StewardsCap Posted June 4 Posted June 4 (edited) BYOND Key: UnionGuy Staff BYOND Key: YouJustGotOwened Game ID: N/A Reason for complaint: This complaint is not leveled to say that the staff member is a terrible admin or acting with malicious intent, rather that the judgement comes from a misunderstanding of my beliefs. I understand it is bold of me to claim such a thing under a matter so uncomfortable and horrendous here on this server, especially given past history. However, I am strictly against the notion that I am a fascist apologist and want to explain that I did not intend to whistle-blow or apologize for Nazism or fascism. Evidence/logs/etc: The ban goes as follows; Quote Thinly veiled Nazi dog-whistling is entirely unacceptable in this community and will not be tolerated. This goes for Discord, the server, and forums. You have been struck twice for similar Nazi-adjacent postings going back to October 2025. You must learn the difference between "rah rah Sol" posting and downright fascist apologia. There is a very stark distinction. The Solarian Restoration Front (SRF), the continuation of Michael Frost's ideological in lore, is an explicitly written fascist and genocidal group. There are OOC notes affixed on the relevant lore pages that make this very clear. If you want to return, you are expected to actually show that you understand the issue here. You may appeal this on the forums when you are ready. A non-exhaustive list of relevant conversations: https://discord.com/channels/157516682288562176/157531783779319808/1511083837348646953 https://discord.com/channels/157516682288562176/157531783779319808/1511838316641648774 In my position it seems that the argument for it is this: "The term 'Third Way' is a Nazi/Fascist dog-whistle, and from past warnings and comments you have shown yourself to make nazi-like posts." From my perspective, this insinuates that I am a nazi whistleblower, thus I am a nazi. This is not true, so I will explain in parts why. I believe this comment comes from my recent conversation with a certain writer, who I will not name. Quote "Who calls it third way except fascists" and "It's a part of fascist ideology and propaganda to justify themselves" It seems this writer is knowledgeable on fascism and how to spot it, except, Third Way isn't a fascist ideology but a social democratic/bill Clinton thing. I was using the term incorrectly, the term I was referring to is The Third Position, or Third Position neo-fascism. This denotes that I do not know what I am talking about since I am using the term wrong, but also that this writer is wrong at least on naming. Counter argument: "You use 'Third Way' to cover up 'Third Position', this is a dog-whistle" Then why would I use "Alternate Revolutionary" as well? Which is often another term for The Third Position, because it states it's an alternative to well both liberalism and conservatism and their extremes. Why would I use one term incorrectly and not the other if I'm trying to cover it up. Why do I state it in a manner of "They were not fascist, but Neo-fascist" in my related comments, which I will get too in a minute. If I am trying to showcase neo-fascism in a good light, why am I comparing them to the obviously evil SRF? Rather than the SFP or SPP using their definition of "Hard nationalism"? Counter argument: "Third Position is a Nazi/Fascist Dog Whistle to justify or give reason to the ideology" The Third Position isn't a dog-whistle, rather it is a term coined to group all the neo-Nazi/neo-fascist movements post war. I use Wikipedia for this, but their sources come from both the Zeitgeschichte library on a book titled "Fascism´ s new faces (and new facelessness) in the 'post-fascist' epoch" and the Political Research Associates, which is a right wing investigative NPO from new England. I do believe these are sufficient for a topic such as fascism. Quote The term "Third Position" was coined in Europe during the Cold War as an umbrella term for neo-fascist and nationalist syncretic ideologies, mostly those decedent from Italian fascism and other, primarily but not exclusively non-Hitlerite, fascist movements. These ideologies were generally united in their rejection of both Western Bloc capitalism and liberal democracy as well as Eastern Bloc Marxist communism, instead wishing to establish a third ideological force on the world stage, hence its name. This writer says that only fascists use the term, however the Political Research Associates uses the term to properly identify them as a sub-movement of fascism Quote In the last few years of the 20th Century a new form of fascism emerged in a period of resurgent neofascism. Called the Third Position, it seeks to overthrow existing governments and replace them with monocultural nation states built around the idea of supremacist racial nationalism and/or supremacist religious nationalism. Third Position neofascists have organized in the U.S., Europe, and the Middle East, and they maintain some kind of loose network, at least for the purposes of discussing their shared ideas and agenda, but in some cases involving meetings and even funding. So, this showcases that saying that the SRF or that Solarians still have "Third Positionists" is not me veiling fascism to make them sound better, rather it's just me being specific to what type of fascism is being used here. I believe that Solarian Fascism is Neo-fascism and uses racial (species but often the terms seem to mean the same OOCly at least and often