Home | Community | Message Board


Everything Mushrooms
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds, Bulk Cannabis Seeds, Feminized Cannabis Seeds, High THC Strains, USA West Coast Strains   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder, Kratom Powder for Sale, Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder   North Spore North Spore Mushroom Grow Kits & Cultivation Supplies   Bridgetown Botanicals Bridgetown Botanicals   Amazon Rolling Stones

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12  [ show all ]
Anonymous

i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. * 1
    #1676739 - 07/01/03 11:21 AM (17 years, 18 days ago)

seriously people, it's getting ridiculous in here. is this an elementary school playground? you all know who you are. grow up a bit. i for one am sick of wading through 2 or 3 posts worthless name-calling posts to get to 1 with actual content.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: ]
    #1676745 - 07/01/03 11:25 AM (17 years, 18 days ago)

I'm sorry. I shouldn't respond to insults with insults. I apologize for sinking down to that level.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,244
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: ]
    #1676774 - 07/01/03 11:37 AM (17 years, 18 days ago)

It's all part of life.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/25/01
Posts: 16,256
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 9 months, 23 days
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1676787 - 07/01/03 11:44 AM (17 years, 18 days ago)

True..but it doesn't need to be a part of this forum.


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,244
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Rono] * 1
    #1676793 - 07/01/03 11:46 AM (17 years, 18 days ago)

So, life should be different here than anywhere else?

Sorry but that's unrealistic.

That's one of the things I like about you though..... you're a dreamer.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblesilversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1676801 - 07/01/03 11:50 AM (17 years, 18 days ago)

This is a forum for discussing and debating politics, not for personal attacks. If you want to flame people, go to OTD.


--------------------


"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineshakta
Infidel
Registered: 06/03/03
Posts: 2,633
Last seen: 16 years, 1 month
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1676805 - 07/01/03 11:51 AM (17 years, 18 days ago)

I agree that the personal attacks have no place. I will try to make sure that my posts don't contain them. Attacking someone's opinion though, is different. :smile:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Anonymous

Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: ]
    #1676806 - 07/01/03 11:53 AM (17 years, 18 days ago)

This forum would be a lot more productive if insults weren't allowed. I feel like I'm listening to 3rd graders when I read most of the posts. There is a lot of immaturity here, and that's one reason I don't post that much.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRonoS
DSYSB since '01
Male User Gallery

Registered: 01/25/01
Posts: 16,256
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 9 months, 23 days
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1676809 - 07/01/03 11:53 AM (17 years, 18 days ago)

Quote:

Sorry but that's unrealistic.




You think that having an intelligent debate without flames is unrealistic?...how tragic for you.


--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,244
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Rono]
    #1676962 - 07/01/03 12:45 PM (17 years, 18 days ago)

I'd say the tragedy is yours.

Not all can be as good as Rono the Wonderful.



--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinehongomon
old hand
Registered: 04/14/02
Posts: 910
Loc: comin' at ya
Last seen: 16 years, 2 months
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1676978 - 07/01/03 12:52 PM (17 years, 18 days ago)

Quote:

luvdemshrooms said:
So, life should be different here than anywhere else?

Sorry but that's unrealistic.





Haha, classic.  A political/activism forum the same as lockerroom joking the same as a beatnik poetry reading the same as prowrestling shit-talking the same as OT discussion...  :tongue: 


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,244
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: hongomon]
    #1676997 - 07/01/03 12:57 PM (17 years, 18 days ago)

Life is life. It's the same no matter where you go.

The sad thing is how few realize this is like a locker room.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1677027 - 07/01/03 01:10 PM (17 years, 18 days ago)

So your life consists of trading insults with complete strangers? What kind of life are you leading luv?


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,244
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Xlea321]
    #1677049 - 07/01/03 01:21 PM (17 years, 18 days ago)

A rather entertaining one and one I have no doubt you'd like for your own if you knew how good it is.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1677144 - 07/01/03 02:11 PM (17 years, 18 days ago)

No thanks man. 5 minutes of it here and i'm bored shitless. I can't imagine what 24 hours a day trading insults with complete strangers is like.


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRhizoid
carbon unit
Male

Registered: 01/22/00
Posts: 1,737
Loc: Europe
Last seen: 3 months, 17 days
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Xlea321]
    #1677167 - 07/01/03 02:24 PM (17 years, 18 days ago)

Quote:

Let Poland be Poland




What does this phrase in your signature refer to?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinehongomon
old hand
Registered: 04/14/02
Posts: 910
Loc: comin' at ya
Last seen: 16 years, 2 months
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1677170 - 07/01/03 02:24 PM (17 years, 18 days ago)

I guess you didn't catch the humor of Happy Gilmore. Or that tourism commercial with the Jamaican boaters fighting over dock spaces like NY cab drivers.

Don' homogenize it mon!


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinehongomon
old hand
Registered: 04/14/02
Posts: 910
Loc: comin' at ya
Last seen: 16 years, 2 months
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Rhizoid]
    #1677176 - 07/01/03 02:26 PM (17 years, 18 days ago)

Quote:

Rhizoid said:
Quote:

Let Poland be Poland




What does this phrase in your signature refer to?





You see, about a month ago I was on a campaign to make Poland Carebearland. I had good intentions, but Alex comes along and...

Actually I don't know either. Alex?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleXlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Rhizoid]
    #1677291 - 07/01/03 03:33 PM (17 years, 18 days ago)

Reagan organised an anti-soviet television special in the early 80's featuring Abba called "Let Poland Be Poland". The idea of Reagan doing that always makes me smile for some reason  :laugh: 


--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,244
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Xlea321]
    #1677338 - 07/01/03 03:55 PM (17 years, 18 days ago)

Quote:

5 minutes of it here and i'm bored shitless.



That's simply because it's not for your entertainment... it's for mine.
Sadly for you, I'm not here to entertain you.


Quote:

I can't imagine what 24 hours a day trading insults with complete strangers is like.



Neither can I.


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBetMomIsProud
Journeyman ofMycology
Registered: 05/15/03
Posts: 172
Loc: MI
Last seen: 16 years, 9 months
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: luvdemshrooms]
    #1679952 - 07/02/03 09:47 AM (17 years, 17 days ago)

luvdemshrooms is right, it is unrealistic to think that you can get through life without dealing with complete assholes.  Just accept the fact that they are out there, they will screw up anything that is good and respectable, and they will get a kick out of it.  Move on with your life after that and forget they exist.  It's easy.  If someone wants to log on and throw flaming insults about to make themselves feel cool, it's alright.  In 100 years they won't matter to anyone anyways.  :smile:


--------------------
Nothing is idiot proof. Just need a real talented idiot.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleluvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?


Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,244
Loc: Lost In Space
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: BetMomIsProud]
    #1680044 - 07/02/03 10:34 AM (17 years, 17 days ago)

100 years? Hell, I'd be forgotten in a week.

It'd be..... whatever happened to that major asshole, what's his name, you know..... nipples?


--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblevinsue
Grand Old Fart
Male


Registered: 02/17/04
Posts: 17,696
Loc: The Garden State(NJ) Flag
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Anonymous] * 2
    #26393643 - 12/21/19 07:52 AM (6 months, 20 days ago)

https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/1676739#1676739
Quote:

Anonymous said, (exactly 6015 days ago) :
seriously people, it's getting ridiculous in here...



Wow, people even flamed in the olden days. :grin:
:oldman: . . . :peace:


--------------------

"All mushrooms are edible; but some only once." Croatian proverb. BTW ...
  Have You Rated Ythans Mom Yet ?? ... :taser:  ... HERE'S HOW ... (be nice) .  :mod: ... :peace:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBrian Jones
Club 27
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 7,119
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 6 hours, 41 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: vinsue] * 3
    #26394146 - 12/21/19 02:48 PM (6 months, 20 days ago)

When the Shroomery was down recently I resorted to lurking at the Mycotopia site. I found all the niceness and politeness and civility there to be fairly repulsive.

On the one hand I do try to make educational points. But I also get great amusement and challenge out of figuring out ways to phrase comments to insult people and remain just inside the rules enough to not get banned. If this place goes completely civil I will lose interest. I used to post a lot in the sports forum but the combative people are gone and it isn't much fun anymore. There has to be an Axis and Allies atmosphere to keep things interesting.


--------------------
"The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body"    John Lennon

I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis
Male User Gallery


Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 4,858
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 55 minutes, 25 seconds
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: vinsue] * 2
    #26394263 - 12/21/19 03:58 PM (6 months, 20 days ago)

What necromancy is this?

No flaming is a good thing, I understand snarky banter is a good thing as well...it can promote conversation. Attacking the argument and not going full blown ad hominem is more kosher. I dont think I have ever flamed anyone here.


--------------------
“I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.”


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBrian Jones
Club 27
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 7,119
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 6 hours, 41 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Brian Jones] * 3
    #26394421 - 12/21/19 05:41 PM (6 months, 20 days ago)

I was against trying to ban qman or getting him to bend to fit the rules. I'm glad some of the rightwingers are gone because they were dense and overly simplistic. Arguing with someone who can construct an argument is more challenging than just insulting the low ability crowd or agreeing with the people I already agree with.


--------------------
"The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body"    John Lennon

I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Onlineqman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 33,648
Last seen: 6 minutes, 8 seconds
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Brian Jones]
    #26394617 - 12/21/19 08:31 PM (6 months, 19 days ago)

Quote:

Brian Jones said:
I was against trying to ban qman or getting him to bend to fit the rules. I'm glad some of the rightwingers are gone because they were dense and overly simplistic. Arguing with someone who can construct an argument is more challenging than just insulting the low ability crowd or agreeing with the people I already agree with.




I'm not sure if you were aware, but about a month ago I received a permanent ban with no warning or reason other than not embracing the community standards.

In other words, in another forum I was pointing out some of the double standards and hypocrisy of the PC movement and it pissed off the mod in that forum. At that point, he justified permanently banning me with XUL and that's exactly what he did.

That's what good behavior got me, I never flamed and have been flamed a hundred of times over, but still I was the bad guy.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis
Male User Gallery


Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 4,858
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 55 minutes, 25 seconds
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: qman]
    #26394641 - 12/21/19 09:01 PM (6 months, 19 days ago)

Qman, I have read your posts for quite sometime.....there have been alot of posts I question (the intent). Sure likewise for you.

If what you suggest is true, have you provided evidence....so the rest of the community can see? I would be interested in seeing it. I assume you are no longer perma banned.


--------------------
“I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.”


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Onlineqman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 33,648
Last seen: 6 minutes, 8 seconds
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: SirTripAlot]
    #26394655 - 12/21/19 09:12 PM (6 months, 19 days ago)

Quote:

SirTripAlot said:
Qman, I have read your posts for quite sometime.....there have been alot of posts I question (the intent). Sure likewise for you.

If what you suggest is true, have you provided evidence....so the rest of the community can see? I would be interested in seeing it. I assume you are no longer perma banned.




The ban was overturned in a few hours and only one mod not associated with the ban briefly mentioned it was a "mistake" of some sorts.

It was discussed in a thread in this forum after the fact, so there's no secret about what happened.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis
Male User Gallery


Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 4,858
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 55 minutes, 25 seconds
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: qman]
    #26394664 - 12/21/19 09:18 PM (6 months, 19 days ago)

Sorry man, Out of the loop. :shrug:
I misread your post and thought it was "recent".


Edited by SirTripAlot (12/21/19 09:19 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Onlineqman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 33,648
Last seen: 6 minutes, 8 seconds
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: qman] * 1
    #26394669 - 12/21/19 09:21 PM (6 months, 19 days ago)

I learned my lesson, go with the "community standards" or hit the road. Flaming violators get warnings and small bans. Not agreeing with some sort of arbitrary community standard is a death sentence.

Again, I post what they want me to post. I don't want to upset anyone in the community in the political discussion forum. I'm a good little boy now, I got in line and did what I should have been doing in the first place.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis
Male User Gallery


Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 4,858
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 55 minutes, 25 seconds
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: qman]
    #26394721 - 12/21/19 10:12 PM (6 months, 19 days ago)

Are you in jest about being a lemming?


--------------------
“I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.”


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 23,230
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 2 hours, 54 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: SirTripAlot]
    #26394785 - 12/21/19 11:06 PM (6 months, 19 days ago)

Quote:

SirTripAlot said:
Sorry man, Out of the loop. :shrug:
I misread your post and thought it was "recent".



It was only about a month and a half ago:  https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/26291687#26291687


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBrian Jones
Club 27
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 7,119
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 6 hours, 41 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: qman] * 1
    #26404274 - 12/28/19 08:39 AM (6 months, 13 days ago)

Quote:

qman said:
Quote:

Brian Jones said:
I was against trying to ban qman or getting him to bend to fit the rules. I'm glad some of the rightwingers are gone because they were dense and overly simplistic. Arguing with someone who can construct an argument is more challenging than just insulting the low ability crowd or agreeing with the people I already agree with.




I'm not sure if you were aware, but about a month ago I received a permanent ban with no warning or reason other than not embracing the community standards.

In other words, in another forum I was pointing out some of the double standards and hypocrisy of the PC movement and it pissed off the mod in that forum. At that point, he justified permanently banning me with XUL and that's exactly what he did.

That's what good behavior got me, I never flamed and have been flamed a hundred of times over, but still I was the bad guy.




I was aware and I think it was wrong. I don't even think XUL should have got banned, not that I didn't think he was a goof, but banning is against the spirit of why we are all here. I don't know who told you what, but I personally hope you will continue to try to push the edge of the envelope. I guess I have less to worry about being a leftist, but I either have 10 months or 5 more years of TDS, and I have a harder and harder time trying to stay civil. The words flaming and inflamatory are different forms of the same thing. I have some sort of a psychological need to be inflamatorty once every four posts or so. Lately there has been a new crew of low postcount nitwits, and no one seems to care what I say to them.

As Neil Young said It's better to burn out than to fade away.


--------------------
"The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body"    John Lennon

I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleStygianKnight
A Mushroom

Registered: 03/12/12
Posts: 2,717
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Brian Jones] * 2
    #26404462 - 12/28/19 10:42 AM (6 months, 13 days ago)

I’ve certainly stopped paying attention to some threads because I didn’t really feel like I was getting anything out of interacting with the type of trolling Xul and Qman do... but it was my choice to get involved in that interaction in the first place, and so long as they aren’t running rampant on all the forums and threads degrading the usefulness of the forum, there’s no reason to ban them when I can just choose to focus myself elsewhere, and they can live happily doing their trolling things.

The reality is that politics is a proxy for a whole bunch of other emotional things, and so oddly being a dick is as valid a part of the meta-discussion as say wanting everything to be discussed calm and logically.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineliving_failure
unworthy
Male


Registered: 06/13/19
Posts: 352
Loc: spain, madrid
Last seen: 2 months, 19 hours
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: StygianKnight] * 2
    #26404482 - 12/28/19 10:57 AM (6 months, 13 days ago)

Putting qman and xul on the same bag is like putting clintons on the same bag as hittler and mao.

what the fuck.


As an spanish, we had a civil war no that long ago. Followed by a dictatorship.
I just want people to be able to express their opinions.

Losing Qman being able to face your opinions with different ones and making the discussion possible should be something to cry about.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Onlineqman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 33,648
Last seen: 6 minutes, 8 seconds
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: StygianKnight] * 1
    #26404552 - 12/28/19 11:42 AM (6 months, 13 days ago)

Quote:

StygianKnight said:
I’ve certainly stopped paying attention to some threads because I didn’t really feel like I was getting anything out of interacting with the type of trolling Xul and Qman do... but it was my choice to get involved in that interaction in the first place, and so long as they aren’t running rampant on all the forums and threads degrading the usefulness of the forum, there’s no reason to ban them when I can just choose to focus myself elsewhere, and they can live happily doing their trolling things.

The reality is that politics is a proxy for a whole bunch of other emotional things, and so oddly being a dick is as valid a part of the meta-discussion as say wanting everything to be discussed calm and logically.




I'm not sure what type of "trolling" you think I'm engaging in on these forums, so if you have any specific examples, I'm all ears.

I'm pretty sure almost every member here has engaged in playing the devils advocate in one form or another, but that's not really trolling in my opinion.

If my memory serves me correct, yourself and Fal have had many disagreements about Trump and Russian involvement. When he asks for evidence for your claim and you come up with nothing for that claim, was that trolling? 

Or is trolling just people that you disagree with on the political spectrum?  If that's the case, you have now proven how closed minded you are when it comes to political discussion.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Onlineqman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 33,648
Last seen: 6 minutes, 8 seconds
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Brian Jones] * 1
    #26404567 - 12/28/19 11:53 AM (6 months, 13 days ago)

Quote:

Brian Jones said:
Quote:

qman said:
Quote:

Brian Jones said:
I was against trying to ban qman or getting him to bend to fit the rules. I'm glad some of the rightwingers are gone because they were dense and overly simplistic. Arguing with someone who can construct an argument is more challenging than just insulting the low ability crowd or agreeing with the people I already agree with.




I'm not sure if you were aware, but about a month ago I received a permanent ban with no warning or reason other than not embracing the community standards.

In other words, in another forum I was pointing out some of the double standards and hypocrisy of the PC movement and it pissed off the mod in that forum. At that point, he justified permanently banning me with XUL and that's exactly what he did.

That's what good behavior got me, I never flamed and have been flamed a hundred of times over, but still I was the bad guy.




I was aware and I think it was wrong. I don't even think XUL should have got banned, not that I didn't think he was a goof, but banning is against the spirit of why we are all here. I don't know who told you what, but I personally hope you will continue to try to push the edge of the envelope. I guess I have less to worry about being a leftist, but I either have 10 months or 5 more years of TDS, and I have a harder and harder time trying to stay civil. The words flaming and inflamatory are different forms of the same thing. I have some sort of a psychological need to be inflamatorty once every four posts or so. Lately there has been a new crew of low postcount nitwits, and no one seems to care what I say to them.

As Neil Young said It's better to burn out than to fade away.




I have no issue with people breaking the rules that exist and getting a ban for violating those rules.  I don't break the rules, so it shouldn't be a problem.

The problem was a mod that didn't like me and the fact I didn't break any rules. So he just decided to give me a permanent ban without any violations of the rules and attempted to justify the ban with some arbitrary self made rule of not following the "community standards".

That type of behavior isn't acceptable in my opinion, but that's the type of people that have been given power on this site.  In my opinion, that mod should be removed from the position.

