mine did). Just because my source isn't one you'd use - doesn't make it race-baiting. My source isn't racially focused but focused on the narratives peddled by the media. Furthermore, I don't see a rule preventing me from sharing my interpretation of the story. I wasn't insulting anyone, making generalizations about race, etc. but discussing my interpretation of what I thought most likely happened.

This is where I'm not sensing honesty on your behalf. What you're doing is pinning the topic exclusively on the subject of the murder, when my topic was actually about the media's interpretation and censorship of the murder.

From my very thread....

And why is the media trying so hard to ignore the racial angle of the story? Seems like they're always extremely focused on any possibility of racism if the races are flipped (black victim, white perpetrator).

Do you not see the irony of closing a thread that's about the control of the flow of information? You're purporting my thread was exclusively about one thing when the text in the content of the threads suggests was if anything about something else.

Additionally, you went on to suggest that race was the only likely motive even though there's nothing to support that and you then went even further when you suggested that someone who disagreed with you on your logic was racist.

Thanks for your opinion on the subject Byshop, but had you read my article,there is evidence to support it. Just because you disagree with me or my interpretation of the evidence doesn't mean it's race baiting.

I'm allowed to think people have racist opinions on something. I'm not randomly going around calling people racist. That "somebody who disagreed" refused to acknowledge the context to which would lead to the someone to possibly think the situation could have been racist, and all I said for refusing to acknowledge that there's possibly a racist context of the situation was "Maybe you have some racism in you as well?". I didn't call the user racist. I posted an open-ended question that was suggestive but also open to interpretation.

And that's the best evidence you have that I was race-baiting? I don't think disagreeing on the subject of racism automatically count's as race-baiting.

Even if the races were flipped in your article, it would have gotten the same treatment because the thread reads like someone trying desperately to make race the culprit even though the data doesn't support it.

That's your opinion and doesn't serve as basis for closing the thread.

You're being dishonest here and building a strawman. You're the one taking the hard stance, desperately saying the race isn't the culprit of this article. All I said was that based on evidence, it seems likely that it was the culprit.

You : desperately opposed to the idea that race was the culprit.

"it definitely wasn't race and you're ridiculous for thinking so"

Me: open to the idea that race might likely be the culprit

"seems like race could have been the main factor"

See the difference between your interpretation and the reality of the thread? You're the one desperately pushing your interpretation. Not me.

And now you're in here asking why we can't "have intellectual, honest discussions about the state of racial relations". The answer is that our members can, but your thread was miles off from what you claim is your goal. Even the bulk of the community members who replied to your thread told you that you were reaching pretty badly on that one.

The bulk of people who disagreed with me have a fundamentally different world-view than me. Just because people have disagreements on a subject doesn't mean the subject shouldn't be discussed.

Just because you don't agree with someone on a subject doesn't mean you should be able to close their threads and attribute it to trolling or race-baiting. I mean, you're obviously going to what you do - but people here (who don't necessarily agree with your worldview) see what you're doing.

"have intellectual, honest discussions about the state of racial relations"

We were having an honest discussion until you closed it because it didn't jive with your opinion on the subject. People can see that I put effort into my posts, I explain my positions, and have a fairly cohesive ideology that I preach on these subjects.

Closing threads on the basis that you disagree with them isn't encouraging honest discussions.

Should I expect you close all my threads pertaining to racial issues because you simply disagree with them? You still haven't said one specific thing I did that warranted the closure of the thread. You just shared your opinion, and maintained it's importance over mine. But I don't think the importance of your opinion is self-evident outside of your "mod" badge, and I don't think mod's should be arbitrarily using rules to enforce their opinions over other users.

Most importantly of all, you still haven't said what I could have done to post that thread. What am I supposed to do...not have or share an opinion because it disagree with yours? How do I post that thread without it being a problem for you?

@KHAndAnime: "I appreciate that you're trying to regulate the community. But I know what my goals are with my threads. It's not your place to say for me that I'm trolling, or race-baiting, or anything of the sort. It's your job to provide evidence that I'm doing that, but in my opinion you've failed to cite anything concrete to back up your opinion that my goal was anything other than to have an honest discussion on the subject."

Two points here: 1) I didn't try to claim what your goal was or wasn't. My point was that you fell short of it regardless of your intention. 2) Thanks for your personal interpretation of what the job of a moderator is on GameSpot, but you're wrong. We don't prove intent, we moderate behavior. There is literally no way for me (or any other moderator) to prove your intention, we can only respond to what you post. There may be completely "honest" posts that still get moderated because they are posts that don't belong here. Whether you agree with this or not doesn't matter. The only person who's opinion matters on what the job of a moderator is that of the GameSpot community manager, so any point you want to make about what you think a moderator's job is or isn't is a non-starter. If you think a moderator isn't doing their job correctly, then please escalate to KhaleesiPlays.

"I'm allowed to think people have racist opinions on something. I'm not randomly going around calling people racist. That "somebody who disagreed" refused to acknowledge the context to which would lead to the someone to possibly think the situation could have been racist, and all I said for refusing to acknowledge that there's possibly a racist context of the situation was "Maybe you have some racism in you as well?". I didn't call the user racist. I posted an open-ended question that was suggestive but also open to interpretation."

This isn't "Jeopardy!". You don't get points for phrasing your answer in the form of a question. You have a long history on this board of name calling through passive voice and implication and it doesn't fly here. "Hey, I didn't call that guy a moron, I just asked if he is a moron" doesn't bypass the rules we have about directly insulting other users.

"Here's the game you're playing, "the person in your article was racist, the person in the other article was mentally ill, and my opinion is fact"..."

No, you misunderstand my point. I'm not saying that Jeremy Joseph Christian is racist or that this day care worker isn't racist. I'm saying that regardless of JJC's actual intention, race is clearly a part of this story because it's pretty clearly documented that he was yelling hate speech prior to the attack. Maybe he's a card carrying white supremacist, or maybe he doesn't have a racist bone in his body and this is an Alex Jones-level conspiracy psy-op to discredit conservatives, or maybe he's a space alien being controlled by microwave transmission from Mars. Don't know, don't care, but he was yelling hate speech prior to the attack so it's fair game to entertain the idea that he could be racist in the thread. You don't agree? Feel free to debate the point in that thread (which you have been already).

The issue with your thread was that after going through all of your sources (I read your original news source article, watched the video in its entirety, read through each of your links, and even tried to find any sources that supported your position on my own) and with the exception of the Narrative Collapse link, none of them did. Even the Narrative Collapse link's only "evidence" of racism was that the attacker and the victim were a different race, and that's the problem.

You want to argue that the media skews it's message regarding race in one direction and not the other? Knock yourself out (but let's keep it on the political board along with other related topics). However, if your intention is to take every instance of violence or crime where the perpetrator's race is different from the victim and declare it "BECAUSE RACISM!", then that's where you're crossing a line and I wanted to make it clear that we are nipping that in the bud. I have no idea if race a factor in this crime. If it turns out that it was a factor in the story then sure, it's fair game to discuss but what we are not going to do is allow you to inject it into any story you happen to find on the internet where two people aren't the same race.

Nobody is trying to tell you what to think. You don't have to agree with this, but you do have to comply with it when you are posting here. If you have any further issue with this, please CM the community manager @khaleesiplays.

-Byshop

@KHAndAnime: Hi there. While we allow off-topic discussion, please be mindful that this is first and foremost a video game forum. Clearly, in your thread, you've upset more than a handful of other users. There is no further discussion as to why your thread has been locked going forward.

If you'd like to prevent your threads being locked in the future or wonder why you are receiving warnings, I'd advise that you please re-read the Code of Conduct.