used interchangeably) nationalism, with monocultural xenophobia. Thus, I believe them to be Third Positionists. Which is why I said the statement that got me banned; Quote "The Third way (In which I mean Third Position) is still prominent post-collapse" This statement is wrong, I mistook the SPP and SFP to be ultranationalist and neo-fascist, and I will get into that later. Counter argument: "You use the term with endearment, and in a positive light" I do not believe this to be the case; I use the term in reference to both the SRF and the Hard right of the ASSN senate. The term above simply states I believe the Hard right in the ASSN to be neo-nazis/neo-fascists and in the argument, I joined in without defending them, rather just stating that I believe they are still around (which I was wrong about). I explain that I use the term Alt rev and Third Way to encompass neo-fascism, and my comment of "lol what?" comes simply at the accusations thrown at me which I believe come from an emotional sentiment and was not worth arguing about on a ss13 server. I understood that when I attempted these conversations it would either derail or become really uncomfortable, so I didn't want to prolong the conversation, and it was why I was putting attention on other things since I simply didn't want to engage in it. The second use comes from this comment by me: Quote They are uh... Not even Fa(s)cist... Alternate Revolutionary... National Socialist (Nazism) in some respects... Since they don't believe other species can be solarian I understand that me saying "they are not fascists" can seem apologetic, however if this is the case why would I dare compare it to Nazism? Nazism is Vilified on the internet, and even if a fascist could give good reason for it, which is impossible since Nazism is abhorrent nonsense, it would be impossible to convince a server that is majority liberalist. Nazism is harder to justify because unlike fascism, which holds a national identity as a paramount value, Nazism holds national race and racial xenophobia as a paramount value. The Whole reason for Third Position is to try to stray away from the nazi ideology, why would I liken them to one if I was a Neo-fascist whistleblower? Again, why would I supposedly compare it to the most vilified, horrendous, evil, genocidal warlord state in the spur? So how I viewed my comment was: "They are uh... not even Traditional Fascists... Neo-Fascists... Quasi-Nazis... Since they are racist xenophobes, one step more ultra nationalistic than traditional fascism" I am not using the term as a positive or lighter notion, rather as a more specific and in my opinion accurate identification of the SRF's and larger Solarian Fascism's flavor of fascism. Counter argument: "Your needlessly pedantic and specific definitions paints extensive interest in fascism, which in combination with past warnings showcases a liking to the ideology" I am going to bring up the two warnings quickly, since I think they do not paint me as a fascist. Quote please do not post memes that are painted over racist ones. I know it probably wasn't done with malice but that's toeing the line quite a bit The image was a painted over 4chan post that replaced the original being aimed at the Asian peoples. The paint over replaced it with a Solarian and a Skrell, I did not make the meme, and I was not aware of its nature. I got it from another server, that also probably did not notice it. I did it I believe after my Skrell WL or during its process, so if I was in the know why would I take the risk? Counter argument: "You cannot verify that you are not feigning ignorance" This is a fair argument, and I cannot prove against it, however the admin who warned me held that it wasn't probably malicious, especially since it was my first time. Yet I don't have the benefit of this happening as a one off in the perspective of the moderation team, so I admit I cannot give you a logical riposte to this. The second warning is more Nazi-Adjacent and is the following: Quote Please don't bring up direct nazi references and say "sieg heil", even ironically. It's in bad taste. The context here is that I was in a conversation with someone about the SS14 server Hullrot, and I was mocking the Solarian Divine Mandate on it's nazi larp; bringing up a moment when a SDM soldat said "Sieg heil" to show how obnoxious and obvious it was. I wasn't glorifying Nazism and the warning was because it was in bad taste, even to a terrible server, to bring up nazi references. The warning notes I was being Ironic, so I wasn't seriously glorifying hitler. The mentality that because I am well-read (sorta with me wronging identifying Third Position) and using such specific terms rather than just saying "fascism" means that I support or at least like it. No, the reason I have researched fascism is to combat it, the philosophy of knowing your enemy which is especially important in politics if you don't want to get entrapped as a fool. Lack of knowledge on the subject allows fascists to manipulate and fool their opposition, since opposers go in overconfident and end up getting trapped in a mistake to make them look stupid. Sure, to the opposer they know why fascism is bad, but to the neutral party? It only stirs confidence in spite of it. In short, I read on it to properly defend and denounce the ideology; one which is slowly growing in my country. Counter argument: "Your needlessly pedantic and specific definitions is not smart and allows for people to