So just remember, the rules don't mean anything at this point since a mod can justify any type of ban with a arbitrary violation of the "community standards" that isn't listed in the forum rules. It would be nice to know what those "community standards" are so we could all be educated on it. Do you know why there isn't any listed "community standards"?  Because it only applies to people that disagree with a certain mod, in other words, double standards.


Edited by qman (12/28/19 11:57 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Onlineqman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 33,648
Last seen: 6 minutes, 8 seconds
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: living_failure]
    #26404570 - 12/28/19 11:55 AM (6 months, 13 days ago)

Quote:

living_failure said:
Putting qman and xul on the same bag is like putting clintons on the same bag as hittler and mao.

what the fuck.


As an spanish, we had a civil war no that long ago. Followed by a dictatorship.
I just want people to be able to express their opinions.

Losing Qman being able to face your opinions with different ones and making the discussion possible should be something to cry about.




Maybe he wants a  :circlejerk:  when it comes to political discussion. Anything else is "trolling" or "being a dick". :facepalm:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePsilynut2
Stranger
Registered: 04/28/17
Posts: 1,896
Last seen: 3 hours, 33 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: qman]
    #26404574 - 12/28/19 11:57 AM (6 months, 13 days ago)

It’s hilarious as fuck you almost got accidentally banned for doing what you say people are unjustifiably accusing you of doing .


--------------------



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Onlineqman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 33,648
Last seen: 6 minutes, 8 seconds
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Psilynut2] * 1
    #26404577 - 12/28/19 12:00 PM (6 months, 13 days ago)

Quote:

Psilynut2 said:
It’s hilarious as fuck you almost got accidentally banned for doing what you say people are unjustifiably accusing you of doing .




You're going to have to spell it out for me, I'm not catching on.  :shrug:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePsilynut2
Stranger
Registered: 04/28/17
Posts: 1,896
Last seen: 3 hours, 33 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: qman]
    #26404590 - 12/28/19 12:09 PM (6 months, 13 days ago)

Well looks like you almost got caught up in a blanket ban of what some mod thought was a bunch of racist hate preachers . People accuse you of doing that you say you don’t .  I don’t care what you say or if you get banned or not I  just thought the whole thing is kinda  funny .


--------------------



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBigChumpus
Stranger
Registered: 12/28/19
Posts: 48
Last seen: 6 months, 12 days
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Psilynut2]
    #26404607 - 12/28/19 12:21 PM (6 months, 13 days ago)

Real life picture of shroomery mods




Qman you are not alone


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleStygianKnight
A Mushroom

Registered: 03/12/12
Posts: 2,717
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: qman]
    #26404615 - 12/28/19 12:29 PM (6 months, 13 days ago)

Quote:

qman said:
I'm not sure what type of "trolling" you think I'm engaging in on these forums, so if you have any specific examples, I'm all ears.
I'm pretty sure almost every member here has engaged in playing the devils advocate in one form or another, but that's not really trolling in my opinion.



I’m using ‘trolling’ here loosely to mean say, posting to purposefully get a rise out of someone.

Also chill snowflake, don’t get your panties in such a bunch so fast, I even specifically said that there are broader reasons for posting than logical debate In a political forum, and not something I thought was automatically bannable. 

Quote:

If my memory serves me correct, yourself and Fal have had many disagreements about Trump and Russian involvement. When he asks for evidence for your claim and you come up with nothing for that claim, was that trolling?



It was more like I came to the conclusion that Fal didn’t consider the things damning that I considered damning, that he was ok with the level of involvement that I see as treasonous, and I don’t gain much from spending the time trying to convince him that he should see these obviously anti-american activities as what they are.  That Fal has an excuse for the evidence, doesn’t make it any less evidence.  But more specifically I bowed out around when it became clear documents and people we could all find and read were being consistently misconstrued and mischaracterized to pretend an obviously false narrative existed, and if we can’t agree on basic facts, it’s just a bunch of words being thrown past each other.
 
Quote:

Or is trolling just people that you disagree with on the political spectrum?  If that's the case, you have now proven how closed minded you are when it comes to political discussion.



I consider your consistent nature to jump to hyperbolic assumptions about others and put claims into their mouths either directly or through ‘just asking question’  in your imagined world to be a facet of trolling for emotional reactions over substance.  If you wanted it spelled out. But not trolling in the sense of against the rules, bannable, offense.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBigChumpus
Stranger
Registered: 12/28/19
Posts: 48
Last seen: 6 months, 12 days
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: StygianKnight]
    #26404638 - 12/28/19 12:44 PM (6 months, 13 days ago)

No the mods are biased little pussies.

Sui banned a guy for not liking his music for fucks sake and then claimed he was a puppet after arguing with the guy for like 4 pages.

Evidence here : https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/26399958#26399958

Mods need a binki and naptime imo


Edited by BigChumpus (12/28/19 12:45 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Onlineqman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 33,648
Last seen: 6 minutes, 8 seconds
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Psilynut2] * 1
    #26404688 - 12/28/19 01:09 PM (6 months, 13 days ago)

Quote:

Psilynut2 said:
Well looks like you almost got caught up in a blanket ban of what some mod thought was a bunch of racist hate preachers . People accuse you of doing that you say you don’t .  I don’t care what you say or if you get banned or not I  just thought the whole thing is kinda  funny .




You should care if any member gets banned based on an emotional response from a mod, instead of violating the forum rules.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleCitizen X
Call me Pepper,,
Other User Gallery
Registered: 01/19/14
Posts: 7,387
Loc: Djibouti
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: qman] * 1
    #26404711 - 12/28/19 01:23 PM (6 months, 13 days ago)

I’ve read your posts and was happy when you got perma’d and I’m sad that they let you back. You devolve any conversation that you don’t agree with and just make the forum suck basically

Take this as constructive criticism

I won’t be here as long as you’re here. So have at it


--------------------


Rate me here


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSulfurshelfsean
Defender of Cubes
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/29/10
Posts: 2,301
Last seen: 2 hours, 26 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: StygianKnight]
    #26404724 - 12/28/19 01:30 PM (6 months, 13 days ago)

Quote:

StygianKnight said:
Quote:

qman said:
I'm not sure what type of "trolling" you think I'm engaging in on these forums, so if you have any specific examples, I'm all ears.
I'm pretty sure almost every member here has engaged in playing the devils advocate in one form or another, but that's not really trolling in my opinion.



I’m using ‘trolling’ here loosely to mean say, posting to purposefully get a rise out of someone.

Also chill snowflake, don’t get your panties in such a bunch so fast, I even specifically said that there are broader reasons for posting than logical debate In a political forum, and not something I thought was automatically bannable. 

Quote:

If my memory serves me correct, yourself and Fal have had many disagreements about Trump and Russian involvement. When he asks for evidence for your claim and you come up with nothing for that claim, was that trolling?



It was more like I came to the conclusion that Fal didn’t consider the things damning that I considered damning, that he was ok with the level of involvement that I see as treasonous, and I don’t gain much from spending the time trying to convince him that he should see these obviously anti-american activities as what they are.  That Fal has an excuse for the evidence, doesn’t make it any less evidence.  But more specifically I bowed out around when it became clear documents and people we could all find and read were being consistently misconstrued and mischaracterized to pretend an obviously false narrative existed, and if we can’t agree on basic facts, it’s just a bunch of words being thrown past each other.
 
Quote:

Or is trolling just people that you disagree with on the political spectrum?  If that's the case, you have now proven how closed minded you are when it comes to political discussion.



I consider your consistent nature to jump to hyperbolic assumptions about others and put claims into their mouths either directly or through ‘just asking question’  in your imagined world to be a facet of trolling for emotional reactions over substance.  If you wanted it spelled out. But not trolling in the sense of against the rules, bannable, offense.




Well put!


--------------------


Everything is better when it is done ON TOP OF A MOUNTAIN!


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Onlineqman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 33,648
Last seen: 6 minutes, 8 seconds
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Citizen X] * 1
    #26404759 - 12/28/19 01:48 PM (6 months, 13 days ago)

Quote:

Citizen X said:
I’ve read your posts and was happy when you got perma’d and I’m sad that they let you back. You devolve any conversation that you don’t agree with and just make the forum suck basically

Take this as constructive criticism

I won’t be here as long as you’re here. So have at it




There's nothing constructive about it unless you can provide specific examples, but I'm not going to expect those examples from someone who is controlled by their emotions instead of rational thought. :shrug:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBigChumpus
Stranger
Registered: 12/28/19
Posts: 48
Last seen: 6 months, 12 days
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: qman]
    #26404762 - 12/28/19 01:50 PM (6 months, 13 days ago)

Keep in mind citizen made a post calling for clearer rules

He doesnt like you so hes ok with you bein banned under arbitrary rules

Hypocrisy comes in beautiful rays of stupidity


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Onlineqman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 33,648
Last seen: 6 minutes, 8 seconds
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: StygianKnight]
    #26404764 - 12/28/19 01:52 PM (6 months, 13 days ago)

Quote:

StygianKnight said:
Quote:

qman said:
I'm not sure what type of "trolling" you think I'm engaging in on these forums, so if you have any specific examples, I'm all ears.
I'm pretty sure almost every member here has engaged in playing the devils advocate in one form or another, but that's not really trolling in my opinion.



I’m using ‘trolling’ here loosely to mean say, posting to purposefully get a rise out of someone.

Also chill snowflake, don’t get your panties in such a bunch so fast, I even specifically said that there are broader reasons for posting than logical debate In a political forum, and not something I thought was automatically bannable. 

Quote:

If my memory serves me correct, yourself and Fal have had many disagreements about Trump and Russian involvement. When he asks for evidence for your claim and you come up with nothing for that claim, was that trolling?



It was more like I came to the conclusion that Fal didn’t consider the things damning that I considered damning, that he was ok with the level of involvement that I see as treasonous, and I don’t gain much from spending the time trying to convince him that he should see these obviously anti-american activities as what they are.  That Fal has an excuse for the evidence, doesn’t make it any less evidence.  But more specifically I bowed out around when it became clear documents and people we could all find and read were being consistently misconstrued and mischaracterized to pretend an obviously false narrative existed, and if we can’t agree on basic facts, it’s just a bunch of words being thrown past each other.
 
Quote:

Or is trolling just people that you disagree with on the political spectrum?  If that's the case, you have now proven how closed minded you are when it comes to political discussion.



I consider your consistent nature to jump to hyperbolic assumptions about others and put claims into their mouths either directly or through ‘just asking question’  in your imagined world to be a facet of trolling for emotional reactions over substance.  If you wanted it spelled out. But not trolling in the sense of against the rules, bannable, offense.




Maybe the people that have emotional responses to my posts have the issue here, that's a distinct possibility, correct?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBigChumpus
Stranger
Registered: 12/28/19
Posts: 48
Last seen: 6 months, 12 days
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: qman] * 1
    #26404771 - 12/28/19 01:55 PM (6 months, 13 days ago)

We live in an incredibly polarized age where people would rather go thier corners and circle jerk than meet in the middle and step out of the comfort zone

You step into that middle ground and get punished for it. This is more symptomatic of society generally right now and you're bearing the brunt of it.


We need people like you, an eagle needs two strong wings to fly


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleStygianKnight
A Mushroom

Registered: 03/12/12
Posts: 2,717
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: qman]
    #26404798 - 12/28/19 02:16 PM (6 months, 13 days ago)

Part of the issue, yes, yes indeed.
Choosing what to read, and what to respond to is absolutely the readers responsibility and while it doesn’t absolve the writer of all actions, the reader is fully responsible for making the choice to continue reading or responding.  So long as someone isn’t being horribly disruptive to the forum flow or targeting someone, ‘just fucking ignore them and press on with your life’ is a much better response than banning, or having a freak out over them.

It’s clear there are some here more interested in a fight than anything else.  But let’s not be all high and mighty evolved liberals or anything, I’m sure everyone here has trolled for emotional reactions or to just be flippant to the opposition at least once or twice, emotions and ulterior motives are just a part of the thing called politics and its discussion, just because I’m not interested in the fight, doesn’t mean it’s suddenly bad or others aren’t interested or won’t get something out of it.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRJ Tubs 202
Male

Registered: 09/20/08
Posts: 4,132
Loc: USA Flag
Last seen: 7 days, 20 hours
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: qman] * 3
    #26404806 - 12/28/19 02:21 PM (6 months, 13 days ago)

Quote:

qman said:

Maybe the people that have emotional responses to my posts have the issue here, that's a distinct possibility, correct?




That's a distinct possibility  :laugh: :thumbup: 

I learn a lot about myself by observing my emotional reactions when reading a post. I used to blame the poster for my reaction until I realized it's only a reflection of me.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineThe Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 27,883
Loc: 'Merica Flag
Last seen: 1 day, 1 hour
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: RJ Tubs 202] * 1
    #26404809 - 12/28/19 02:22 PM (6 months, 13 days ago)

There’s a simple solution here that everyone is ignoring: simply cede all ideological ground to me and I’ll have no reason to denigrate you.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBigChumpus
Stranger
Registered: 12/28/19
Posts: 48
Last seen: 6 months, 12 days
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: RJ Tubs 202] * 1
    #26404815 - 12/28/19 02:24 PM (6 months, 13 days ago)

RJ I love you holy shit

You seem to always approach these issues with a level head even if you disagree

I just wanted to point this out and say more people should have that, I wish I did


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRJ Tubs 202
Male

Registered: 09/20/08
Posts: 4,132
Loc: USA Flag
Last seen: 7 days, 20 hours
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: BigChumpus]
    #26404835 - 12/28/19 02:35 PM (6 months, 13 days ago)

Dang it, it's been a while since someone told me they love me. Thanks for that.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBigChumpus
Stranger
Registered: 12/28/19
Posts: 48
Last seen: 6 months, 12 days
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: RJ Tubs 202]
    #26404843 - 12/28/19 02:40 PM (6 months, 13 days ago)

People deserve more credit. My toxic heart always has a special gilded place for intellectual honesty, a rarity these days


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Onlinekoods
Ribbit
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/26/11
Posts: 79,616
Loc: Maryland/DC Burbs
Last seen: 1 minute, 1 second
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: BigChumpus]
    #26404923 - 12/28/19 03:32 PM (6 months, 13 days ago)

Quote:

BigChumpus said:
RJ I love you holy shit

You seem to always approach these issues with a level head even if you disagree

I just wanted to point this out and say more people should have that, I wish I did



You might want to try and explain at this point who you are a puppet of and why. You registered two hours ago yet you clearly are familiar with users.


--------------------
I am a violent pusher of the neo-marxist SJW agenda to destroy society.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBigChumpus
Stranger
Registered: 12/28/19
Posts: 48
Last seen: 6 months, 12 days
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: koods] * 1
    #26404938 - 12/28/19 03:37 PM (6 months, 13 days ago)

I'm Koods


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineStable Genius
.... in the loop
 User Gallery

Registered: 09/26/18
Posts: 1,303
Loc: Wide Bay, Aus Flag
Last seen: 4 hours, 26 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: BigChumpus]
    #26404952 - 12/28/19 03:46 PM (6 months, 13 days ago)

XUL you stand out like dog's balls :lol: :popcorn:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSulfurshelfsean
Defender of Cubes
 User Gallery

Registered: 07/29/10
Posts: 2,301
Last seen: 2 hours, 26 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: koods]
    #26404954 - 12/28/19 03:46 PM (6 months, 13 days ago)

Quote:

koods said:
Quote:

BigChumpus said:
RJ I love you holy shit

You seem to always approach these issues with a level head even if you disagree

I just wanted to point this out and say more people should have that, I wish I did



You might want to try and explain at this point who you are a puppet of and why. You registered two hours ago yet you clearly are familiar with users.



Here's a hint: he derails every thread into a bigoted rant.


--------------------


Everything is better when it is done ON TOP OF A MOUNTAIN!


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 23,230
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 2 hours, 54 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Citizen X] * 1
    #26405036 - 12/28/19 04:42 PM (6 months, 13 days ago)

Quote:

qman said:
Quote:

Citizen X said:
I’ve read your posts and was happy when you got perma’d and I’m sad that they let you back. You devolve any conversation that you don’t agree with and just make the forum suck basically

Take this as constructive criticism

I won’t be here as long as you’re here. So have at it



There's nothing constructive about it unless you can provide specific examples, but I'm not going to expect those examples from someone who is controlled by their emotions instead of rational thought. :shrug:



***crickets***



I guess qman was right.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineThe Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 27,883
Loc: 'Merica Flag
Last seen: 1 day, 1 hour
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #26405096 - 12/28/19 05:25 PM (6 months, 13 days ago)

There’s a first for everything.

And FWIW qman has got a lot better about controlling his Hulk-like tendency to turn green and throw tanks when immigration or social justice comes up, at least from what I’ve seen. Doesn’t make him right, just more tolerable.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis
Male User Gallery


Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 4,858
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 55 minutes, 25 seconds
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: The Ecstatic] * 1
    #26405327 - 12/28/19 08:04 PM (6 months, 12 days ago)

It would be a shame, not to see those tennis matches youall have had for eons.


--------------------
“I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.”


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineLoaded Shaman
Rational Philosophy
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/02/15
Posts: 5,255
Loc: Now O'Clock
Last seen: 2 days, 17 hours
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: SirTripAlot]
    #26405589 - 12/29/19 01:51 AM (6 months, 12 days ago)

Great new posts, but holy SHIT zombie bump!!!


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBrian Jones
Club 27
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 7,119
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 6 hours, 41 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: The Ecstatic] * 1
    #26405766 - 12/29/19 06:32 AM (6 months, 12 days ago)

Quote:

The Ecstatic said:
There’s a first for everything.

And FWIW qman has got a lot better about controlling his Hulk-like tendency to turn green and throw tanks when immigration or social justice comes up, at least from what I’ve seen. Doesn’t make him right, just more tolerable.




I wasn't hoping for tolerable. I was hoping for fun and provocative like the old days.


--------------------
"The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body"    John Lennon

I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineThe Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 27,883
Loc: 'Merica Flag
Last seen: 1 day, 1 hour
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Brian Jones] * 2
    #26405793 - 12/29/19 07:01 AM (6 months, 12 days ago)

I see your point. Tbh it is more fun than the 20,000 “Obama good/bad” thread format we had in previous years. One positive aspect of the tumult of our current political moment is that it’s exciting, the facade of monotony is gone. The obvious negative aspect is that it’s terrifying, but it’s like Gramsci said: “The old world is dying and a new world struggles to be born, now is the time of monsters.”