misinterpret what you are saying." This is fair; however, I don't think it warrants a ban. I wasn't being malicious, but specific and attempting to be intellectual on the subject. In the past, I have attempted these things before, using terms like OAS (Organization of American States) and WSR (World Soviet Republics), one being an esoteric piece I believe only mentioned once on the Enceladus page? The other being esoteric to be esoteric. I do not believe that misinterpretation warrants punishment, rather clarification. To clarify my misunderstanding of the SFP and SPP, In the respective pages I mistook both parties term "Solarian Nationalists" to be a stand-in, as the term is used on Forst and Hopper Quote ...radical Solarian nationalists such as Micheal Forst and Terrance Hopper, So, I mistook the fringe to be at least somewhat popular, which is my mistake. This supposed "ballooning" of Solarian fascism and my specific terms can be mistaken for being pro-fascism, I see that now. But again, this ban is not about alleged or possibly mistaken acts, but rather than actual acts of dog-whistling and fascist apologetics. Additional remarks: I appreciate the staff team letting me access the discord and giving me a chance to appeal, even though it's understandably justified in your eyes to smite me entirely. If I am proven wrong, and that I was acting as a fascist apologist, I will appeal and accept all the maluses with that (WL stripping, stain on my rec, etc.) Sources: What is the Third Position? | Political Research Associates https://elibrary.utb.de/doi/abs/10.24216/FORUM-2023-1-9783838278674_004 https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/difference-between-fascism-and-nazism-252603 Third Position - Wikipedia, Fascism - Wikipedia, Nazism - Wikipedia Edited June 4 by StewardsCap
StewardsCap Posted June 4 Author Posted June 4 Correction: I use the Term "Whistle-blower" when I should be using the term "Dog-whistler", sorry for that
StewardsCap Posted June 5 Author Posted June 5 (edited) Oh, just going to bump this up since it's been a day, hope somebody reads this. Also, a few points I want to reiterate or add too: On 03/06/2026 at 22:44, StewardsCap said: I believe come from an emotional sentiment I wanted to reference Frank S. Meyer's comments on "demonization", but he is more known by polsci hobbyists, and I wasn't going to use "esoterica" again, plus I am not really a fusionist (Traditional + Libertarian). However, I do think it would be good to have some more proper sources than Wikipedia: Quote Too often he confounds reason and principle (in reference to values that combat what Meyers believes to be "collectivist liberal values") with "demon ideology." Rather than justly insisting upon the limits of reason-the finite bounds of the purview of any one man or any one generation, and the responsibility to employ reason in the context of continuing tradition-he seems sometimes to turn his back on reason altogether and to place the claims of custom and prescription in irreconcilable opposition to it... To claim exclusive sovereignty for either component, reason or tradition, is to smirch that glory and cripple the potentialities of conservatism... This comes from "What is Conservatism?" Which is not only written by Frank S. Meyer, but around 12 iirc contributors who agreed with his conservative fusionism. Meyers and many others later argue that you should avoid these types of debating tactics, something that is a pretty common warning in PolSci. On 03/06/2026 at 22:44, StewardsCap said: Third Way isn't a fascist ideology but a social democratic/bill Clinton thing. Ironically, something I would like to mention is that "Three-Way" is used by Anti-fascists at least, I think it's generally called "Three-Way Fight". I will be using a contemporary (as in 2002 lol) source from a very anti-imperialist and communist Don Hamerquist, this is the guy who publicly admitted to being a USA communist party member in and around the 1960s! I don't agree with him, but here is a snippet of him using the term in his book "Confronting Fascism: Discussion Documents for a Militant Movement"(2002) Quote Three-Way Fight started as an online extension to Confronting Fascism connecting it to antifascist and revolutionary anti-capitalist struggles. Matthew Lyon's Research and regular contributions to the site have made an invaluable contribution to the development of a revolutionary anti-fascism On 03/06/2026 at 22:44, StewardsCap said: Lack of knowledge on the subject allows fascists to manipulate and fool their opposition "In Crises of the republic"(1972) by Hannah Arendt, I use the chapter "Ignorant, Irrational, Misinformed Nationalists" as my main inspiration, and I think sharing it might shed some good light. Quote When it comes to politics, some people know a lot, most people know nothing, and many people known less than nothing. You might already believe-based on anecdotes and personal experiences-that voters don't know much. (This book was a response to deception by the American administration on the Vietnam war for context) But if you're not familiar with the statistics, there's a good chance you give them too much credit and that your personal experiences are misleading... Even if you attended a lower-tier university, your classmates were still the intellectual elite of your country...Somin, author of Democracy and Political Ignorance, says, "The sheer ignorance of voters is shocking to many..."... Somin concludes that at least 35 percent of voters are "know nothings" This book came out half a century ago yet rings true to this day. I bet the number of "know-nothings" have grown to a more alarming number than the already shocking 35%, and the loss of confidence in the American voting system is a clear sign of this. Sorry if I am getting a little too in-depth again, I hope I am not making things too messy. Edited June 5 by StewardsCap