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBrian Jones
Club 27
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 7,119
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 6 hours, 41 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: The Ecstatic] * 1
    #26405802 - 12/29/19 07:10 AM (6 months, 12 days ago)

Excellent Gramsci reference. Along with the Frankfurt school, Gramsci is the key figure in cultural Marxism. It's a shame that in Italy and France, regular people are exposed to the intellectuals, but here how many people have read Chomsky?


--------------------
"The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body"    John Lennon

I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineThe Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 27,883
Loc: 'Merica Flag
Last seen: 1 day, 1 hour
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Brian Jones]
    #26405807 - 12/29/19 07:12 AM (6 months, 12 days ago)

So few that he can respond to basically all the emails he gets lol


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBrian Jones
Club 27
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 7,119
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 6 hours, 41 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: The Ecstatic]
    #26405816 - 12/29/19 07:21 AM (6 months, 12 days ago)

I might have to hit him up. It would make a nice keepsake. Michel Foucault used to write newspaper columns in Paris. I assume they were intelligible. I had most of his books and they were laborious.


--------------------
"The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body"    John Lennon

I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 11,521
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 1 hour, 42 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #26405904 - 12/29/19 08:27 AM (6 months, 12 days ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

qman said:
Quote:

Citizen X said:
I’ve read your posts and was happy when you got perma’d and I’m sad that they let you back. You devolve any conversation that you don’t agree with and just make the forum suck basically

Take this as constructive criticism

I won’t be here as long as you’re here. So have at it



There's nothing constructive about it unless you can provide specific examples, but I'm not going to expect those examples from someone who is controlled by their emotions instead of rational thought. :shrug:



***crickets***



I guess qman was right.



Still choosing to die on this hill? Have you honestly forgotten every economic discussion that was derailed into qmans warnings of 'hordes of unskilled migrants'? Do you no longer remember every discussion on climate change that stagnated due to qmans doubts regarding the veracity of climate science? Blocked out the memories of discussions of international politics devolving into claims of antisemitic conspiracy?

Do you forget the opportunity I gave qman to provide their supposed "rational thought" regarding claims of machinations by the Jewish people and all we got was a single anecdote and some emotionally fueled drivel?

Did you forget the discussion we already had on this topic? https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/26294042

Quote:

"Especially [if] it can be supported" - except it never has. Ever. How many times have we had the discussion that race is not a biological concept, that migrants do not lower the quality of life in the countries they immigrate to, or that the Jewish people are not a malevolent ethnicity engaged in an international conspiracy to bring down the West™? Do you think that the nth time we see another thread derailed will be the time that an actual argument based on evidence and reason will be put forth?

The racism on this website has never been supported - it won't be supported - because it can't be supported. Racism is wrong and there will be no benefit from tolerating the same racist beliefs ad nausea.

Who gives a shit if a person politely spreads their racist beliefs - does that make the belief any less vile? We shouldn't tolerate racists because they are polite, we should reflect on the idea that the politeness we experience is a luxury that would not be afforded to others if the racist beliefs being politely propagandized were ever acted upon.








Here's a different challenge - instead of continually asking us to reestablish the negative effect of qmans posts, why don't you submit some examples where qmans racism and antisemitism provided a beneficial effect for this community?


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Onlineqman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 33,648
Last seen: 6 minutes, 8 seconds
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #26405921 - 12/29/19 08:40 AM (6 months, 12 days ago)

Oh, you have proven that bringing in millions of broke, uneducated third world migrants into Western nations doesn't have an social economic impact that lowers the quality of life for the native population?  You better inform the EU population they're getting all worked up over nothing. :lol:

BTW, this is an economic issue, it has nothing to do with race. It wouldn't matter where the migrants can from, but you obviously use the racism excuse because you just can't resist.


Edited by qman (12/29/19 08:42 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Onlineqman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 33,648
Last seen: 6 minutes, 8 seconds
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: qman]
    #26405930 - 12/29/19 08:46 AM (6 months, 12 days ago)

This is hilarious coming from a member that continuously advocates and justifies preemptive violence against innocent people that might hold a different ideology than himself.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 11,521
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 1 hour, 42 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Brian Jones]
    #26405932 - 12/29/19 08:46 AM (6 months, 12 days ago)

Quote:

Brian Jones said:
Quote:

The Ecstatic said:
There’s a first for everything.

And FWIW qman has got a lot better about controlling his Hulk-like tendency to turn green and throw tanks when immigration or social justice comes up, at least from what I’ve seen. Doesn’t make him right, just more tolerable.




I wasn't hoping for tolerable. I was hoping for fun and provocative like the old days.



Have you ever considered that your ability to view racist and antisemitic propagandizing as merely "fun and provocative" comes from a place of privilege where the worst results of said propaganda are perceived as unlikely to directly effect you?

I imagine it's a little bit harder to view something like say... an international debate on immigration policy that has to contend with rampant ethno-nationalism, as light entertainment and diversion when you find yourself on the receiving end of resulting fascist violence.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 11,521
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 1 hour, 42 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: qman]
    #26405938 - 12/29/19 08:49 AM (6 months, 12 days ago)

Quote:

qman said:
This is hilarious coming from a member that continuously advocates and justifies preemptive violence against innocent people that might hold a different ideology than himself.



There's nothing constructive about it unless you can provide specific examples, but I'm not going to expect those examples from someone who is controlled by their emotions instead of rational thought. :shrug:


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineThe Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 27,883
Loc: 'Merica Flag
Last seen: 1 day, 1 hour
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: qman]
    #26406001 - 12/29/19 09:44 AM (6 months, 12 days ago)

Quote:

qman said:
This is hilarious coming from a member that continuously advocates and justifies preemptive violence against innocent people that might hold a different ideology than himself.




Again, you don’t get to play this card when your ideology revolves around walling off the global south and condemning them to genocide to protect “your” resources.

Shiva probably has the most nuanced understanding of violence in this sub tbh


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleballsalsaM
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 14,754
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: The Ecstatic]
    #26406009 - 12/29/19 09:49 AM (6 months, 12 days ago)

Nuance is for suckers.
All issues have black/white, right/wrong causes and solutions


--------------------
Don't click this link                                         



Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 23,230
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 2 hours, 54 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom] * 2
    #26406222 - 12/29/19 11:48 AM (6 months, 12 days ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

qman said:
Quote:

Citizen X said:
I’ve read your posts and was happy when you got perma’d and I’m sad that they let you back. You devolve any conversation that you don’t agree with and just make the forum suck basically

Take this as constructive criticism

I won’t be here as long as you’re here. So have at it



There's nothing constructive about it unless you can provide specific examples, but I'm not going to expect those examples from someone who is controlled by their emotions instead of rational thought. :shrug:



***crickets***



I guess qman was right.



Still choosing to die on this hill?



You mean waiting for Citizen X to provide an example of why he's ok with qman being banned???  Even if Citizen X came up with an example (which he hasn't), I wouldn't call that "dying on a hill".

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Have you honestly forgotten every economic discussion that was derailed into qmans warnings of 'hordes of unskilled migrants'?



That led to both sides presenting evidence on whether or not unskilled labor hurts the country.  I think that was a good debate.

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Do you no longer remember every discussion on climate change that stagnated due to qmans doubts regarding the veracity of climate science?



No, I don't remember.  Qman has always agreed with climate science (to my recollection).  His arguments have mainly been about the financial costs to combat climate science.

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Blocked out the memories of discussions of international politics devolving into claims of antisemitic conspiracy?

Do you forget the opportunity I gave qman to provide their supposed "rational thought" regarding claims of machinations by the Jewish people and all we got was a single anecdote and some emotionally fueled drivel?

Did you forget the discussion we already had on this topic? https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/26294042


Quote:

"Especially [if] it can be supported" - except it never has. Ever. How many times have we had the discussion that race is not a biological concept, that migrants do not lower the quality of life in the countries they immigrate to, or that the Jewish people are not a malevolent ethnicity engaged in an international conspiracy to bring down the West™? Do you think that the nth time we see another thread derailed will be the time that an actual argument based on evidence and reason will be put forth?

The racism on this website has never been supported - it won't be supported - because it can't be supported. Racism is wrong and there will be no benefit from tolerating the same racist beliefs ad nausea.

Who gives a shit if a person politely spreads their racist beliefs - does that make the belief any less vile? We shouldn't tolerate racists because they are polite, we should reflect on the idea that the politeness we experience is a luxury that would not be afforded to others if the racist beliefs being politely propagandized were ever acted upon.






Again, I think these are important debates to have because nearly half the people in this country seem to share these views, and I think it's important to show evidence that does/doesn't back their beliefs.

Calling for someone's removal is a less effective technique than showing them why they're wrong.

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Here's a different challenge - instead of continually asking us to reestablish the negative effect of qmans posts, why don't you submit some examples where qmans racism and antisemitism provided a beneficial effect for this community?



Again, I think having both sides show why unskilled labor hurts/does not hurt the economy was a good discussion.  :shrug:


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineThe Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 27,883
Loc: 'Merica Flag
Last seen: 1 day, 1 hour
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 2
    #26406236 - 12/29/19 12:01 PM (6 months, 12 days ago)

I think you need to think more about how discussions are framed, and how certain framing affects those discussions. I think the point here is that we can’t ever get to larger discussions about labor or migration because we’re always bogged down by ceding the argument to qman and posters like him, and letting him argue on the grounds that he’d like to argue on.

If we only ever discuss migration on the terms of domestic economic net result we’re missing a vast majority of the information necessary to form an opinion on the topic.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 23,230
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 2 hours, 54 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: The Ecstatic]
    #26406244 - 12/29/19 12:05 PM (6 months, 12 days ago)

Perhaps, but I can't be sure without an example.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 11,521
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 1 hour, 42 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 4
    #26406333 - 12/29/19 01:08 PM (6 months, 12 days ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Have you honestly forgotten every economic discussion that was derailed into qmans warnings of 'hordes of unskilled migrants'?



That led to both sides presenting evidence on whether or not unskilled labor hurts the country.  I think that was a good debate.



I'm confused because you appear to refer to a single instance, when the reality is that qmans ability to turn even the most tangentially related topics into 'hordes of unskilled migrants' became a literal meme around here.


Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Do you no longer remember every discussion on climate change that stagnated due to qmans doubts regarding the veracity of climate science?



No, I don't remember.  Qman has always agreed with climate science (to my recollection).  His arguments have mainly been about the financial costs to combat climate science.



Qman can correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the view I've seen them express lately is that, although they agree with the climate science that shows the presence of anthropogenic-led climate change, they do not agree that climate science is able to accurately predict what the resulting effects will be and because of this they suggest that inaction is currently the preferred response. As a consequence of this, discussions on this topic rarely move beyond a discussion of whether climate action is required or not, rather than any specific actions.


Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Blocked out the memories of discussions of international politics devolving into claims of antisemitic conspiracy?

Do you forget the opportunity I gave qman to provide their supposed "rational thought" regarding claims of machinations by the Jewish people and all we got was a single anecdote and some emotionally fueled drivel?

Did you forget the discussion we already had on this topic? https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/26294042



Again, I think these are important debates to have because nearly half the people in this country seem to share these views, and I think it's important to show evidence that does/doesn't back their beliefs.

Calling for someone's removal is a less effective technique than showing them why they're wrong.



Remember, qman had a clear and explicit opportunity to show the evidence backing their beliefs - no valuable discussion was had. Can you show me an example of this "important debate" on antisemitism that qman has played a critical role in here?

I never called for anyone's removal - I took both qman and XUL to task in defending their controversial views many times - writing long and detailed posts in good faith - and neither was able to form a coherent defense. This wasn't a call to silence those with controversial views - this was the community getting tired of showing them why they're wrong and wanting to move on.


Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Here's a different challenge - instead of continually asking us to reestablish the negative effect of qmans posts, why don't you submit some examples where qmans racism and antisemitism provided a beneficial effect for this community?



Again, I think having both sides show why unskilled labor hurts/does not hurt the economy was a good discussion.  :shrug:



Do you think that is a fair way of portraying the situation? Qman wasn't targeted for their arguments regarding the economic merits of unskilled labour. The beliefs they were disciplined over, things like (I assume) qman's professed beliefs that white women who sleep with black men degrade themselves or that Jewish people are a monolithic group engaged in a plot to bring down the West™ are of a different nature than the strictly economic one you pose. Can you show me an example where qmans antisemitic or racist beliefs made a beneficial effect for this community?


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 11,521
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 1 hour, 42 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: The Ecstatic] * 1
    #26406346 - 12/29/19 01:19 PM (6 months, 12 days ago)

Quote:

The Ecstatic said:
I think you need to think more about how discussions are framed, and how certain framing affects those discussions. I think the point here is that we can’t ever get to larger discussions about labor or migration because we’re always bogged down by ceding the argument to qman and posters like him, and letting him argue on the grounds that he’d like to argue on.

If we only ever discuss migration on the terms of domestic economic net result we’re missing a vast majority of the information necessary to form an opinion on the topic.



This is definitely an important aspect to consider. Constantly arguing against the lowest common denominator position doesn't ever allow for more nuanced discussions to develop. Imagine is every discussion of evolutionary science had to first argue for the validity of the basic principles of biology and evolution.

Not all points of view have merit - not all ideas are equal. Of course we need to take care to avoid close-mindedness but the other side of that road is being so open-minded that we refuse to discriminate ideas with merit from those without merit, resulting in another situation where refusal to closely consider before passing judgement means we lose out on valuable insight. We have critical faculties for a reason.

I'm still curious for Falcon91Wolvrn03 to provide some clear examples of valuable discussion qman brings to this website, because I have a strong belief that there will be little (if any) crossover with the type of discussion qman was disciplined over.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis
Male User Gallery


Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 4,858
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 55 minutes, 25 seconds
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom] * 2
    #26406396 - 12/29/19 01:51 PM (6 months, 12 days ago)

More speech, ala posts from all,  benefit the community. I keep coming back here....due to the content. Yes, one has to sift through the garbage. But, I will say that there are more political thoughts that trump most r/politics forums out there. I like this little corner of the internet.


--------------------
“I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.”


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 23,230
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 2 hours, 54 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #26406409 - 12/29/19 01:58 PM (6 months, 12 days ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Have you honestly forgotten every economic discussion that was derailed into qmans warnings of 'hordes of unskilled migrants'?



That led to both sides presenting evidence on whether or not unskilled labor hurts the country.  I think that was a good debate.



I'm confused because you appear to refer to a single instance, when the reality is that qmans ability to turn even the most tangentially related topics into 'hordes of unskilled migrants' became a literal meme around here.



If that's the case, then whenever qman does this we should direct him to the discussion he lost.

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Do you no longer remember every discussion on climate change that stagnated due to qmans doubts regarding the veracity of climate science?



No, I don't remember.  Qman has always agreed with climate science (to my recollection).  His arguments have mainly been about the financial costs to combat climate science.



Qman can correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the view I've seen them express lately is that, although they agree with the climate science that shows the presence of anthropogenic-led climate change, they do not agree that climate science is able to accurately predict what the resulting effects will be and because of this they suggest that inaction is currently the preferred response. As a consequence of this, discussions on this topic rarely move beyond a discussion of whether climate action is required or not, rather than any specific actions.



I'll let qman respond, if he wishes.

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Remember, qman had a clear and explicit opportunity to show the evidence backing their beliefs - no valuable discussion was had. Can you show me an example of this "important debate" on antisemitism that qman has played a critical role in here?



I think you handily won that debate.

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
I never called for anyone's removal - I took both qman and XUL to task in defending their controversial views many times - writing long and detailed posts in good faith - and neither was able to form a coherent defense. This wasn't a call to silence those with controversial views - this was the community getting tired of showing them why they're wrong and wanting to move on.



I wouldn't put qman and XUL in the same bucket, but if qman fails to provide an adequate rebuttal to something, I would remind him he has to do so, or he loses the argument (assuming the other side had evidence).

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Do you think that is a fair way of portraying the situation? Qman wasn't targeted for their arguments regarding the economic merits of unskilled labour. The beliefs they were disciplined over, things like (I assume) qman's professed beliefs that white women who sleep with black men degrade themselves or that Jewish people are a monolithic group engaged in a plot to bring down the West™ are of a different nature than the strictly economic one you pose. Can you show me an example where qmans antisemitic or racist beliefs made a beneficial effect for this community?



If someone believes a white woman is degraded by sleeping with a black man, then that's how that someone feels.  The benefit is simply to understand that a large portion of the country feels that way.  You and I would disagree, but we shouln't pretend these feelings don't exist.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 11,521
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 1 hour, 42 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #26406454 - 12/29/19 02:20 PM (6 months, 12 days ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Can you show me an example where qmans antisemitic or racist beliefs made a beneficial effect for this community?



The benefit is simply to understand that a large portion of the country feels that way.  You and I would disagree, but we shouln't pretend these feelings don't exist.



Have I ever given you the impression that I wish to pretend these feelings don't exist?

Is providing a platform to racists the only way to understand the prevalence of racist beliefs? Could providing such a platform have any associated negative effects on a community too?


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineliving_failure
unworthy
Male


Registered: 06/13/19
Posts: 352
Loc: spain, madrid
Last seen: 2 months, 19 hours
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #26406470 - 12/29/19 02:32 PM (6 months, 12 days ago)

Far as i know, a proper discussion between shiva and qman never happened.

https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/25975061/fpart/6/vc/1#25975061

But we have that thread, but since the thread of qman being banned, i don't think it will happen.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis
Male User Gallery


Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 4,858
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 55 minutes, 25 seconds
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #26406485 - 12/29/19 02:48 PM (6 months, 12 days ago)

Less speech creates a roadblock regarding freedom of association.


--------------------
“I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.”


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineliving_failure
unworthy
Male


Registered: 06/13/19
Posts: 352
Loc: spain, madrid
Last seen: 2 months, 19 hours
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: SirTripAlot]
    #26406495 - 12/29/19 02:53 PM (6 months, 12 days ago)

Hey, here we can't even say "fuck the king" without risking getting sued or going to jail, so whatever. Freedom of speech or association is overrated.



P.D: Porfaplis no me hagais nada.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 11,521
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 1 hour, 42 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: living_failure]
    #26406536 - 12/29/19 03:19 PM (6 months, 12 days ago)

Quote:

living_failure said:
Far as i know, a proper discussion between shiva and qman never happened.

https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/25975061/fpart/6/vc/1#25975061

But we have that thread, but since the thread of qman being banned, i don't think it will happen.



This thread was the result of the thread you link to - an attempt at a proper discussion between qman and I.

You're right that no discussion ever occurred, but this was not for a lack of trying on my part. Turns out posting a formal argument in defense of antisemitism isn't as easy as vague references to Jewish manipulations and "JNN" typos.

Nothing of value has been lost.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBrian Jones
Club 27
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 7,119
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 6 hours, 41 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom] * 3
    #26406553 - 12/29/19 03:29 PM (6 months, 12 days ago)

There is no defense to antisemetism.
But I still take this forum for exactly what I think it is, an internet drug site. I don't think it's important except as out pastime. Nobody is paying any attention to us except us.

You are an extremally high quality poster, and I hope you are also making your arguments somewhere else where it might make a difference. But I haven't seen anything on the internet except back and forth ranting.


--------------------
"The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body"    John Lennon

I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineliving_failure
unworthy
Male


Registered: 06/13/19
Posts: 352
Loc: spain, madrid
Last seen: 2 months, 19 hours
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Brian Jones] * 1
    #26406569 - 12/29/19 03:41 PM (6 months, 12 days ago)

I totally lost the other thread, like totally, and i marked up the other one waiting for the discussion to be linked.


Not everybody is good as debating or have time for it i guess.

I am used to lurk a lot, and it is sad to see most internet forum discussion die because well, no discussion presented anymore just circlejerk.
I see your neccesity of getting rid of the "enemies" because of ethical implications of your point of view. But i think everyone, even you, would benefit if the discussions are being made.
Quote:

Brian Jones said:
There is no defense to antisemetism.
But I still take this forum for exactly what I think it is, an internet drug site. I don't think it's important except as out pastime. Nobody is paying any attention to us except us.

You are an extremally high quality poster, and I hope you are also making your arguments somewhere else where it might make a difference. But I haven't seen anything on the internet except back and forth ranting.





There is a difference between pure antisemitism /pol/ style and what qman was trying to prove. I think it fell more into "conspiracy" than antisemitism


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEnlilM
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 49,783
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Brian Jones]
    #26406617 - 12/29/19 04:24 PM (6 months, 12 days ago)

Quote:

Brian Jones said:
how many people have read Chomsky?



I've read Chomsky's writing in the field within which he is an expert: Linguistics.  There is no question the man is brilliant at that.

His political stuff is pure crap, though.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEnlilM
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 49,783
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom] * 2
    #26406620 - 12/29/19 04:27 PM (6 months, 12 days ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Is providing a platform to racists the only way to understand the prevalence of racist beliefs? Could providing such a platform have any associated negative effects on a community too?



Is denying the platform going to reduce the prevalence of racist ideals?


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineThe Ecstatic
Chilldog Extraordinaire


Registered: 11/11/09
Posts: 27,883
Loc: 'Merica Flag
Last seen: 1 day, 1 hour
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Enlil]
    #26406677 - 12/29/19 05:33 PM (6 months, 12 days ago)

Ask Richard Spencer or Milo Yiannopolous


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEnlilM
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 49,783
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: The Ecstatic] * 1
    #26406725 - 12/29/19 06:16 PM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Who are they? I don't see them in this forum.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 23,230
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 2 hours, 54 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #26407053 - 12/29/19 11:28 PM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
The benefit is simply to understand that a large portion of the country feels that way.  You and I would disagree, but we shouln't pretend these feelings don't exist.



Have I ever given you the impression that I wish to pretend these feelings don't exist?



No, you haven't.  But I myself probably became more educated about conservative viewpoints as a result of my discussions with them here.

Quote:

Enlil said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Is providing a platform to racists the only way to understand the prevalence of racist beliefs? Could providing such a platform have any associated negative effects on a community too?



Is denying the platform going to reduce the prevalence of racist ideals?



I have the same question.  In fact, I would guess that telling people it's not ok to express a possibly racist opinion only makes them more racist.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 11,521
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 1 hour, 42 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #26407074 - 12/30/19 12:13 AM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Is providing a platform to racists the only way to understand the prevalence of racist beliefs? Could providing such a platform have any associated negative effects on a community too?



Is denying the platform going to reduce the prevalence of racist ideals?



I'm not sure if this question is in reference to the shroomery specifically or deplatforming in general so I'll respond to both.

On the shroomery, denying a platform will undoubtedly reduce the prevalence of racist ideals on this website. For example, no platforming prevents a culture of normalization from forming and limits open access to a community audience. It will likely have negligible effect on the prevalence of racist ideals off-site though.

In general, denying a platform will have the same effect as above but with an additional aspect: unlike posting on a public internet forum, an invitation to speak at a university campus, a prestigious event or to write an opinion piece for a newspaper provides (prima facie) higher-order evidence. It is evidence that the speaker is credible; that she has an opinion deserving a respectful hearing. Higher-order evidence is genuine evidence. It is rational to respond to higher-order evidence by moderating our confidence in our beliefs, sometimes even to abandon them altogether.

There are epistemic considerations in support of deplatforming. Inviting someone to give arguments that are bad or false generates misleading evidence, and we should avoid generating misleading evidence. If someone is likely to speak in favour of a view we know to be false, we have grounds to no-platform them, because we know that providing them with a platform by itself provides higher-order evidence in favour of that view.

I think it would be safe to conclude that any additional evidence (either first-order or higher-order) will positively effect the prevalence of racist ideals, and that preventing the creation of misleading higher-order evidence will negatively effect the prevalence.

For concrete examples of this effect, the Ecstatic provides two great ones by bringing up both Milo and Richard Spencer.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 11,521
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 1 hour, 42 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03]
    #26407170 - 12/30/19 02:31 AM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
The benefit is simply to understand that a large portion of the country feels that way.  You and I would disagree, but we shouln't pretend these feelings don't exist.



Have I ever given you the impression that I wish to pretend these feelings don't exist?



No, you haven't.  But I myself probably became more educated about conservative viewpoints as a result of my discussions with them here.



I believe you are conflating conservatism with racism. Unless you consider racism to be a necessary aspect of conservatism, then conservative views have not been censured on this website.


Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

Enlil said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Is providing a platform to racists the only way to understand the prevalence of racist beliefs? Could providing such a platform have any associated negative effects on a community too?



Is denying the platform going to reduce the prevalence of racist ideals?



I have the same question.  In fact, I would guess that telling people it's not ok to express a possibly racist opinion only makes them more racist.



You have my answer above but to be honest I think it's poor form to not answer the questions I posed to you first before asking your own - this is a discussion, not an interrogation.

Furthermore, are you actually making the argument that calling out racism makes people more racist? I hope this is different from the old alt-right rallying cry of "being called racist made me racist". Remember that deplatforming isn't about getting racists to suppress their views - it's about preventing their access to the audience and/or credibility that such a platform offers. I'm not concerned about pissing off existing racists - I'm concerned with limiting the ability for existing racists to recruit new ones and in this aspect deplatforming is effective.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBrian Jones
Club 27
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 7,119
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 6 hours, 41 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Enlil] * 1
    #26407325 - 12/30/19 06:30 AM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
Quote:

Brian Jones said:
how many people have read Chomsky?



I've read Chomsky's writing in the field within which he is an expert: Linguistics.  There is no question the man is brilliant at that.

His political stuff is pure crap, though.




Then you have exactly the same opinion as Zappa. The American left views Chomsky as one of it's most important spokespersons. He was a leader of the Viet Nam antiwar movement.  I don't have enough background to understand much of his linguistic theory or cognitive science but I did get into his bashing of Skinner and behaviorism.


--------------------
"The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body"    John Lennon

I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinechristopera
Stranger

Registered: 10/13/17
Posts: 3,870
Last seen: 10 minutes, 31 seconds
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Brian Jones] * 2
    #26407351 - 12/30/19 06:56 AM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Chomsky's quantitative analysis of various political theories are pretty hard to argue with. When you get into his more qualitative stuff there are a few reasonable critiques, but few academics have successfully argued against him. I'd like to see Enlil's critiques, because, if they are legit he might as well start touring. There's quite a bit of money to be made.


--------------------
A Dorito is pizza, change my mind.

Bank and Union with The Shroomery at the Zuul on The internet - now with %'s and things

I’m sorry it had to be me.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis
Male User Gallery


Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 4,858
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 55 minutes, 25 seconds
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom] * 1
    #26407402 - 12/30/19 07:59 AM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Why do you want to deplatform racist speech? It can be easily identified as a logical fallacy.


--------------------
“I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.”


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisiblerelic
of a bygone era
Male

Registered: 10/14/14
Posts: 5,581
Loc: the right coast
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom] * 1
    #26407415 - 12/30/19 08:09 AM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Quote:

SirTripAlot said:
Why do you want to deplatform racist speech?





Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
<snip>
Remember that deplatforming isn't about getting racists to suppress their views - it's about preventing their access to the audience and/or credibility that such a platform offers. I'm not concerned about pissing off existing racists - I'm concerned with limiting the ability for existing racists to recruit new ones and in this aspect deplatforming is effective.




Edited by relic (12/30/19 08:10 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBrian Jones
Club 27
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 7,119
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 6 hours, 41 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: living_failure] * 1
    #26407430 - 12/30/19 08:27 AM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Quote:

living_failure said:
I totally lost the other thread, like totally, and i marked up the other one waiting for the discussion to be linked.


Not everybody is good as debating or have time for it i guess.

I am used to lurk a lot, and it is sad to see most internet forum discussion die because well, no discussion presented anymore just circlejerk.
I see your neccesity of getting rid of the "enemies" because of ethical implications of your point of view. But i think everyone, even you, would benefit if the discussions are being made.
Quote:

Brian Jones said:
There is no defense to antisemetism.
But I still take this forum for exactly what I think it is, an internet drug site. I don't think it's important except as out pastime. Nobody is paying any attention to us except us.

You are an extremally high quality poster, and I hope you are also making your arguments somewhere else where it might make a difference. But I haven't seen anything on the internet except back and forth ranting.





There is a difference between pure antisemitism /pol/ style and what qman was trying to prove. I think it fell more into "conspiracy" than antisemitism




I don't know what you mean by my necessity of getting rid of the enemies because of ethical implications of my point of view. I think I have been very clear that the only people I want to get rid of are low postcount trolls who have shown no redeeming values in every one of their posts. Thankfully they have been dropping like flies. I don't know it it's Enlil's return or some other mod, but somebody has been on the ball.

Beyond that I said what I really think. I honestly don't think anything that goes on here is very important. If someone spent 8 hours trying to register voters it would be more valuable than a year spent posting here. 

I'll leave it to idealistic people to be idealistic. It's not in my nature. I just want to see something happen that will knock that smug look off the faces of Republicans. I do like to argue, but it's probably just a personal problem.


--------------------
"The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body"    John Lennon

I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis
Male User Gallery


Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 4,858
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 55 minutes, 25 seconds
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: relic] * 1
    #26407528 - 12/30/19 09:45 AM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Quote:

relic said:
Quote:

SirTripAlot said:
Why do you want to deplatform racist speech?





Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
<snip>
Remember that deplatforming isn't about getting racists to suppress their views - it's about preventing their access to the audience and/or credibility that such a platform offers. I'm not concerned about pissing off existing racists - I'm concerned with limiting the ability for existing racists to recruit new ones and in this aspect deplatforming is effective.






Quote:

relic said:
Quote:

SirTripAlot said:
Why do you want to deplatform racist speech?





Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
<snip>
Remember that deplatforming isn't about getting racists to suppress their views - it's about preventing their access to the audience and/or credibility that such a platform offers. I'm not concerned about pissing off existing racists - I'm concerned with limiting the ability for existing racists to recruit new ones and in this aspect deplatforming is effective.







Does this thought apply only to social media? How about when the skinheads assemble in public? Taking away a public space  would be deplatforming.


--------------------
“I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.”


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBrian Jones
Club 27
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 7,119
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 6 hours, 41 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: SirTripAlot] * 1
    #26407548 - 12/30/19 10:02 AM (6 months, 11 days ago)

The term skinheads gets generalized to mean one variant of white supremacists, but many are left wing anti-facists. It's just a (no hair) hairstyle which includes people of many political views.


--------------------
"The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body"    John Lennon

I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis
Male User Gallery


Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 4,858
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 55 minutes, 25 seconds
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Brian Jones]
    #26407559 - 12/30/19 10:13 AM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Thats more precise. I got jumped by skinheads (the red shoelace type) in the mid nineties. For the above example insert any degenerate racist group.


--------------------
“I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.”


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleRevok
I Am OTD
 User Gallery
Registered: 08/29/12
Posts: 10,355
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: silversoul7]
    #26407571 - 12/30/19 10:26 AM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Quote:

silversoul7 said:
This is a forum for discussing and debating politics, not for personal attacks.  If you want to flame people, go to OTD.




I resent this... OTD has no interest in the petty squabbles of other forums.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineliving_failure
unworthy
Male


Registered: 06/13/19
Posts: 352
Loc: spain, madrid
Last seen: 2 months, 19 hours
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Brian Jones]
    #26407576 - 12/30/19 10:29 AM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Quote:

Brian Jones said:
Quote:

living_failure said:
I totally lost the other thread, like totally, and i marked up the other one waiting for the discussion to be linked.


Not everybody is good as debating or have time for it i guess.

I am used to lurk a lot, and it is sad to see most internet forum discussion die because well, no discussion presented anymore just circlejerk.
I see your neccesity of getting rid of the "enemies" because of ethical implications of your point of view. But i think everyone, even you, would benefit if the discussions are being made.
Quote:

Brian Jones said:
There is no defense to antisemetism.
But I still take this forum for exactly what I think it is, an internet drug site. I don't think it's important except as out pastime. Nobody is paying any attention to us except us.

You are an extremally high quality poster, and I hope you are also making your arguments somewhere else where it might make a difference. But I haven't seen anything on the internet except back and forth ranting.





There is a difference between pure antisemitism /pol/ style and what qman was trying to prove. I think it fell more into "conspiracy" than antisemitism




I don't know what you mean by my necessity of getting rid of the enemies because of ethical implications of my point of view. I think I have been very clear that the only people I want to get rid of are low postcount trolls who have shown no redeeming values in every one of their posts. Thankfully they have been dropping like flies. I don't know it it's Enlil's return or some other mod, but somebody has been on the ball.

Beyond that I said what I really think. I honestly don't think anything that goes on here is very important. If someone spent 8 hours trying to register voters it would be more valuable than a year spent posting here. 

I'll leave it to idealistic people to be idealistic. It's not in my nature. I just want to see something happen that will knock that smug look off the faces of Republicans. I do like to argue, but it's probably just a personal problem.





the first part was for shiva, somehow the quote fell into somekind of cybernetic black hole, or i just forgot to click on quote or something.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBigbadwooof
Trump's Bone Spurs
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 10,416
Last seen: 17 days, 5 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Brian Jones]
    #26407620 - 12/30/19 11:06 AM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Quote:

Brian Jones said:
The term skinheads gets generalized to mean one variant of white supremacists, but many are left wing anti-facists. It's just a (no hair) hairstyle which includes people of many political views.




Did you just say that there are many anti-fascist, white supremecist leftists?

I haven't heard of these, go on, sir.

I will say that, even if this is the case, the fascist, right wing, authoritarian skinhead varient is far more likely to pose a threat to life and limb of those who disagree with them, or look different than them. This has been the case in the past, and it appears to be the case today.


--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"Real change never happens from the top down, but from the bottom up. The American Revolution, Civil Rights movement, Women's Suffage, etc' - Bernie Sanders
Every one of you should see this video.
"Not to be a dick but we grow felonies and are adults here. And that's the real answer!" - Trusted Cultivator


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleRevok
I Am OTD
 User Gallery
Registered: 08/29/12
Posts: 10,355
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Bigbadwooof]
    #26407627 - 12/30/19 11:10 AM (6 months, 11 days ago)

When I was younger there was a group called SHARP WHO espoused an inclusive platform.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 23,230
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 2 hours, 54 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom] * 1
    #26407628 - 12/30/19 11:11 AM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
I myself probably became more educated about conservative viewpoints as a result of my discussions with them here.



I believe you are conflating conservatism with racism. Unless you consider racism to be a necessary aspect of conservatism, then conservative views have not been censured on this website.



Maybe I am confusing the two, as I think it's uncommon to see liberals making racist comments.

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

Enlil said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Is providing a platform to racists the only way to understand the prevalence of racist beliefs? Could providing such a platform have any associated negative effects on a community too?



Is denying the platform going to reduce the prevalence of racist ideals?



I have the same question.  In fact, I would guess that telling people it's not ok to express a possibly racist opinion only makes them more racist.



You have my answer above but to be honest I think it's poor form to not answer the questions I posed to you first before asking your own - this is a discussion, not an interrogation.



Ok, to answer your first question, this isn't the only way to understand racist beliefs, but a political discussion board seems like one of the more logical forums to have such discussions.  Could providing such a platform have negative effects?  Sure, but to me that largely depends on the posters themselves.  I'm perfectly fine with people expressing their view that they prefer to live among others of the same race.  I'm not ok with people saying (for example) "I don't care for your opinion because you're just a (insert hated race here)!"

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Furthermore, are you actually making the argument that calling out racism makes people more racist? I hope this is different from the old alt-right rallying cry of "being called racist made me racist".



It's different.  I am not saying calling out racism makes people racist.  I'm saying calling out racism could make racist people dig in their heels and become even more racist.

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Remember that deplatforming isn't about getting racists to suppress their views - it's about preventing their access to the audience and/or credibility that such a platform offers. I'm not concerned about pissing off existing racists - I'm concerned with limiting the ability for existing racists to recruit new ones and in this aspect deplatforming is effective.



That sounds like logic for not allowing jailed drug offenders and convicted felons to vote - their vote might help make drugs legal, and we don't want that, right?

I think a political discussion forum is one of the places it should be ok to allow racists to express their views.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBigbadwooof
Trump's Bone Spurs
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 10,416
Last seen: 17 days, 5 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: SirTripAlot] * 2
    #26407635 - 12/30/19 11:15 AM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Quote:

SirTripAlot said:
Why do you want to deplatform racist speech? It can be easily identified as a logical fallacy.