Owen Posted June 7 Posted June 7 First, I must apologize for my delayed response. I have been traveling for the past several days and am just now settling in and finding time to properly write a response. Right, so, thanks for the detailed appeal/complaint. I get that you feel the ban was based on a misreading of your intentions, so I want to address this before reviewing staff make their call. The ban wasn't about any single comment or getting terminology wrong but instead was made based off of, in my judgment, a pattern going back to the first of your strikes in October 2025 which centers on, at minimum, poor judgment on your behalf in determining what is or is not appropriate to discuss on the Discord. So, I don't necessarily see that any one explanation fully accounts for this. I'll let the reviewing staff look at the prior strikes on their own merits rather than relitigating them here, but I do want to walk through the pieces that were directly relevant for the ban. On the terminology dispute: honestly, whether you said 'Third Way' or 'Third Position' isn't really what is at stake here. The issue is the framing around those terms and the broader conversation that they are appearing in -- no one in that conversation, if they were familiar with either of the terms, would have confused you for talking about Bill Clinton-era politics when you said Third Way. Any, additionally, the terms are used rather interchangeably on the colloqiual level, even within political science in my experience, but that is beside the point. What stood out to me though, which is what prompted the ban, is that you were claiming that they were 'not even fascist' with something that was entirely unprompted, in a channel where everyone else wa pretty straightforwardly (and rightfully) calling the group fascist and genocidal. It was with that framing, combined with everything else, that raised flags for me. On 04/06/2026 at 05:44, StewardsCap said: The image was a painted over 4chan post that replaced the original being aimed at the Asian peoples. The paint over replaced it with a Solarian and a Skrell, I did not make the meme, and I was not aware of its nature. I got it from another server, that also probably did not notice it. I did it I believe after my Skrell WL or during its process, so if I was in the know why would I take the risk? Reviewing staff can weigh in on this themselves. You are, nonetheless, still ultimately responsible for what you post. The original 4chan post was, as one would expect, rife with racial slurs and is genuinely like... a gross image to look at. Given that Rooster could not prove whether or not you know of the origin, it was left as a strike -- but even then, he emphasized that this was toeing the line. And very much so. So, I am not sure what else you would expect us to take from this. On 04/06/2026 at 05:44, StewardsCap said: The context here is that I was in a conversation with someone about the SS14 server Hullrot, and I was mocking the Solarian Divine Mandate on it's nazi larp; bringing up a moment when a SDM soldat said "Sieg heil" to show how obnoxious and obvious it was. I wasn't glorifying Nazism and the warning was because it was in bad taste, even to a terrible server, to bring up nazi references. The warning notes I was being Ironic, so I wasn't seriously glorifying hitler. Genuinely, even if this is an ironic statement... It is simply, in my view, not something that you need to/should be posting. Again, up to reviewing staff to decide, but I still think that this is relevant in the ban. On your argument that detailed knowledge of fascist ideology proves you're opposed to it rather than sympathetic to it: that's a reasonable point in principle, and I am not going to claim that researching something means you support it. The issue isn't the knowledge itself. Being specific and intellectually engaged in something that you have an interest in. But the way you discuss such things reads to me as apologetics, and it is difficult for me to read otherwise. This is all being decided in the context where, as far as I am concerned, you've been warned twice for adjacent posting. At the very least, these repeatedly demonstrated poor judgment about what constitutes an appropriate conversation to have here. I also want to gently say, and I don't mean this to be dismissive, but a staff complaint forum for an SS13 community probably isn't the right venue for citations from Hannah Arendt, Frank S. Meyer, and other academic literature. I can appreciate the impulse, and it is clear that, if you've read these authors, then you're familiar with the topic, but I do not believe that this changes the substance of what is being reviewed here. And it will, inevitably, make this harder to parse for people. The question reviewing staff are looking at is pretty straightforward: does the pattern of behavior in this community warrant the ban that was issued? To be clear, the ban is about a pattern of conduct in this community that I did not think another warning was going to fix. I'll leave the final call the staff who review.
StewardsCap Posted June 8 Author Posted June 8 Good Sunday brings me a Good Response, I appreciate the apology; it means a lot coming from the one who banned me, gives me the hope of a good civil conversation. 11 hours ago, Owen said: I get that you feel the ban was based on a misreading of your intentions, so I want to address this before reviewing staff make their call. The ban wasn't about any single comment or getting terminology wrong but instead was made based off of, in my judgment, a pattern going back to the first of your strikes in October 2025 which centers on, at minimum, poor judgment on your behalf in determining what is or is not appropriate to discuss on the Discord. You are correct, but I think you misread the goals of this complaint slightly. I am not naive to my past crude or otherwise rude behavior; to be honest I think this permanent ban is simply the malus of how I go about. I was aware that many people didn't like me, blocked me, and generally talked about me in poor taste, regardless I simply didn't take it to offense. I didn't take the issue too seriously, which obviously didn't lead me into the golden gates. I hope I can give you some relief that I am aware of that, and I appreciate that you think I have the boldness to defend my poor satire. In reality however, the complaint is aimed at your accusations. You say "I don't necessarily see that any one explanation fully accounts for this" and I can understand the sentiment, but I don't think other people who see "Nazi Dog-whistler" and "Fascist Apologia" will be thinking about my crude comments or my pattern of behavior as you believe to be the intention of the ban, instead that I am a National Socialist. If it were true that I was totally innocent of all these things, then this complaint would be arguing that you are an incompetent admin, this is not the case, I think what you did is understandable given the circumstance. 11 hours ago, Owen said: whether you said 'Third Way' or 'Third Position' isn't really what is at stake here. The issue is the framing around those terms and the broader conversation that they are appearing in -- no one in that conversation, if they were familiar with either of the terms, would have confused you for talking about Bill Clinton-era politics when you said Third Way. That's exactly the problem, Kintsugi was quick to accuse me of being a dog-whistler and the fact that they ran with the term showcases that they don't exactly know what they're talking about. You don't even need the 'wrong term' argument here, using the term 'Third Position' is not a dog-whistle, since it identifies the true intentions of the word immediately. You call it thinly veiled yet there was no veil! My point was that Kintsugi was just flat out wrong, and falsely accusing me with total confidence, explaining to others that "Third way is how fascists justify themselves" as if knowledgeable on the subject. You yourself followed that confidence, since you clearly state that in my ban. After my response Kintsugi actually walks back on this, now stating that the term is not only used by fascists, but Scholars of Fascism! If academia uses it, it's not a dog-whistle, the point is moot. 11 hours ago, Owen said: Any, additionally, the terms are used rather interchangeably on the colloqiual level, even within political science in my experience, but that is beside the point. What stood out to me though, which is what prompted the ban, is that you were claiming that they were 'not even fascist' with something that was entirely unprompted, This is a fair answer, and I can agree that the terms are used interchangeably, however when trying to specifically accuse someone the proper term should be used. Throwing terms like "Nazi", "Third Way" and "Fascist" muddles the definition, and I am a criminal of this myself. The reason I distinguish "Fascist (Traditional)" and "Third Position-ist (Neo-Fascist)" is actually the crux of Kintsugi's argument. The reason I am supposedly a fascist is that I am referring to fascism as the "Third Position", which is what Third Positionist's do (sort of). That is why the distinction is important, and how my vague explanation was my downfall. Your argument that how I discuss it "reads like apologetics", which is something I bring up in my original complaint. If I was trying to defend Frost, why would I refer to him as one of the worst variants of fascism? Again, this isn't unprompted, it came out of my SRF round and we were talking about the SRF. My response was basically "They aren't traditional fascists more like neo-fascist/quasi-nazi", however I can admit that again, my use of language was more esoteric than it should've been. From what I can recall, at the time I don't think I got any backlash, so I didn't think much of it. 12 hours ago, Owen said: Reviewing staff can weigh in on this themselves. You are, nonetheless, still ultimately responsible for what you post. The original 4chan post was, as one would expect, rife with racial slurs and is genuinely like... a gross image to look at. Fair argument, I do admit fault for this, and I understand if you can't believe me. I think the piece is disconnected enough in the general span of things which is why I think it's poor evidence for apologetics, but dog-whistling? I can understand the sentiment for that, again, fair argument against me. My only crutch is that I made it so close into me gaining my Whitelist, and I feel like if I was trying to be provocative; doing it right after you get your whitelist for said species being targeted is probably not the smartest move. 12 hours ago, Owen said: Genuinely, even if this is an ironic statement... It is simply, in my view, not something that you need to/should be posting. Again, up to reviewing staff to decide, but I still think that this is relevant in the ban. Again, you seem to be under the impression that I am ignoring my past crude behavior, as other than that I can't see how this shows I am a Nazi or Fascist Apologist. I am obviously not being serious and making fun of hullrot Nazi Larpers (if in crude and insensitive way). The extra cruelty was disrespectful, but to be fair a server that