I don't support deplatforming, but I do see some merit in doing so. The fact of the matter is, racist/white supremecist/extremist fringe organizations target unreasonable, disgruntled, irrational, angry, unintelligent individuals, and radicalize them.

While most of us have the ability to process ideas through a filter of rationality, and apply what we know about logical fallacies, etc, many do not share that luxury, and are easily swept away by charismatic charlatans with confident sounding messages, and simple solutions to all of their problems. Unification via the identification of a common enemy has always been a very potent force.

It only takes a small number of these fools to end a lot of lives.

The reason I don't support deplatforming, is because stifling speech is a slippery slope...

Quote:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.




Quite ironic to be using this poem to defend the right of skinheads to a platform, but it's still applicable! lmao


--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"Real change never happens from the top down, but from the bottom up. The American Revolution, Civil Rights movement, Women's Suffage, etc' - Bernie Sanders
Every one of you should see this video.
"Not to be a dick but we grow felonies and are adults here. And that's the real answer!" - Trusted Cultivator


Edited by Bigbadwooof (12/30/19 11:23 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 11,521
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 1 hour, 42 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: SirTripAlot] * 1
    #26407698 - 12/30/19 12:19 PM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Quote:

SirTripAlot said:
Does this thought apply only to social media? How about when the skinheads assemble in public? Taking away a public space  would be deplatforming.



Exactly, and the situation you describe is pretty much where modern day antifascism got its start. In the mid-70s UK, fascist politics were grafted onto what was originally an apolitical skinhead subculture. We call them boneheads.

When boneheads would gather in public space, they would pass out neo-nazi pamphlets and recruit new members - they would also violently attack minorities and antifascists who strolled into these zones. The violence reached an intensity where people were being killed, but a modern day antifascist movement was born out of the chaos.

The neo-nazi skinhead movement travelled in a wave to mainland Europe by the early 1980s and North America a few years later - spawning antifascist or anti-racist movements in response every time.

If you are interested I highly recommend this documentary which focuses on Paris in the 1980s and how local youth responded to growing neo-nazi violence: https://libcom.org/library/antifa-chasseurs-de-skins


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 11,521
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 1 hour, 42 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: living_failure]
    #26407718 - 12/30/19 12:31 PM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Quote:

living_failure said:
I totally lost the other thread, like totally, and i marked up the other one waiting for the discussion to be linked.


Not everybody is good as debating or have time for it i guess.

I am used to lurk a lot, and it is sad to see most internet forum discussion die because well, no discussion presented anymore just circlejerk.
I see your neccesity of getting rid of the "enemies" because of ethical implications of your point of view. But i think everyone, even you, would benefit if the discussions are being made.



But what if no discussion is being attempted? I'll never be one to avoid serious discussions on difficult issues - but only if it's actually a discussion.

What if all they do is spam non sequitors and quotes from their preferred racist publications? Should we dedicate our time debunking the same racist ideals over and over again at the expense of more constructive discussions? Should we just ignore them and let the litter pile up without correcting it? Or do we go deplatforming?


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBrian Jones
Club 27
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 7,119
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 6 hours, 41 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Bigbadwooof] * 1
    #26407720 - 12/30/19 12:32 PM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Quote:

Bigbadwooof said:
Quote:

Brian Jones said:
The term skinheads gets generalized to mean one variant of white supremacists, but many are left wing anti-fascists. It's just a (no hair) hairstyle which includes people of many political views.




Did you just say that there are many anti-fascist, white supremecist leftists?

I haven't heard of these, go on, sir.

I will say that, even if this is the case, the fascist, right wing, authoritarian skinhead varient is far more likely to pose a threat to life and limb of those who disagree with them, or look different than them. This has been the case in the past, and it appears to be the case today.




I'm not sure if I didn't punctuate correctly or you misunderstood. I'm saying many skinheads are leftwing anti-fascists. In music culture I'm thinking of fans of Dead Kennedys' "Fuck Off Nazi Punk" and Rock Against Racism.


--------------------
"The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body"    John Lennon

I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBigbadwooof
Trump's Bone Spurs
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 10,416
Last seen: 17 days, 5 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Brian Jones]
    #26407734 - 12/30/19 12:41 PM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Quote:

Brian Jones said:
I'm not sure if I didn't punctuate correctly or you misunderstood. I'm saying many skinheads are leftwing anti-fascists. In music culture I'm thinking of fans of Dead Kennedys' "Fuck Off Nazi Punk" and Rock Against Racism.




Ahh! I got you. I think my misunderstanding was actually an example of what you were trying to say lol


--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"Real change never happens from the top down, but from the bottom up. The American Revolution, Civil Rights movement, Women's Suffage, etc' - Bernie Sanders
Every one of you should see this video.
"Not to be a dick but we grow felonies and are adults here. And that's the real answer!" - Trusted Cultivator


Edited by Bigbadwooof (12/30/19 12:42 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 11,521
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 1 hour, 42 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Bigbadwooof]
    #26407736 - 12/30/19 12:44 PM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Quote:

Bigbadwooof said:
Quote:

Brian Jones said:
The term skinheads gets generalized to mean one variant of white supremacists, but many are left wing anti-facists. It's just a (no hair) hairstyle which includes people of many political views.




Did you just say that there are many anti-fascist, white supremecist leftists?

I haven't heard of these, go on, sir.

I will say that, even if this is the case, the fascist, right wing, authoritarian skinhead varient is far more likely to pose a threat to life and limb of those who disagree with them, or look different than them. This has been the case in the past, and it appears to be the case today.



Skinheads were traditionally an apolitical working class subculture. Nowadays this group is referred to as trad skins.

Then a wave of neo-nazism began to infest skinhead subculture in the 1970s. We call them boneheads.

In response, antifascist, anti-racist, and left-wing politics took a forefront in some skinhead groups giving rise to redskins - some well known groups are SHARPs (skinheads against racial prejudice), RASH (red and anarchist skinheads) and AFA (antifascist action).

Tradskins, redskins, and boneheads. Next time I'll break down the subtleties between hobo, tramp, and bum.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBigbadwooof
Trump's Bone Spurs
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 10,416
Last seen: 17 days, 5 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom] * 1
    #26407737 - 12/30/19 12:45 PM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

living_failure said:
I totally lost the other thread, like totally, and i marked up the other one waiting for the discussion to be linked.


Not everybody is good as debating or have time for it i guess.

I am used to lurk a lot, and it is sad to see most internet forum discussion die because well, no discussion presented anymore just circlejerk.
I see your neccesity of getting rid of the "enemies" because of ethical implications of your point of view. But i think everyone, even you, would benefit if the discussions are being made.



But what if no discussion is being attempted? I'll never be one to avoid serious discussions on difficult issues - but only if it's actually a discussion.

What if all they do is spam non sequitors and quotes from their preferred racist publications? Should we dedicate our time debunking the same racist ideals over and over again at the expense of more constructive discussions? Should we just ignore them and let the litter pile up without correcting it? Or do we go deplatforming?




You make some good points. At the end of the day, I don't want people deplatformed, because I don't want to give google, facebook, or any other multinational fascist corporate piece of shit company deplateforming power. They always start off doing these things for the right reasons.

If someone is inciting violence, I believe that this falls in the realm of unprotected speech. Let the justice system handle that.


--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"Real change never happens from the top down, but from the bottom up. The American Revolution, Civil Rights movement, Women's Suffage, etc' - Bernie Sanders
Every one of you should see this video.
"Not to be a dick but we grow felonies and are adults here. And that's the real answer!" - Trusted Cultivator


Edited by Bigbadwooof (12/30/19 12:46 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineliving_failure
unworthy
Male


Registered: 06/13/19
Posts: 352
Loc: spain, madrid
Last seen: 2 months, 19 hours
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom] * 2
    #26407756 - 12/30/19 12:58 PM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Quote:

Bigbadwooof said:
Quote:

Brian Jones said:
The term skinheads gets generalized to mean one variant of white supremacists, but many are left wing anti-facists. It's just a (no hair) hairstyle which includes people of many political views.




Did you just say that there are many anti-fascist, white supremecist leftists?

I haven't heard of these, go on, sir.

I will say that, even if this is the case, the fascist, right wing, authoritarian skinhead varient is far more likely to pose a threat to life and limb of those who disagree with them, or look different than them. This has been the case in the past, and it appears to be the case today.




That is not my experience, i have more problems with the "red" ones. But That is my experience and i know it is not the most common thing.
It is been a lot of years without an explosion of violence like the one i lived 10 years ago, maybe there was something going on in my city i dont know, but far as i know it even ended with people being killed in the underground.
But i love my slayer tshirt, so fuck em.
(Take into account, that since the war, and the dictatorship after that, we have a different extreme left-right hate than the skinhead-antifa you people talk. Funnily enough, with the years, the tv and the new generations, new ultras of both hands look more and more like in all europe).

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

living_failure said:
I totally lost the other thread, like totally, and i marked up the other one waiting for the discussion to be linked.


Not everybody is good as debating or have time for it i guess.

I am used to lurk a lot, and it is sad to see most internet forum discussion die because well, no discussion presented anymore just circlejerk.
I see your neccesity of getting rid of the "enemies" because of ethical implications of your point of view. But i think everyone, even you, would benefit if the discussions are being made.



But what if no discussion is being attempted? I'll never be one to avoid serious discussions on difficult issues - but only if it's actually a discussion.

What if all they do is spam non sequitors and quotes from their preferred racist publications? Should we dedicate our time debunking the same racist ideals over and over again at the expense of more constructive discussions? Should we just ignore them and let the litter pile up without correcting it? Or do we go deplatforming?





Well, if the quote is valid, let them make the quote and judge the quote not the person EVERYTIME. It is suprising how authoritarian you are.
We are discussing politics, not changing the world, no matter what we say here, the world will remain the same.
Now again, if they geniunally are scum, that is another matter, but the pure crazy /pol/acks remain well, in /pol/. I don't believe qman to be a bad guy, wrong? maybe, but if you think he is wrong, prove it to him, not to yourself.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleballsalsaM
Universally Loathed and Reviled
Male User Gallery


Registered: 03/11/15
Posts: 14,754
Loc: Foreign Lands
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Bigbadwooof]
    #26407767 - 12/30/19 01:07 PM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Quote:

Bigbadwooof said:
Quote:

Brian Jones said:
The term skinheads gets generalized to mean one variant of white supremacists, but many are left wing anti-facists. It's just a (no hair) hairstyle which includes people of many political views.




Did you just say that there are many anti-fascist, white supremecist leftists?

I haven't heard of these, go on, sir.

I will say that, even if this is the case, the fascist, right wing, authoritarian skinhead varient is far more likely to pose a threat to life and limb of those who disagree with them, or look different than them. This has been the case in the past, and it appears to be the case today.




He's saying that fascist, white supremecist shinheads co-opted the haircut from anti-fascist punks who in turn co-opted it from whoever shaved their heads before that

Edit: oops, i was way late to the party


--------------------
Don't click this link                                         



Edited by ballsalsa (12/30/19 01:11 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Onlineqman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 33,648
Last seen: 6 minutes, 8 seconds
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #26407774 - 12/30/19 01:11 PM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

qman said:
This is hilarious coming from a member that continuously advocates and justifies preemptive violence against innocent people that might hold a different ideology than himself.



There's nothing constructive about it unless you can provide specific examples, but I'm not going to expect those examples from someone who is controlled by their emotions instead of rational thought. :shrug:




Come on, you have been very proud of those statements in the past. Have you had a change of heart on that issue?  If so, I respect that decision.

If I recall correctly, both Fal, Enlil and others disagreed with your position on that issue in many different threads in the past.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Onlineqman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 33,648
Last seen: 6 minutes, 8 seconds
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: The Ecstatic] * 1
    #26407779 - 12/30/19 01:16 PM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Quote:

The Ecstatic said:
Quote:

qman said:
This is hilarious coming from a member that continuously advocates and justifies preemptive violence against innocent people that might hold a different ideology than himself.




Again, you don’t get to play this card when your ideology revolves around walling off the global south and condemning them to genocide to protect “your” resources.

Shiva probably has the most nuanced understanding of violence in this sub tbh




So the existing borders, national sovereignty and citizenship that every nation embraces is now equal to preemptive violence on the streets against innocent people?  :huxleyfacepalm:

I'm sorry, but having national sovereignty isn't an ideology.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Onlineqman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 33,648
Last seen: 6 minutes, 8 seconds
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: The Ecstatic] * 2
    #26407782 - 12/30/19 01:19 PM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Quote:

The Ecstatic said:
I think you need to think more about how discussions are framed, and how certain framing affects those discussions. I think the point here is that we can’t ever get to larger discussions about labor or migration because we’re always bogged down by ceding the argument to qman and posters like him, and letting him argue on the grounds that he’d like to argue on.

If we only ever discuss migration on the terms of domestic economic net result we’re missing a vast majority of the information necessary to form an opinion on the topic.




If you have something to offer on the issue, please state it. I don't recall putting handcuffs on other members when the topic of immigration comes up in a thread.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 11,521
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 1 hour, 42 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #26407783 - 12/30/19 01:19 PM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Maybe I am confusing the two, as I think it's uncommon to see liberals making racist comments.



For sure; and I wish we had more conservatives providing well constructed arguments in defence of their ideas and in criticism of my own - but I'm not gonna tolerate half-baked racism in lieu of a more serious conservative contender.


Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Ok, to answer your first question, this isn't the only way to understand racist beliefs, but a political discussion board seems like one of the more logical forums to have such discussions.  Could providing such a platform have negative effects?  Sure, but to me that largely depends on the posters themselves.  I'm perfectly fine with people expressing their view that they prefer to live among others of the same race.  I'm not ok with people saying (for example) "I don't care for your opinion because you're just a (insert hated race here)!"



For sure and the admin response to deplatforming racists seems to have been a response at the individual level. Do you think the admins decisions to permaban XUL and to give qman a strong warning misplaced? Does the community lose out by censoring XUL's racebait threads and qmans antisemitic dogwhistles?


Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
It's different.  I am not saying calling out racism makes people racist.  I'm saying calling out racism could make racist people dig in their heels and become even more racist.



This is for sure a potential but not just with racist beliefs - it's an aspect of human irrationality. The backfire effect is a name for the finding that given evidence against their beliefs, people can reject the evidence and believe even more strongly. But deplatforming isn't a method to convince those who hold racist beliefs to change their ways, it's intention is to prevent the ability for those who hold racist beliefs to easily find an audience to spread these racist ideals to.



Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Remember that deplatforming isn't about getting racists to suppress their views - it's about preventing their access to the audience and/or credibility that such a platform offers. I'm not concerned about pissing off existing racists - I'm concerned with limiting the ability for existing racists to recruit new ones and in this aspect deplatforming is effective.



That sounds like logic for not allowing jailed drug offenders and convicted felons to vote - their vote might help make drugs legal, and we don't want that, right?



Deplatforming is just a tactic. It can be applied in ideologically contradictory ways because it has no inherent ideology. As you suggest, a community not allowing harm reduction workers to speak out against the opiate crisis and drug war would be engaged in deplatforming, but the similarity stops there.

Unless you are of the belief that drug users and felons are on equal standing as fascists and racists (not a belief I hold) then the logic used to rationalize deplatforming fascists and rascists would not transfer over to drug users and felons.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSirTripAlot
Semper Fidelis
Male User Gallery


Registered: 01/11/05
Posts: 4,858
Loc: Harmless (Mostly)
Last seen: 55 minutes, 25 seconds
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom] * 2
    #26407795 - 12/30/19 01:29 PM (6 months, 11 days ago)

I respectfully disagree. (you and wolf make some good points)

The deplatforming would drive that ideology underground, creating the very scenario you are trying to prevent. (a gullible people accepting racist ideologies). It also fosters a cult like us against them allure. With that rethoric public, one can make a more informed choice on who to associate with.... I dont want to be around closet racists anymore than public ones.


--------------------
“I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.”


Edited by SirTripAlot (12/30/19 01:29 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Onlineqman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 33,648
Last seen: 6 minutes, 8 seconds
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #26407800 - 12/30/19 01:33 PM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Have you honestly forgotten every economic discussion that was derailed into qmans warnings of 'hordes of unskilled migrants'?



That led to both sides presenting evidence on whether or not unskilled labor hurts the country.  I think that was a good debate.



I'm confused because you appear to refer to a single instance, when the reality is that qmans ability to turn even the most tangentially related topics into 'hordes of unskilled migrants' became a literal meme around here.


Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Do you no longer remember every discussion on climate change that stagnated due to qmans doubts regarding the veracity of climate science?



No, I don't remember.  Qman has always agreed with climate science (to my recollection).  His arguments have mainly been about the financial costs to combat climate science.



Qman can correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the view I've seen them express lately is that, although they agree with the climate science that shows the presence of anthropogenic-led climate change, they do not agree that climate science is able to accurately predict what the resulting effects will be and because of this they suggest that inaction is currently the preferred response. As a consequence of this, discussions on this topic rarely move beyond a discussion of whether climate action is required or not, rather than any specific actions.


Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Blocked out the memories of discussions of international politics devolving into claims of antisemitic conspiracy?

Do you forget the opportunity I gave qman to provide their supposed "rational thought" regarding claims of machinations by the Jewish people and all we got was a single anecdote and some emotionally fueled drivel?

Did you forget the discussion we already had on this topic? https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/26294042



Again, I think these are important debates to have because nearly half the people in this country seem to share these views, and I think it's important to show evidence that does/doesn't back their beliefs.

Calling for someone's removal is a less effective technique than showing them why they're wrong.



Remember, qman had a clear and explicit opportunity to show the evidence backing their beliefs - no valuable discussion was had. Can you show me an example of this "important debate" on antisemitism that qman has played a critical role in here?

I never called for anyone's removal - I took both qman and XUL to task in defending their controversial views many times - writing long and detailed posts in good faith - and neither was able to form a coherent defense. This wasn't a call to silence those with controversial views - this was the community getting tired of showing them why they're wrong and wanting to move on.


Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Here's a different challenge - instead of continually asking us to reestablish the negative effect of qmans posts, why don't you submit some examples where qmans racism and antisemitism provided a beneficial effect for this community?



Again, I think having both sides show why unskilled labor hurts/does not hurt the economy was a good discussion.  :shrug:



Do you think that is a fair way of portraying the situation? Qman wasn't targeted for their arguments regarding the economic merits of unskilled labour. The beliefs they were disciplined over, things like (I assume) qman's professed beliefs that white women who sleep with black men degrade themselves or that Jewish people are a monolithic group engaged in a plot to bring down the West™ are of a different nature than the strictly economic one you pose. Can you show me an example where qmans antisemitic or racist beliefs made a beneficial effect for this community?




Enough of the false narratives already, my opinion on climate change is just that, an opinion.  It doesn't stop you and others from making proposals on how to deal with the issue. Make all the proposals you want, but I will offer my opinion on it, is that OK with you?  I mean if the proposals makes logical sense, you have nothing to worry about, correct?

Our discussion on anti-Semitism revolved around if people were allowed to criticize Jews or Israel without being called anti-Semitic, correct?  That was based on our opinion of the situation. How is that a harmful discussion. You do realize many Jewish people themselves think it's a real issue?

"qmans anti-Semitic or racist beliefs"

You see, here's you problem. That's your OPINION, it doesn't mean it's true. Everyone is called racist today, the word has no true meaning at this point.  People use the term racism every time someone disagrees with their opinion an a social issue, don't become that type of person.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 11,521
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 1 hour, 42 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: living_failure]
    #26407805 - 12/30/19 01:38 PM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Quote:

living_failure said:
Well, if the quote is valid, let them make the quote and judge the quote not the person EVERYTIME. It is suprising how authoritarian you are.
We are discussing politics, not changing the world, no matter what we say here, the world will remain the same.
Now again, if they geniunally are scum, that is another matter, but the pure crazy /pol/acks remain well, in /pol/. I don't believe qman to be a bad guy, wrong? maybe, but if you think he is wrong, prove it to him, not to yourself.



Ideally discussions of politics translate into real life changes, so I see no reason to put my ethics on pause when participating in discussions here.

I am highly intolerant of intolerant belief systems like racism and fascism because tolerating their presence leads to an erosion of societal tolerance. Paradoxical but true. In the same way, letting an unqualified pacifism prevent one from stopping a rape allows for more violence than physically intervening by any means necessary would.

I don't know enough about who qman is to comment on their person, but you can be sure I comment on their posts. As you can see by my attempt to foster a formal discussion with them, it's hard to prove anything when they can't even form their beliefs into a cohesive argument - preferring to instead pepper the forum with unsubstantiated beliefs. Better political discussions will be had without returning to questions of eugenics, antisemitism, and the like time and time again.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Onlineqman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 33,648
Last seen: 6 minutes, 8 seconds
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom] * 1
    #26407810 - 12/30/19 01:42 PM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

The Ecstatic said:
I think you need to think more about how discussions are framed, and how certain framing affects those discussions. I think the point here is that we can’t ever get to larger discussions about labor or migration because we’re always bogged down by ceding the argument to qman and posters like him, and letting him argue on the grounds that he’d like to argue on.

If we only ever discuss migration on the terms of domestic economic net result we’re missing a vast majority of the information necessary to form an opinion on the topic.



This is definitely an important aspect to consider. Constantly arguing against the lowest common denominator position doesn't ever allow for more nuanced discussions to develop. Imagine is every discussion of evolutionary science had to first argue for the validity of the basic principles of biology and evolution.

Not all points of view have merit - not all ideas are equal. Of course we need to take care to avoid close-mindedness but the other side of that road is being so open-minded that we refuse to discriminate ideas with merit from those without merit, resulting in another situation where refusal to closely consider before passing judgement means we lose out on valuable insight. We have critical faculties for a reason.

I'm still curious for Falcon91Wolvrn03 to provide some clear examples of valuable discussion qman brings to this website, because I have a strong belief that there will be little (if any) crossover with the type of discussion qman was disciplined over.




How sad, someone disagrees with you and now that person doesn't bring valuable discussion to the website.

Yeah. pages of Antifa threads really improve things around here. Endorsing a bunch of social misfits destroying property and attacking innocent people on the streets is what this community wants and needs. 

You really don't examine yourself very often, do you?  What you push and promote on this site is very radical political movements. Movements that aren't respect by the vast majority of the general population.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 11,521
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 1 hour, 42 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: qman] * 3
    #26407815 - 12/30/19 01:44 PM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Quote:

qman said:
"qmans anti-Semitic or racist beliefs"

You see, here's you problem. That's your OPINION, it doesn't mean it's true. Everyone is called racist today, the word has no true meaning at this point.  People use the term racism every time someone disagrees with their opinion an a social issue, don't become that type of person.



https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/16240745#16240745
Quote:

qman said:
Most white men that see a white female with a black male would never want anything to do with this girl, she is trash in their minds.

There is not rational reason why a attractive white girl needs to be with a black male, for the most part it's a rebellious act, with very little meaning behind it.

A white woman can really destroy their reputation in a community with this type of behavior, and that is the saddest part of the situation.




--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 23,230
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 2 hours, 54 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #26407816 - 12/30/19 01:44 PM (6 months, 11 days ago)

I generally agree with your last post to me, and I see your points, but want to clarify one thing:

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Unless you are of the belief that drug users and felons are on equal standing as fascists and racists (not a belief I hold) then the logic used to rationalize deplatforming fascists and rascists would not transfer over to drug users and felons.



I don't hold them on equal standing, but I do believe they should be given an equal opportunity to voice their opinions on a political discussion board.

I think we can agree there's some people who are too racist to have a serious discussion with, but I'm generally ok with qman's approach.  Sure, we have some serious disagreements, but I think he's better than XUL.

And I didn't even find XUL that bad, but what irritated me with him is that he started a thread asking for statistical evidence of white privilege, and when it was shown that people are clearly discriminated against based on black sounding first names, he still dismissed it.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Onlineqman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 33,648
Last seen: 6 minutes, 8 seconds
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Brian Jones]
    #26407817 - 12/30/19 01:46 PM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Quote:

Brian Jones said:
There is no defense to antisemetism.
But I still take this forum for exactly what I think it is, an internet drug site. I don't think it's important except as out pastime. Nobody is paying any attention to us except us.

You are an extremally high quality poster, and I hope you are also making your arguments somewhere else where it might make a difference. But I haven't seen anything on the internet except back and forth ranting.




The discussion had nothing to do with promoting antisemitism, it had to do with IF people can discuss wrong doings by Jewish people or Israel without being labeled anti-Semitic.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Onlineqman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 33,648
Last seen: 6 minutes, 8 seconds
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: The Ecstatic] * 2
    #26407821 - 12/30/19 01:50 PM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Quote:

The Ecstatic said:
Ask Richard Spencer or Milo Yiannopolous




The court of opinion always wins at the end of the day. Shitty ideas and ideologies fall apart, why don't you have any faith in this very basic premise?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineliving_failure
unworthy
Male


Registered: 06/13/19
Posts: 352
Loc: spain, madrid
Last seen: 2 months, 19 hours
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom] * 3
    #26407834 - 12/30/19 01:56 PM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

living_failure said:
Well, if the quote is valid, let them make the quote and judge the quote not the person EVERYTIME. It is suprising how authoritarian you are.
We are discussing politics, not changing the world, no matter what we say here, the world will remain the same.
Now again, if they geniunally are scum, that is another matter, but the pure crazy /pol/acks remain well, in /pol/. I don't believe qman to be a bad guy, wrong? maybe, but if you think he is wrong, prove it to him, not to yourself.



Ideally discussions of politics translate into real life changes, so I see no reason to put my ethics on pause when participating in discussions here.

I am highly intolerant of intolerant belief systems like racism and fascism because tolerating their presence leads to an erosion of societal tolerance. Paradoxical but true. In the same way, letting an unqualified pacifism prevent one from stopping a rape allows for more violence than physically intervening by any means necessary would.

I don't know enough about who qman is to comment on their person, but you can be sure I comment on their posts. As you can see by my attempt to foster a formal discussion with them, it's hard to prove anything when they can't even form their beliefs into a cohesive argument - preferring to instead pepper the forum with unsubstantiated beliefs. Better political discussions will be had without returning to questions of eugenics, antisemitism, and the like time and time again.





To be honest, i think you just have the superpower to label anybody you disagrees with as "intolerant" "racist" "fascist" or whatever, allowing you to be intolerant yourself. Well, you are just plain intolerant.

You actually called him antisemitic multiple times. So you, you take him personally, and talk about his as a person (in this case as a person poster).
You label him an xul multiple times (not that the label of xul was incorrect, just telling you that you are judging them, even if you judge the words too).

Over and over, you position yourself as holder of the truth. Since there was no formal discussion (even then, winning an argument doesn't make you hold the truth or the opposite) there was no way to prove them wrong or prove you right.
You can already came back from the heavens of the truth and try to make and adult conversation with other people maybe you can even try to take understand their point of view.

But since you are the holder of the truth, the authorithy, judging who is antisemitic, fascist, racist or whatever and even saying that everybody would benefit for people like qman leaving/getting banned...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineliving_failure
unworthy
Male


Registered: 06/13/19
Posts: 352
Loc: spain, madrid
Last seen: 2 months, 19 hours
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom] * 3
    #26407837 - 12/30/19 02:03 PM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

qman said:
"qmans anti-Semitic or racist beliefs"

You see, here's you problem. That's your OPINION, it doesn't mean it's true. Everyone is called racist today, the word has no true meaning at this point.  People use the term racism every time someone disagrees with their opinion an a social issue, don't become that type of person.



https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/16240745#16240745
Quote:

qman said:
Most white men that see a white female with a black male would never want anything to do with this girl, she is trash in their minds.

There is not rational reason why a attractive white girl needs to be with a black male, for the most part it's a rebellious act, with very little meaning behind it.

A white woman can really destroy their reputation in a community with this type of behavior, and that is the saddest part of the situation.








That wasn't racist, he was addressing the tribalistic way of most of white communities of thought... Not that other races or culture are not tribal, just that most communities are like that.



Just and example of the world desired by shiva, a world without discussion, just totally and pure political correctness:
https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/22915704


Looks like Goebbels level of propaganda and crazy thought to be honest.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBigbadwooof
Trump's Bone Spurs
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 10,416
Last seen: 17 days, 5 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom] * 1
    #26407855 - 12/30/19 02:18 PM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

qman said:
"qmans anti-Semitic or racist beliefs"

You see, here's you problem. That's your OPINION, it doesn't mean it's true. Everyone is called racist today, the word has no true meaning at this point.  People use the term racism every time someone disagrees with their opinion an a social issue, don't become that type of person.



https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/16240745#16240745
Quote:

qman said:
Most white men that see a white female with a black male would never want anything to do with this girl, she is trash in their minds.

There is not rational reason why a attractive white girl needs to be with a black male, for the most part it's a rebellious act, with very little meaning behind it.

A white woman can really destroy their reputation in a community with this type of behavior, and that is the saddest part of the situation.







Holy shit... Did you post that shit, qman?

My xgf is half black lol... I tore that pussy UP!


--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"Real change never happens from the top down, but from the bottom up. The American Revolution, Civil Rights movement, Women's Suffage, etc' - Bernie Sanders
Every one of you should see this video.
"Not to be a dick but we grow felonies and are adults here. And that's the real answer!" - Trusted Cultivator


Edited by Bigbadwooof (12/30/19 02:18 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Onlineqman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 33,648
Last seen: 6 minutes, 8 seconds
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: living_failure] * 1
    #26407862 - 12/30/19 02:22 PM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Quote:

living_failure said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

qman said:
"qmans anti-Semitic or racist beliefs"

You see, here's you problem. That's your OPINION, it doesn't mean it's true. Everyone is called racist today, the word has no true meaning at this point.  People use the term racism every time someone disagrees with their opinion an a social issue, don't become that type of person.



https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/16240745#16240745
Quote:

qman said:
Most white men that see a white female with a black male would never want anything to do with this girl, she is trash in their minds.

There is not rational reason why a attractive white girl needs to be with a black male, for the most part it's a rebellious act, with very little meaning behind it.

A white woman can really destroy their reputation in a community with this type of behavior, and that is the saddest part of the situation.








That wasn't racist, he was addressing the tribalistic way of most of white communities of thought... Not that other races or culture are not tribal, just that most communities are like that.



Just and example of the world desired by shiva, a world without discussion, just totally and pure political correctness:
https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/22915704


Looks like Goebbels level of propaganda and crazy thought to be honest.




:kaneclap:

He's starting to realize he's all alone on this one. He thinks his judgment and opinions are truth, that's the highest level of misguided arrogance.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Onlineqman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 33,648
Last seen: 6 minutes, 8 seconds
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Bigbadwooof]
    #26407866 - 12/30/19 02:24 PM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Quote:

Bigbadwooof said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

qman said:
"qmans anti-Semitic or racist beliefs"

You see, here's you problem. That's your OPINION, it doesn't mean it's true. Everyone is called racist today, the word has no true meaning at this point.  People use the term racism every time someone disagrees with their opinion an a social issue, don't become that type of person.



https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/16240745#16240745
Quote:

qman said:
Most white men that see a white female with a black male would never want anything to do with this girl, she is trash in their minds.

There is not rational reason why a attractive white girl needs to be with a black male, for the most part it's a rebellious act, with very little meaning behind it.

A white woman can really destroy their reputation in a community with this type of behavior, and that is the saddest part of the situation.







Holy shit... Did you post that shit, qman?

My xgf is half black lol... I tore that pussy UP!




7.5 years ago!!!  :cookiemonster:


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBigbadwooof
Trump's Bone Spurs
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 10,416
Last seen: 17 days, 5 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: living_failure] * 2
    #26407869 - 12/30/19 02:25 PM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Quote:

living_failure said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

qman said:
"qmans anti-Semitic or racist beliefs"

You see, here's you problem. That's your OPINION, it doesn't mean it's true. Everyone is called racist today, the word has no true meaning at this point.  People use the term racism every time someone disagrees with their opinion an a social issue, don't become that type of person.



https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/16240745#16240745
Quote:

qman said:
Most white men that see a white female with a black male would never want anything to do with this girl, she is trash in their minds.

There is not rational reason why a attractive white girl needs to be with a black male, for the most part it's a rebellious act, with very little meaning behind it.

A white woman can really destroy their reputation in a community with this type of behavior, and that is the saddest part of the situation.








That wasn't racist, he was addressing the tribalistic way of most of white communities of thought... Not that other races or culture are not tribal, just that most communities are like that.



Just and example of the world desired by shiva, a world without discussion, just totally and pure political correctness:
https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/22915704


Looks like Goebbels level of propaganda and crazy thought to be honest.




Your argument may hold water, but for the emboldened/italicized gem, right smack dab in the middle of Qman's post.

Quote:

There is not rational reason why a attractive white girl needs to be with a black male, for the most part it's a rebellious act, with very little meaning behind it.




This is a personal opinion, not an observation Qman perceives to be illustrative of reality. There are rational reasons why an attractive white girl wants/needs to be with a black man... SHE'S ATTRACTED TO HIM! lmao!! They have chemistry... Whatever machinations of loooove you wish to apply here. She likes his big black cock... You know, those things.


--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"Real change never happens from the top down, but from the bottom up. The American Revolution, Civil Rights movement, Women's Suffage, etc' - Bernie Sanders
Every one of you should see this video.
"Not to be a dick but we grow felonies and are adults here. And that's the real answer!" - Trusted Cultivator


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBigbadwooof
Trump's Bone Spurs
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 10,416
Last seen: 17 days, 5 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: qman]
    #26407877 - 12/30/19 02:27 PM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Quote:

qman said:
7.5 years ago!!!  :cookiemonster:




It would appear you still stand behind it... might as well be today:


Quote:

qman said:
Quote:

living_failure said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

qman said:
"qmans anti-Semitic or racist beliefs"

You see, here's you problem. That's your OPINION, it doesn't mean it's true. Everyone is called racist today, the word has no true meaning at this point.  People use the term racism every time someone disagrees with their opinion an a social issue, don't become that type of person.



https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/16240745#16240745
Quote:

qman said:
Most white men that see a white female with a black male would never want anything to do with this girl, she is trash in their minds.

There is not rational reason why a attractive white girl needs to be with a black male, for the most part it's a rebellious act, with very little meaning behind it.

A white woman can really destroy their reputation in a community with this type of behavior, and that is the saddest part of the situation.








That wasn't racist, he was addressing the tribalistic way of most of white communities of thought... Not that other races or culture are not tribal, just that most communities are like that.



Just and example of the world desired by shiva, a world without discussion, just totally and pure political correctness:
https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/22915704


Looks like Goebbels level of propaganda and crazy thought to be honest.




:kaneclap:

He's starting to realize he's all alone on this one. He thinks his judgment and opinions are truth, that's the highest level of misguided arrogance.




--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"Real change never happens from the top down, but from the bottom up. The American Revolution, Civil Rights movement, Women's Suffage, etc' - Bernie Sanders
Every one of you should see this video.
"Not to be a dick but we grow felonies and are adults here. And that's the real answer!" - Trusted Cultivator


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineliving_failure
unworthy
Male


Registered: 06/13/19
Posts: 352
Loc: spain, madrid
Last seen: 2 months, 19 hours
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Bigbadwooof] * 2
    #26407894 - 12/30/19 02:35 PM (6 months, 11 days ago)

I think that his point is that there were easier or less dangerous ways of satisfy sexual needs without risking it, taking into account the vision of blacks of a close minded classic small white community not his own i guess. I least that is how i understand what he said.


EDIT:

https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/16242371#16242371

In fact he explained himself in the same thread.



Edited by living_failure (12/30/19 02:37 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBigbadwooof
Trump's Bone Spurs
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 10,416
Last seen: 17 days, 5 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: living_failure] * 2
    #26407907 - 12/30/19 02:44 PM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Quote:

living_failure said:
I think that his point is that there were easier or less dangerous ways of satisfy sexual needs without risking it, taking into account the vision of blacks of a close minded classic small white community not his own i guess. I least that is how i understand what he said.


EDIT:

https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/16242371#16242371

In fact he explained himself in the same thread.






Yes, but love is more than just a sexual need. What if she was in love with the black man? It's been known to happen, you know.

What if she wanted to be an example for future generations, and help create a better society?

I know that you will go to great lengths to excuse this classless, shameful post, but you are very much, objectively, in the wrong.