announced it's mod apps with "Chinese need not apply" or "Irish need not apply" didn't warrant it much respect. I do not think it is as relevant to the ban as you make it out to be, again going over what you detailed in the ban, with list of priority; Thinly veiled Nazi dog-whistling is entirely unacceptable in this community and will not be tolerated. - "I used a Nazi Dog-whistle", insinuates I am a Nazi or Nazi-Adjacent You have been struck twice for similar Nazi-adjacent postings going back to October 2025. - The reasoning for the above accusation. You must learn the difference between "rah rah Sol" posting and downright fascist apologia. - Stating that I was conducting Fascist Apologetics, and that my jokes can be seen as such. Though the evidence you give makes it out to me that you believe I was purposely spouting fascist rhetoric. The Solarian Restoration Front (SRF), the continuation of Michael Frost's ideological in lore, is an explicitly written fascist and genocidal group. There are OOC notes affixed on the relevant lore pages that make this very clear. - basically, saying that I am outright denying the SRF's fascist and genocidal tendencies, even against OOC comments. The joke doesn't show any serious support to Nazism, it doesn't justify fascism, and it certainly doesn't show me denying the SRF as fascists. Hell, when I role-played the pre-SRF 15th regiment Marine who was stuck in blue space, I hinted very clearly at his fascistic beliefs. The marine looked down on Tajarans, was happy that Admiral Frost was in power to be a "Strong Leader to keep the ASSN in line" and even after Ewans explanation of the Violent Dawn he denies that the state could've done anything wrong, saying that it was just "a tragedy". He even was happy to see an all-human team and I think he says something like "Happy to see we're still at the top". The only reason I wasn't being aggressive with him that round was because of the organ bug, no doctors, and also no xeno crew (Neith the shell didn't count since he didn't hear much of it). You'd think if I was supposedly supporting the SRF irl, I would make an effort to act against expectations and be a good guy, especially since there were 99% humans on that shift. 12 hours ago, Owen said: On your argument that detailed knowledge of fascist ideology proves you're opposed to it rather than sympathetic to it: that's a reasonable point in principle, and I am not going to claim that researching something means you support it. I appreciate this, I was worried you would think I am performative or something akin to it. I am a PolSci Hobbyist, and if you are seriously attempting to learn a good majority of politics you have to read up on the ones you don't agree with. The rest of your statement seems to be a summary, so I won't rehash any of my points. 12 hours ago, Owen said: I also want to gently say, and I don't mean this to be dismissive, but a staff complaint forum for an SS13 community probably isn't the right venue for citations from Hannah Arendt, Frank S. Meyer, and other academic literature I am concerned that you are more interested in the names of the quotes rather than what they have to say. I want to gently say, that I don't think you understand the position you have put me in. Your ban is essentially saying that I am one of the worst spessmen possible. It isn't just that I am supposedly a racial purist who wishes to kill and murder other races for an ethno-state, but that I am looking for others and attempting to group up using auroras lore as cover. Things like this don't stay on one server, what you've done is put a brick of cocaine in my bag everywhere I go and if they see it, I am pretty much done for. Kintsugi and others have great animosity towards me; going as far as to insult my political and religious beliefs in confidence that I wasn't going to be able to see it. Something interesting I left out of the Meyer quote is that he personifies the liberal's opposition as a leviathan. This leviathan will not take me at my word, nor will they assume the best of what I have to say. I don't get to choose, legitimizing myself with source and detail is the only way I can clear myself of this. You say it's an impulse, when in reality I weighed the decision well after my response, and having seen what my opposition had said about me after that response, I had to show that I was familiar with PolSci and I had to support my argument with just more than basic Wikipedia. Your argument of it not being of substance and "And it will, inevitably, make this harder to parse for people." is kind of strange. Frank S. Meyer - External Explanation as to why I backed out of the conversation instead of staying to clarify. Hannah Arendt - Proof that lack of knowledge in politics have led voters to just pick what side they vibe with which is how Hannah believes the administration at the time was able to manipulate people into going with the jingoistic Vietnam War. This justifies my reason of getting into PolSci. Don Hamerquist - Demonstrates that variations of the term "Third Way" are on a whole range of the political spectrum, thus it can be prudent to use the right terms. It is fair to say that this quote isn't of too much substance, so I understand your feelings towards this one alone. On the harder to parse for people argument, just look up the people? If you are talking about the sentences, I mean sure they speak in a more pronounced nature, but the ideas are still pretty present and aren't hard to grasp. I even gave context snips to make it more digestible. 13 hours ago, Owen said: The question reviewing staff are looking at is pretty straightforward: does the pattern of behavior in this community warrant the ban that was issued? At the very least, I want the reason of the ban to change to the more reasonable "pattern of behavior" argument, rather than the "Nazi Apologist" argument. I want my name cleared of any association with being a genuine fascist. My hope? This pushed down to a temporary ban, and I get to keep my species WL's. Obviously, we'll have what the reviewing team decides, but it is my hope I can at least gain something from this wall of text.