--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"Real change never happens from the top down, but from the bottom up. The American Revolution, Civil Rights movement, Women's Suffage, etc' - Bernie Sanders
Every one of you should see this video.
"Not to be a dick but we grow felonies and are adults here. And that's the real answer!" - Trusted Cultivator


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Onlineqman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 33,648
Last seen: 6 minutes, 8 seconds
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: living_failure]
    #26407921 - 12/30/19 02:54 PM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Quote:

living_failure said:
I think that his point is that there were easier or less dangerous ways of satisfy sexual needs without risking it, taking into account the vision of blacks of a close minded classic small white community not his own i guess. I least that is how i understand what he said.


EDIT:

https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/16242371#16242371

In fact he explained himself in the same thread.






Exactly, I was explaining the social phenomenon, not necessarily endorsing it.

Unfortunately, people who are trigger happy with the "racism" labels tend to conflate the issue.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineliving_failure
unworthy
Male


Registered: 06/13/19
Posts: 352
Loc: spain, madrid
Last seen: 2 months, 19 hours
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Bigbadwooof] * 3
    #26407957 - 12/30/19 03:08 PM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Quote:

Bigbadwooof said:
Quote:

living_failure said:
I think that his point is that there were easier or less dangerous ways of satisfy sexual needs without risking it, taking into account the vision of blacks of a close minded classic small white community not his own i guess. I least that is how i understand what he said.


EDIT:

https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/16242371#16242371

In fact he explained himself in the same thread.






Yes, but love is more than just a sexual need. What if she was in love with the black man? It's been known to happen, you know.

What if she wanted to be an example for future generations, and help create a better society?

I know that you will go to great lengths to excuse this classless, shameful post, but you are very much, objectively, in the wrong.





Then it will be the opinion of the community she is in and not an actual ethical statement, and as that, the troubles of falling in love with the black guy will still be there. There are countless books talking about that, impossible or troublesome love.

And even in the hypothetical case of him being racist with that comment, it happened more than 7 years ago.

If you think racist people cannot change, what do you plan to do? remove them of all liberties and rights before being judged or what?


EDIT: Just in case ill say it again, i don't think qman to be a racist or  that post to be racist, even if provocative.


Edited by living_failure (12/30/19 03:09 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBigbadwooof
Trump's Bone Spurs
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 10,416
Last seen: 17 days, 5 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Bigbadwooof] * 1
    #26408071 - 12/30/19 04:15 PM (6 months, 11 days ago)

We're going to walk through this more slowly, so I can get my point across.

Now, Qman spit this garbage line:

Quote:

There is not rational reason why a attractive white girl needs to be with a black male, for the most part it's a rebellious act, with very little meaning behind it.




Let's break it down:

1) "There is not rational reason why a attractive white girl needs to be with a black male" (I preserved the 'literate-ness' of the original masterpiece)

Now, let's observe this with a critical eye, for a moment. Is there really 'not rational reason why a attractive white girl be wit black man'?

I can think of many rational reasons, attraction, love, sexual gratification. Shit, I'll throw in sports fan, and if we're going to mention sports, maybe he's a successful athlete and a better provider, or has the potential to be. Maybe he's one of her colleagues in a specialized field, and therefore one of the few people she relates to.

2) For the most part, it's a rebellious act - Rebelling against who? Racists? In my book, that alone might be good reason to be with a black man.

3) '... with very little meaning behind it'. - How in the fuck can you pretend to know the mind of attractive white girls, Qman? Maybe you should change your name to Don Juan.


--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"Real change never happens from the top down, but from the bottom up. The American Revolution, Civil Rights movement, Women's Suffage, etc' - Bernie Sanders
Every one of you should see this video.
"Not to be a dick but we grow felonies and are adults here. And that's the real answer!" - Trusted Cultivator


Edited by Bigbadwooof (12/30/19 04:16 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 23,230
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 2 hours, 54 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Bigbadwooof] * 2
    #26408077 - 12/30/19 04:19 PM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Look, I've said many times that I believe qman is racist, whether he agrees with that or not (a quick search shows I may have said it 98 times - here's evidence).

I'm just saying unless he makes meaningful discussion difficult, I'm ok with that.


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBigbadwooof
Trump's Bone Spurs
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 10,416
Last seen: 17 days, 5 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: living_failure]
    #26408087 - 12/30/19 04:24 PM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Quote:

living_failure said:
Then it will be the opinion of the community she is in and not an actual ethical statement, and as that, the troubles of falling in love with the black guy will still be there. There are countless books talking about that, impossible or troublesome love.




What does the opinion of the community have to do with whether or not there is a rational reason for a white woman to be with a black man? The opinion of the community may be a factor, but it certainly isn't THE factor. What kind of shallow ass motherfucker thinks that shit? Social status is not nearly as valuable to most of us as it is to you two, apparently. Love is more important to me.

Quote:

And even in the hypothetical case of him being racist with that comment, it happened more than 7 years ago.




... And he clearly stands by his post, as evidenced by this thread. You guys can play squirrely all day, you're not fooling anyone.

Quote:

If you think racist people cannot change, what do you plan to do? remove them of all liberties and rights before being judged or what?




I think some people change, and some people don't, and a lot of racists become craftier in their posts, as they are continually shut down for saying shit like Qman's atrocious abomination of a post, that we see here.


--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"Real change never happens from the top down, but from the bottom up. The American Revolution, Civil Rights movement, Women's Suffage, etc' - Bernie Sanders
Every one of you should see this video.
"Not to be a dick but we grow felonies and are adults here. And that's the real answer!" - Trusted Cultivator


Edited by Bigbadwooof (12/30/19 04:26 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineliving_failure
unworthy
Male


Registered: 06/13/19
Posts: 352
Loc: spain, madrid
Last seen: 2 months, 19 hours
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Bigbadwooof] * 2
    #26408105 - 12/30/19 04:34 PM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Quote:

Bigbadwooof said:
We're going to walk through this more slowly, so I can get my point across.

Now, Qman spit this garbage line:

Quote:

There is not rational reason why a attractive white girl needs to be with a black male, for the most part it's a rebellious act, with very little meaning behind it.




Let's break it down:

1) "There is not rational reason why a attractive white girl needs to be with a black male" (I preserved the 'literate-ness' of the original masterpiece)

Now, let's observe this with a critical eye, for a moment. Is there really 'not rational reason why a attractive white girl be wit black man'?

I can think of many rational reasons, attraction, love, sexual gratification. Shit, I'll throw in sports fan, and if we're going to mention sports, maybe he's a successful athlete and a better provider, or has the potential to be. Maybe he's one of her colleagues in a specialized field, and therefore one of the few people she relates to.

2) For the most part, it's a rebellious act - Rebelling against who? Racists? In my book, that alone might be good reason to be with a black man.

3) '... with very little meaning behind it'. - How in the fuck can you pretend to know the mind of attractive white girls, Qman? Maybe you should change your name to Don Juan.




Again, "There is not rational reason why a attractive white girl needs to be with a black male" he said it in the basis of being ostracized or looking down or as damaged goods by the members of her community. That is something that still happens today, making it risky under a pure egoistical point of view (the woman in the context of the community).
So qman never stated if he gives a fuck or don't about that phenomena, only about the results (and he showed as emphatic). He is just stating an opinion of his observed world. Not real opinion or ethical law stated here, which is the point I've been making.


It is like, for example, i start dating a leukemia dying teenager, my friends will tell me to leave him, my family will straight tell me than i am retarded. Because those are the values of the community even if i loved the teenager.
And as a narrator i am not saying one should dump a leukemia dying teenager or that it is bad dating one. I am just saying what my community would say.

Quote:

Bigbadwooof said:
Quote:

living_failure said:
Then it will be the opinion of the community she is in and not an actual ethical statement, and as that, the troubles of falling in love with the black guy will still be there. There are countless books talking about that, impossible or troublesome love.




What does the opinion of the community have to do with whether or not there is a rational reason for a white woman to be with a black man? The opinion of the community may be a factor, but it certainly isn't THE factor. What kind of shallow ass motherfucker thinks that shit? Social status is not nearly as valuable to most of us as it is to you two, apparently. Love is more important to me.

Quote:

And even in the hypothetical case of him being racist with that comment, it happened more than 7 years ago.




... And he clearly stands by his post, as evidenced by this thread. You guys can play squirrely all day, you're not fooling anyone.

Quote:

If you think racist people cannot change, what do you plan to do? remove them of all liberties and rights before being judged or what?




I think some people change, and some people don't, and a lot of racists become craftier in their posts, as they are continually shut down for saying shit like Qman's atrocious abomination of a post, that we see here.





The community part is relevant because he is not stating either if it is correct or incorrect, good or bad, or if he does or not like it. He is just saying how the community will act (he see it as negative). And since the action will have a negative reaction in the community, he believes there is no reason other than rebellion against the community that he can think of.
And even then, it was a post made 7,5 years ago.

Have you ever read anything else in this thread that made you think of qman as racist?.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Onlineqman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 33,648
Last seen: 6 minutes, 8 seconds
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 2
    #26408114 - 12/30/19 04:39 PM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
Look, I've said many times that I believe qman is racist, whether he agrees with that or not (a quick search shows I may have said it 98 times - here's evidence).

I'm just saying unless he makes meaningful discussion difficult, I'm ok with that.




You're completely entitled to your OPINION, but a large part of that opinion is likely based on my approach to illegal immigration. For some reason, you SPECULATE that my opposition to that immigration is based on racism, instead of the economic thesis I consistently present to the argument.

I think you also choose to ignore the fact that I've stated numerous times that I BELIEVE there's no such thing as a superior or inferior race.

I will state that I'm very pleased the entire board (with one exception, maybe two) embraces the free open discussion of potentially unpopular subject matters and concepts.

I truly believe horrible ideas and concepts fail in the court of public opinion and there's nothing to be afraid of when it happens. If ideas do well in the court of public opinion, then it should be examined WHY those concepts are so accepted by so many people.

People are still wondering how or why Trump got elected in 2016, they refuse to acknowledge the fundamental reasons why people find him appealing. How did just labeling them as "deplorable" workout for the opposition?  Not so well.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBigbadwooof
Trump's Bone Spurs
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 10,416
Last seen: 17 days, 5 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: living_failure] * 1
    #26408183 - 12/30/19 05:29 PM (6 months, 11 days ago)

Quote:

living_failure said:
The community part is relevant because he is not stating either if it is correct or incorrect, good or bad, or if he does or not like it. He is just saying how the community will act (he see it as negative). And since the action will have a negative reaction in the community, he believes there is no reason other than rebellion against the community that he can think of.
And even then, it was a post made 7,5 years ago.

Have you ever read anything else in this thread that made you think of qman as racist?.




If you think you've addressed the points that I have carefully spoon fed you, you haven't. My patience has worn thin, so I will just let this thing die.

By the way, I've known Qman for a long time.

The Leukemia teenager example... well..

Just what the fuck?


--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"Real change never happens from the top down, but from the bottom up. The American Revolution, Civil Rights movement, Women's Suffage, etc' - Bernie Sanders
Every one of you should see this video.
"Not to be a dick but we grow felonies and are adults here. And that's the real answer!" - Trusted Cultivator


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineliving_failure
unworthy
Male


Registered: 06/13/19
Posts: 352
Loc: spain, madrid
Last seen: 2 months, 19 hours
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Bigbadwooof] * 3
    #26408610 - 12/30/19 11:20 PM (6 months, 10 days ago)

Quote:

Bigbadwooof said:
We're going to walk through this more slowly, so I can get my point across.

Now, Qman spit this garbage line:

Quote:

There is not rational reason why a attractive white girl needs to be with a black male, for the most part it's a rebellious act, with very little meaning behind it.




Let's break it down:

1) "There is not rational reason why a attractive white girl needs to be with a black male" (I preserved the 'literate-ness' of the original masterpiece)

Now, let's observe this with a critical eye, for a moment. Is there really 'not rational reason why a attractive white girl be wit black man'?

I can think of many rational reasons, attraction, love, sexual gratification. Shit, I'll throw in sports fan, and if we're going to mention sports, maybe he's a successful athlete and a better provider, or has the potential to be. Maybe he's one of her colleagues in a specialized field, and therefore one of the few people she relates to.

2) For the most part, it's a rebellious act - Rebelling against who? Racists? In my book, that alone might be good reason to be with a black man.

3) '... with very little meaning behind it'. - How in the fuck can you pretend to know the mind of attractive white girls, Qman? Maybe you should change your name to Don Juan.





I will then address them again...

Quote:

Now, let's observe this with a critical eye, for a moment. Is there really 'not rational reason why a attractive white girl be wit black man'?




Since the beginning i used the words risky and troublesome. Because the "not rational reason" is based on the risky spectre. When something is too risky is considered as not good even if there is no directly a implication of bad.
He considered, and stated, in the context of that quote, the small community part, so in that case, there is no rational egoistical reason for a white woman to engage with a black men in non-secret sexual intercourse because it is risky and troublesome.


I find it easy to understand because my sister used to date a black guy and we know it would be troublesome for her. So only my mother risked the relationship with her daughter to tell her to cease the relationship with him (while it was beginning).
She didn't and got mad at my mother.
In this case people of the catholic school we went to showed rejection to her,to him, and to the relationship. So literally what we were afraid to happen ended up happening.


Quote:

2) For the most part, it's a rebellious act - Rebelling against who? Racists? In my book, that alone might be good reason to be with a black man.




Against the community that might reject her if he dates the black guy.
If hypothetically dating the black guy would bring ostracization to the white girl and that the reason it's a rebellious act... Do you think everybody that loves her would want her to suffer for the rebelling against community standards?
Some people would feel proud of her, some people just will think of the best outcome for her even if it is not the most ethical one.

As you can see, for qman, being ostracized and rejected is relevant enough to make him change his behaviour and words on this forum. It is to be expected to have a similar opinion in any community rejection matter.


Quote:

3) '... with very little meaning behind it'. - How in the fuck can you pretend to know the mind of attractive white girls, Qman? Maybe you should change your name to Don Juan.




Because of how he sees small communities and ostracization of white woman having relationships with black men with just rebellious intent he infers than the only meaning is almost void. Which is actually pretty obvious if you follow the rest of his opinion.


I hope i dont miss any point this time.


Just in case, i strongly think different that qman before someone labels me as racist just by "defending" him.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBigbadwooof
Trump's Bone Spurs
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 10,416
Last seen: 17 days, 5 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: living_failure]
    #26408614 - 12/30/19 11:30 PM (6 months, 10 days ago)

Ok, but I gave a series of rationals that said white girl (your poor sister), may have had for dating a black man, therefore effectively refuting Qman's silly statement. Are you not going to address that fact? .. because it's basically my entire argument...

I might add that it is my firm view that it would be utterly irrational for a girl (your sister) not to date a black man that she was in love with, for fear of what others might think. It's frankly none of their fucking business, after all.

Quote:

living_failure said:
Because of how he sees small communities and ostracization of white woman having relationships with black men with just rebellious intent he infers than the only meaning is almost void.






This sentence needs work...


I think you pretend to know the mind of Qman a bit too much, as he does with the white girl, tbh. I'm sure folks around here can dredge up a million examples of Q saying racist shit. And while you may feel that this post is not made with racist intent, the sum of his years of posts paints a very different picture to most of the people who have been around for a while.


--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"Real change never happens from the top down, but from the bottom up. The American Revolution, Civil Rights movement, Women's Suffage, etc' - Bernie Sanders
Every one of you should see this video.
"Not to be a dick but we grow felonies and are adults here. And that's the real answer!" - Trusted Cultivator


Edited by Bigbadwooof (12/30/19 11:38 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineliving_failure
unworthy
Male


Registered: 06/13/19
Posts: 352
Loc: spain, madrid
Last seen: 2 months, 19 hours
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Bigbadwooof] * 1
    #26408627 - 12/30/19 11:52 PM (6 months, 10 days ago)

Sorry for my english.
I am smarter in spanish

The problem with love it is that it is emotional and not rational. if you choose to be with the loved one even if the community disagrees is in fact rebellious (that was his point).
It may invalidate the part of it being void of meaning, but that is more of a discussion about what is love and the importance of it.

In fact, he can even not believe in love all together for what we know


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 11,521
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 1 hour, 42 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: living_failure] * 1
    #26409049 - 12/31/19 09:49 AM (6 months, 10 days ago)

By extension this argument you are providing would also claim that, if you live in a community where slavery is accepted, and any abolitionist activity would be met with social ostracism, that there would be no rational reason to be anti-slavery "because it is risky and troublesome".

That doesn't seem like very strong logic. If something being "risky and troublesome" is sufficient to preclude any rational reason for doing something, then quite a few common human activities would have no rationale behind them either - for example, driving is riskier and more troublesome than just walking - IRRATIONAL!



Why is qman leaving you to defend their statements anyways? I want to hear their explanation.

Quote:

qman said:
Most men see a white women engaging in deviant behavior when she dates a black man



Qman, what method are you using to measure the beliefs of "most men"? What reason do these men have to consider this behaviour as deviant? Do you include yourself in the "most men" category; why or why not?


Quote:

qman said:
Are there some very respectable black men out there? Yes, of coarse there is, but that does not change the fact that it is not socially acceptable. While some people may think this attitude is stupid, I am sure it makes sense to plenty.



So you believe we should conform our behaviours and principles to whatever is socially acceptable, without taking into consideration anything else? If that approach was widely adopted, wouldn't we still be living under divine monarchies and believing that the sun revolved around the earth? Challenging these views was once considered "not socially acceptable" either.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 11,521
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 1 hour, 42 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: living_failure] * 1
    #26409070 - 12/31/19 09:59 AM (6 months, 10 days ago)

Quote:

living_failure said:
The problem with love it is that it is emotional and not rational. if you choose to be with the loved one even if the community disagrees is in fact rebellious (that was his point).



And racism is rational? Racism is built off of fear and hate; it is emotional and not rational.

Why should we listen to irrational hatred over irrational love?


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 11,521
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 1 hour, 42 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: qman]
    #26409105 - 12/31/19 10:33 AM (6 months, 10 days ago)

Quote:

qman said:
Quote:

The Ecstatic said:
Ask Richard Spencer or Milo Yiannopolous




The court of opinion always wins at the end of the day. Shitty ideas and ideologies fall apart, why don't you have any faith in this very basic premise?



Because your premise is patently unsound.

17 million killed in the nazi holocaust, 100 thousand during the Bosnian genocide, 1 million in Rwanda.

Human economic activity is directly leading to a global environmental catastrophe without any signs of stopping despite all the necessary information haven been available for decades.

Totalitarian dictatorships that ignore all basic human rights still exist going into 2020.