Kintsugi Posted June 8 Posted June 8 15 hours ago, StewardsCap said: That's exactly the problem, Kintsugi was quick to accuse me of being a dog-whistler and the fact that they ran with the term showcases that they don't exactly know what they're talking about. You don't even need the 'wrong term' argument here, using the term 'Third Position' is not a dog-whistle, since it identifies the true intentions of the word immediately. You call it thinly veiled yet there was no veil! My point was that Kintsugi was just flat out wrong, and falsely accusing me with total confidence, explaining to others that "Third way is how fascists justify themselves" as if knowledgeable on the subject. You yourself followed that confidence, since you clearly state that in my ban. After my response Kintsugi actually walks back on this, now stating that the term is not only used by fascists, but Scholars of Fascism! If academia uses it, it's not a dog-whistle, the point is moot. This is a fair answer, and I can agree that the terms are used interchangeably, however when trying to specifically accuse someone the proper term should be used. Throwing terms like "Nazi", "Third Way" and "Fascist" muddles the definition, and I am a criminal of this myself. The reason I distinguish "Fascist (Traditional)" and "Third Position-ist (Neo-Fascist)" is actually the crux of Kintsugi's argument. The reason I am supposedly a fascist is that I am referring to fascism as the "Third Position", which is what Third Positionist's do (sort of). That is why the distinction is important, and how my vague explanation was my downfall. Your argument that how I discuss it "reads like apologetics", which is something I bring up in my original complaint. If I was trying to defend Frost, why would I refer to him as one of the worst variants of fascism? Again, this isn't unprompted, it came out of my SRF round and we were talking about the SRF. My response was basically "They aren't traditional fascists more like neo-fascist/quasi-nazi", however I can admit that again, my use of language was more esoteric than it should've been. From what I can recall, at the time I don't think I got any backlash, so I didn't think much of it. (...) I am concerned that you are more interested in the names of the quotes rather than what they have to say. I want to gently say, that I don't think you understand the position you have put me in. Your ban is essentially saying that I am one of the worst spessmen possible. It isn't just that I am supposedly a racial purist who wishes to kill and murder other races for an ethno-state, but that I am looking for others and attempting to group up using auroras lore as cover. Things like this don't stay on one server, what you've done is put a brick of cocaine in my bag everywhere I go and if they see it, I am pretty much done for. Kintsugi and others have great animosity towards me; going as far as to insult my political and religious beliefs in confidence that I wasn't going to be able to see it. Something interesting I left out of the Meyer quote is that he personifies the liberal's opposition as a leviathan. This leviathan will not take me at my word, nor will they assume the best of what I have to say. I don't get to choose, legitimizing myself with source and detail is the only way I can clear myself of this. You say it's an impulse, when in reality I weighed the decision well after my response, and having seen what my opposition had said about me after that response, I had to show that I was familiar with PolSci and I had to support my argument with just more than basic Wikipedia. Your argument of it not being of substance and "And it will, inevitably, make this harder to parse for people." is kind of strange. Hello! As I am being mentioned specifically by name in this reply many times, I would like to point out that I never accused you of anything at all, and I certainly did not present an "argument" at any point - I did not contact staff about the remarks that got you banned, and I didn't particularly have much to say about the matter to begin with. Yes, I was concerned by your use of a phrase that fascists often use to self-identify or describe their ideology, largely as a consequence of my history of interactions with you and by virtue of you having made many remarks in the past that concerned me. I have also not ever mentioned your religious beliefs, nor have I insulted you in any capacity. I'm not really sure why I'm being singled out in this regard and named so many times, but I don't think it's appropriate for you to try and shift things onto me when, again, I have absolutely no involvement in this matter or in your ban. Thank you! 1
StewardsCap Posted June 8 Author Posted June 8 (edited) 7 hours ago, Kintsugi said: Hello! As I am being mentioned specifically by name in this reply many times, I would like to point out that I never accused you of anything at all, and I certainly did not present an "argument" at any point You are in-fact being mentioned, I tried to keep it out but by directly quoting you it is a stone's throw away. You argue that you weren't presenting an argument, but this simply isn't true. You make statements that are clearly in opposition to what I posted, therefore it is an argument since you are sharing a divergent view. Again, you argue against me that: No I can assure you that fascism (don't call it thirdway jfc) is not a prominent ideology in the Alliance today - Argument against my belief that Neo-fascism was prominent in the ASSN, which is true; as I state in my response that I mistook the words 'Hard Right Nationalism' to be a stand-in. More importantly you react repulsed to my use of the term, which shows your disagreement that you will go on to provide for. Who calls it 'Third Way' except fascists - Dismisses my use of terms as illegitimate, saying that it is only used by the people we were talking about and thus insinuates I am one, or comfortable with taking the stray for being one. Its apart of fascist ideology and propaganda to justify themselves - now you argue that the term 'Third Way' or 'Third Position' is fascist rhetoric alone, and thus that I am using fascist rhetoric. I don't see how you think this isn't an argument, you first disagree with my use of the term and progress it through additional points like any other argument. You make an accusation that the term is a dog-whistle of sorts and that it is something that identifies as fascist rhetoric and not simply a term for the broad neo-fascist movement that emerged after WW2. 7 hours ago, Kintsugi said: I did not contact staff about the remarks that got you banned, and I didn't particularly have much to say about the matter to begin with. I didn't say this at all; I said that Owens followed your confidence. The problem is that you took what I said in bad-faith and made the false accusation that I now have to explain is false. Owens is following your logic, it isn't a coincidence that I was banned around 20-30 minutes after our conversation, and that the ban followed around the same conclusion you had made about the term. You even say that the term is only prominent in the interwar period, when that isn't the case. It doesn't matter to me if you went to anyone for it, what matters to me is your accusation. You say you didn't have anything to say about the matter when this is also clearly false, after my complaint you go ahead and defend the admins position and again restate your belief that I was stating fascism to be the third position, that fascists use it but now with the back pedal that also scholars on the subject use the term. You say I have a history of saying things that are suspected fascist remarks that promote or speak good of it. You clearly have something to say about the matter; you clearly believe that I am at the very least comfortable with fascist ideology. 7 hours ago, Kintsugi said: Yes, I was concerned by your use of a phrase that fascists often use to self-identify or describe their ideology, largely as a consequence of my history of interactions with you and by virtue of you having made many remarks in the past that concerned me This is a fair remark, and it is largely my fault that I did not take into account how some may view my satire as serious. It is impossible for you and me to not have concerns or disagreement about what we post when talking politics, you are what I can believe to be as you say, an "absurdist" and anti-natalist, you have said things that I think are "Chudy" and I dislike greatly. I on the contrary I am an American conservative, somewhat hardline, and a western roman catholic. I make jokes that you view to be unacceptable, play against what you would think are concrete moral virtues, and defend institutions that you would think oppressors. This is of course a little generalized, but I think it's fair to say that we do not align in regard to many positions. 7 hours ago, Kintsugi said: I have also not ever mentioned your religious beliefs, nor have I insulted you in any capacity. I'm not really sure why I'm being singled out in this regard and named so many times, but I don't think it's appropriate for you to try and shift things onto me when, again, I have absolutely no involvement in this matter or in your ban. Thank you! That's not what I say, the exact words are "Kintsugi and others have great animosity towards me; going as far as to insult my political and religious beliefs in confidence that I wasn't going to be able to see it." You aren't being singled out, and I did not say that you were doing that but rather the group in opposition (which you are a part of) went to that extreme. You insulted me by saying that I have a history of being Admiral Frost's top guy, that I have been suspect of "slipping the mask" for quite some time. Furthermore, in that conversation justifying the ban, you do not deny those insults or accusations that I have a history of dog-whistling, and the idea that I was dog-whistling. No, the major problem here is that you made a false accusation, this isn't an attack on you but your argument. If I was attacking you, your name would be right next to owens in the complaint and I would've made known this 'writer' in my first response. Again, the reason I had to namedrop was that I had to directly quote what you said, so obviously if someone cared to look, they would find you said it. You say, "I have absolutely no involvement in this matter or in your ban.", yet you make yourself in league against me, you proposed the accusation that Owens uses for the ban and you support his decision by doubling down. Sure, I can understand the sentiment that the latter half, in which he is mostly discussing my SRF post-round talk has nothing to do with you. However, the biggest priority, and the front and center reason for the ban is that "Thinly veiled Nazi dog-whistling is entirely unacceptable in this community and will not be tolerated." which you had a hand in proposing. Edited June 8 by StewardsCap
CampinKiller Posted June 8 Posted June 8 Hi, I will be handling this complaint. In the interest of making things easier for everyone, let's not have back and forth in the thread and keep responses concise 1
CampinKiller Posted June 11 Posted June 11 Alright, after reading through everything and talking it over, I've made my decision. Frist of all @StewardsCap I want to make clear that @Kintsugi had no bearing, involvement, etc. in your ban - the decision was reached by @Owen alone, based on previous strikes and what you were posting. They did not even report your remarks, as they said. If there are ever any future complaints, do not make assumptions about people with whom you either do not get along with or are vocally opposing whatever viewpoints you may or may not be espousing. Regarding the complaint itself, the bottom line is that I do not believe you are an apologist or dog-whistling, however, you need to fix your language. What I mean by that is that some of the things you have said and that led to your ban can come off as innocent to some, but to many others they can very easily be viewed in the light of Nazi apologism or fascist ideology. In simple terms, if you are not an apologist, then you need to think about what you are saying or about to say, or you could well find yourself back in this position in the future. In general, political discussions should not be happening in the discord, as they are against our discord rules. I recommend avoiding them, and that goes for anyone reading this complaint. I will be lifting your server and discord bans, but I will reiterate that you will be on thin ice with this. If we find ourselves back here again, you are unlikely to get the benefit of the doubt. I will be locking this in 24 hours, unless there is anything else to address.
StewardsCap Posted June 11 Author Posted June 11 Of course, I am sorry if I came off as aggressive and assumed such, and I would like to retract any perceived insults towards them. I am aware that I have made jokes in the past that can be viewed this way, and my vague sense of description did not make it any easier. I am grateful to see that my ban has been retracted, and I hope I will not make ill on that. Thank you for taking your time to hear my complaint and giving me the chance to appeal.
Recommended Posts