Sometimes shitty ideas thrive.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 11,521
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 1 hour, 42 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Falcon91Wolvrn03] * 1
    #26409147 - 12/31/19 10:57 AM (6 months, 10 days ago)

Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
I don't hold them on equal standing, but I do believe they should be given an equal opportunity to voice their opinions on a political discussion board.

I think we can agree there's some people who are too racist to have a serious discussion with, but I'm generally ok with qman's approach.  Sure, we have some serious disagreements, but I think he's better than XUL.

And I didn't even find XUL that bad, but what irritated me with him is that he started a thread asking for statistical evidence of white privilege, and when it was shown that people are clearly discriminated against based on black sounding first names, he still dismissed it.



That opportunity exists. We have at least one member here who has consistently put forth arguments in defence of fascism - actual arguments - and I do not believe they have received any warnings for their opinions. I've put forth very contentious arguments regarding the nature of anarchism, sabotage, property destruction, and violence.

My experience on this board is that no one has ever been punished for putting forth actual arguments on difficult issues. Even the occasional shitty racist opinions without any supporting argument are tolerated until the poster (like XUL) makes it clearly obvious that they are not here to actually participate in a discussion.

Would you disagree with this perception?

As for qman, if the result of their warning is that we have them putting more effort into making actual arguments and backing up their claims, and less racist non sequiturs like the quote below - GOOD.

Quote:

qman said:
What makes you think they [US jews] are sincere at all? 

Many promote self-destructive policies for the West, while simultaneously knowing that Israel will never do the same thing. It's called do what I say, not what I do.


https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/26100434#26100434


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBrian Jones
Club 27
Male User Gallery


Registered: 12/18/12
Posts: 7,119
Loc: attending Snake Church
Last seen: 6 hours, 41 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom] * 1
    #26409195 - 12/31/19 11:34 AM (6 months, 10 days ago)

Thank you for doing what I frequently think of doing but don't follow through. That is taking the time to refresh our memories on completely indefensible arguments from the right wing.


--------------------
"The Rolling Stones will break up over Brian Jones' dead body"    John Lennon

I don't want no commies in my car. No Christians either.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 11,521
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 1 hour, 42 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: living_failure] * 1
    #26409206 - 12/31/19 11:45 AM (6 months, 10 days ago)

Quote:

living_failure said:
To be honest, i think you just have the superpower to label anybody you disagrees with as "intolerant" "racist" "fascist" or whatever, allowing you to be intolerant yourself. Well, you are just plain intolerant.



How is what you are doing right now any different?

Any time I have ever given something a label, I have also supplied my reasoning behind that labelling - never has it been as simple as 'I disagree with them' - but what are your reasons for labeling me right now as "plain intolerant", other than the fact you clearly disagree with my 'paradox of intolerance' argument?

You are using claims of intolerance to shut down my argument, without actually engaging with my argument itself - at least I always engage with the argument first before passing my judgment.



Quote:

living_failure said:
You actually called him antisemitic multiple times. So you, you take him personally, and talk about his as a person (in this case as a person poster).
You label him an xul multiple times (not that the label of xul was incorrect, just telling you that you are judging them, even if you judge the words too).



Did I call qman antisemitic, or did I call their opinion/ideal/belief antisemitic? I know english isn't your first language so perhaps you don't understand the difference. If I called qman antisemitic, please show me where - I'm generally very precise in my use of language and I don't know qman personally so I am very careful to avoid making claims of that nature. You might even get me to make a retraction.



Quote:

living_failure said:
Over and over, you position yourself as holder of the truth. Since there was no formal discussion (even then, winning an argument doesn't make you hold the truth or the opposite) there was no way to prove them wrong or prove you right.
You can already came back from the heavens of the truth and try to make and adult conversation with other people maybe you can even try to take understand their point of view.



True, no formal discussion ever happened so no conclusive evidence for the topic of debate was reached - I don't believe I ever claimed our aborted debate ever proved me right on the matter.

But, qmans complete inability or refusal to put forth an argument on the matter did provide significant evidence for whether qman wished to engage in formal discussion on matters of Israel and the Jewish people, or just post vague references to antisemitic conspiracy.

That thread is still open - nothing is preventing qman from making an argument still.



Quote:

living_failure said:
But since you are the holder of the truth, the authorithy, judging who is antisemitic, fascist, racist or whatever and even saying that everybody would benefit for people like qman leaving/getting banned...



I have never claimed I am the holder of truth - any claim I have ever made on this website, I provided my reasoning and supporting evidence behind my conclusions. I don't expect people to accept my claims based on a blind authority - I expect people to accept my claims based on the supplied reasoning and evidence.

And how about you? Can you provide an example where I expected people to accept me as an authority on a subject without reason or evidence - or should I just accept you as the holder of truth in this?



Quote:

living_failure said:
Just and example of the world desired by shiva, a world without discussion, just totally and pure political correctness:
https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/22915704


Looks like Goebbels level of propaganda and crazy thought to be honest.



I really like how, years later, this thread is still brought up as conclusive evidence that I am too politically correct and want to shut down discussion of non-pc issues. If you bothered to read through the thread you would have found out I was joking and everyone was having fun - or do you honestly believe I think words like 'hamburger' and 'monday' need to be banned?

Looks to me you are the one judging a poster based on your perception of their person and not their actual words - and then using this personal judgment to condemn a discussion (or joke in the case of the linked thread).

I'm confident in my reputation as a poster both willing to participate in good faith discussions of all types and provide well thought out arguments on defence of my own beliefs.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineFalcon91Wolvrn03
Stranger
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/16/05
Posts: 23,230
Loc: California, US Flag
Last seen: 2 hours, 54 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #26409261 - 12/31/19 12:27 PM (6 months, 10 days ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
By extension this argument you are providing would also claim that, if you live in a community where slavery is accepted, and any abolitionist activity would be met with social ostracism, that there would be no rational reason to be anti-slavery "because it is risky and troublesome".



I think he said he prefers the term "risky and troublesome" to "no rational reason".  If you're an abolitionist in a Southern state, that behavior may indeed have been viewed as "risky and troublesome".

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
We have at least one member here who has consistently put forth arguments in defence of fascism - actual arguments - and I do not believe they have received any warnings for their opinions. I've put forth very contentious arguments regarding the nature of anarchism, sabotage, property destruction, and violence.

My experience on this board is that no one has ever been punished for putting forth actual arguments on difficult issues. Even the occasional shitty racist opinions without any supporting argument are tolerated until the poster (like XUL) makes it clearly obvious that they are not here to actually participate in a discussion.

Would you disagree with this perception?



I completely agree.

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
As for qman, if the result of their warning is that we have them putting more effort into making actual arguments and backing up their claims, and less racist non sequiturs like the quote below - GOOD.

Quote:

qman said:
What makes you think they [US jews] are sincere at all? 

Many promote self-destructive policies for the West, while simultaneously knowing that Israel will never do the same thing. It's called do what I say, not what I do.


https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/26100434#26100434



I agree again.  :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:


--------------------
I am in a minority on the shroomery, as I frequently defend the opposing side when they have a point about something or when my side make believes something about them.  People here get very confused by that and think it means I prefer the other side.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineliving_failure
unworthy
Male


Registered: 06/13/19
Posts: 352
Loc: spain, madrid
Last seen: 2 months, 19 hours
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom] * 2
    #26409286 - 12/31/19 12:39 PM (6 months, 10 days ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
By extension this argument you are providing would also claim that, if you live in a community where slavery is accepted, and any abolitionist activity would be met with social ostracism, that there would be no rational reason to be anti-slavery "because it is risky and troublesome".



Not the same case, egoistically speaking yes. But ethically speaking no. And as an ethic or a moral, nobody said anything if it being good or wrong, and emotionally you might feel guilty by not opposing slavery.
Not having a relationship with someone is not even remotely close to slavery

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
That doesn't seem like very strong logic. If something being "risky and troublesome" is sufficient to preclude any rational reason for doing something, then quite a few common human activities would have no rationale behind them either - for example, driving is riskier and more troublesome than just walking - IRRATIONAL!




That is absurd and a strawman, not even remotely what anybody said.
Would you drive your car blindfolded? no, it is risky i can already do it without being blindfolded.


Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
(...)
So you believe we should conform our behaviors and principles to whatever is socially acceptable, without taking into consideration anything else? If that approach was widely adopted, wouldn't we still be living under divine monarchies and believing that the sun revolved around the earth? Challenging these views was once considered "not socially acceptable" either.




He is not stating and nobody stated in any moment that it is good to follow blindly the community values. Just that in that case it is irrational to be with a black guy when the community will reject you (because you know, every ethical and moral decision is singular). As anybody knows, even if one takes GREAT PLEASURE by being with a black guy it is not equivalent to fighting a monarchy or against the Heliocentrism.


Also no, if egoistically speaking fighting the monarchy is bad for you because people will reject you i can assure you only the antisocial rejected fellas would fight the monarchy, because that is pretty much what happened the most in history.
Another different question is when fighting the monarchy is only addressed by the law and order and not society, and when fighting (which is indeed a big risk) a monarchy is better than the alternative egoistically speaking, not as some kind of... categorical imperative? i don't know.

So no, indeed, people usually choose to not fight monarchies when social rejection is presented. So your hypothetical case of eternal monarchies because the thing that destroyed them was bravery ignoring society rejection is just that, hypothetical, it is not how the world works.


Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

living_failure said:
The problem with love it is that it is emotional and not rational. if you choose to be with the loved one even if the community disagrees is in fact rebellious (that was his point).



And racism is rational? Racism is built off of fear and hate; it is emotional and not rational.

Why should we listen to irrational hatred over irrational love?




I never stated anything about racism, i even stated that i am not racist.
I was literally explaining why from the point of view of the text that qman said love it is seen as a rebellious act.

First of all, racism can be rational (and irrational), from my point of view it is wrong, and i am ready to argue about the wrong parts of rational racist thought because i am not afraid of rational people nor an authoritarian.

Not al racism is build of hatred or fear, and not everybody doing good deeds are rational of with good will. This is not high-school, world is not black and white, racist are not crazy scientific nazis.







Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

qman said:
Quote:

The Ecstatic said:
Ask Richard Spencer or Milo Yiannopolous




The court of opinion always wins at the end of the day. Shitty ideas and ideologies fall apart, why don't you have any faith in this very basic premise?



Because your premise is patently unsound.

17 million killed in the nazi holocaust, 100 thousand during the Bosnian genocide, 1 million in Rwanda.

Human economic activity is directly leading to a global environmental catastrophe without any signs of stopping despite all the necessary information haven been available for decades.

Totalitarian dictatorships that ignore all basic human rights still exist going into 2020.

Sometimes shitty ideas thrive.




I think he is just optimistic that your train of thought does not end killing the amount of people stalin killed or the amount of soldiers that died during ww2 because you know, they were human beings too, even the evil ones.




Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:
I don't hold them on equal standing, but I do believe they should be given an equal opportunity to voice their opinions on a political discussion board.

I think we can agree there's some people who are too racist to have a serious discussion with, but I'm generally ok with qman's approach.  Sure, we have some serious disagreements, but I think he's better than XUL.

And I didn't even find XUL that bad, but what irritated me with him is that he started a thread asking for statistical evidence of white privilege, and when it was shown that people are clearly discriminated against based on black sounding first names, he still dismissed it.



That opportunity exists. We have at least one member here who has consistently put forth arguments in defence of fascism - actual arguments - and I do not believe they have received any warnings for their opinions. I've put forth very contentious arguments regarding the nature of anarchism, sabotage, property destruction, and violence.

My experience on this board is that no one has ever been punished for putting forth actual arguments on difficult issues. Even the occasional shitty racist opinions without any supporting argument are tolerated until the poster (like XUL) makes it clearly obvious that they are not here to actually participate in a discussion.

Would you disagree with this perception?

As for qman, if the result of their warning is that we have them putting more effort into making actual arguments and backing up their claims, and less racist non sequiturs like the quote below - GOOD.

Quote:

qman said:
What makes you think they [US jews] are sincere at all? 

Many promote self-destructive policies for the West, while simultaneously knowing that Israel will never do the same thing. It's called do what I say, not what I do.


https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/26100434#26100434




Qman was banned, even if they removed the ban, he was indeed banned.
It served exactly the opposite, qman is now afraid of speaking, which is what you wanted and that makes me call you authoritarian and intolerant.


Qman have already stated that antisemitism is not equal no critique of in this case US jews. And i believe that those two things are in fact different.
Just in case, again, i do not agree with him in that matter.


Edited by living_failure (12/31/19 12:40 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Onlineqman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 33,648
Last seen: 6 minutes, 8 seconds
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom] * 3
    #26409321 - 12/31/19 12:57 PM (6 months, 10 days ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
By extension this argument you are providing would also claim that, if you live in a community where slavery is accepted, and any abolitionist activity would be met with social ostracism, that there would be no rational reason to be anti-slavery "because it is risky and troublesome".

That doesn't seem like very strong logic. If something being "risky and troublesome" is sufficient to preclude any rational reason for doing something, then quite a few common human activities would have no rationale behind them either - for example, driving is riskier and more troublesome than just walking - IRRATIONAL!



Why is qman leaving you to defend their statements anyways? I want to hear their explanation.

Quote:

qman said:
Most men see a white women engaging in deviant behavior when she dates a black man



Qman, what method are you using to measure the beliefs of "most men"? What reason do these men have to consider this behaviour as deviant? Do you include yourself in the "most men" category; why or why not?


Quote:

qman said:
Are there some very respectable black men out there? Yes, of coarse there is, but that does not change the fact that it is not socially acceptable. While some people may think this attitude is stupid, I am sure it makes sense to plenty.



So you believe we should conform our behaviours and principles to whatever is socially acceptable, without taking into consideration anything else? If that approach was widely adopted, wouldn't we still be living under divine monarchies and believing that the sun revolved around the earth? Challenging these views was once considered "not socially acceptable" either.




I'm not the only one acknowledging that inter-racial relationships are sometimes viewed as problematic to their communities.

You do realize black women are usually the most outraged when black men date/marry white women?  There's tons of books on the very subject. https://www.amazon.com/Aint-All-Good-Black-Should/dp/0913543993

"Why do black women feel so hurt when they see black men with white women?"



I also agree that everything changes with time, but we're discussing the current environment, not why or how it should change for the better.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Onlineqman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 33,648
Last seen: 6 minutes, 8 seconds
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #26409332 - 12/31/19 01:03 PM (6 months, 10 days ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

living_failure said:
The problem with love it is that it is emotional and not rational. if you choose to be with the loved one even if the community disagrees is in fact rebellious (that was his point).



And racism is rational? Racism is built off of fear and hate; it is emotional and not rational.

Why should we listen to irrational hatred over irrational love?




Fear is a survival mechanism, is fear sometimes irrational?  Yes. Is it sometimes rational? Yes, that's why the trait still exists in humans today.

Racial tribalism exists in basically every human today, is that rational?  If it improves the chances of survival, yes it is.  Is that still applicable in the year 2020?  It depends on the environment.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineliving_failure
unworthy
Male


Registered: 06/13/19
Posts: 352
Loc: spain, madrid
Last seen: 2 months, 19 hours
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom] * 3
    #26409336 - 12/31/19 01:05 PM (6 months, 10 days ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

living_failure said:
To be honest, i think you just have the superpower to label anybody you disagrees with as "intolerant" "racist" "fascist" or whatever, allowing you to be intolerant yourself. Well, you are just plain intolerant.



How is what you are doing right now any different?

Any time I have ever given something a label, I have also supplied my reasoning behind that labeling - never has it been as simple as 'I disagree with them' - but what are your reasons for labeling me right now as "plain intolerant", other than the fact you clearly disagree with my 'paradox of intolerance' argument?

You are using claims of intolerance to shut down my argument, without actually engaging with my argument itself - at least I always engage with the argument first before passing my judgment.





It is not different, i am intolerant (not intolerant of intolerant bullshit). But intolerant of what i think bad or unfair, and you do the same, that is authoritarian and intolerant behaviour. Even more when you actually act about that idea.

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

living_failure said:
You actually called him antisemitic multiple times. So you, you take him personally, and talk about his as a person (in this case as a person poster).
You label him an xul multiple times (not that the label of xul was incorrect, just telling you that you are judging them, even if you judge the words too).



Did I call qman antisemitic, or did I call their opinion/ideal/belief antisemitic? I know english isn't your first language so perhaps you don't understand the difference. If I called qman antisemitic, please show me where - I'm generally very precise in my use of language and I don't know qman personally so I am very careful to avoid making claims of that nature. You might even get me to make a retraction.




I am pretty sure you implied him being racist and antisemitic and deserving a ban. But if i am wrong, sorry, i am still new here and there are so many user names that i could totally mixed up post. If it is not what you said ok. I just thought wrong.

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

living_failure said:
Over and over, you position yourself as holder of the truth. Since there was no formal discussion (even then, winning an argument doesn't make you hold the truth or the opposite) there was no way to prove them wrong or prove you right.
You can already came back from the heavens of the truth and try to make and adult conversation with other people maybe you can even try to take understand their point of view.



True, no formal discussion ever happened so no conclusive evidence for the topic of debate was reached - I don't believe I ever claimed our aborted debate ever proved me right on the matter.

But, qmans complete inability or refusal to put forth an argument on the matter did provide significant evidence for whether qman wished to engage in formal discussion on matters of Israel and the Jewish people, or just post vague references to antisemitic conspiracy.

That thread is still open - nothing is preventing qman from making an argument still.





Refusal to discussion is not equal to losing and argument or not being right.

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

living_failure said:
But since you are the holder of the truth, the authority, judging who is antisemitic, fascist, racist or whatever and even saying that everybody would benefit for people like qman leaving/getting banned...



I have never claimed I am the holder of truth - any claim I have ever made on this website, I provided my reasoning and supporting evidence behind my conclusions. I don't expect people to accept my claims based on a blind authority - I expect people to accept my claims based on the supplied reasoning and evidence.

And how about you? Can you provide an example where I expected people to accept me as an authority on a subject without reason or evidence - or should I just accept you as the holder of truth in this?





I am starting to believe that i actually mixed up post. There were a lot of people directly claiming or implying qman to be racist and antisemitic. And i thought that you actually said that.
Honestly, my mistake.

At the moment, i just have a more or less opinion of what the ideas and about the words of qman, But i honestly belive that you are labeling him (even if you never directly name-called him racist or antisemitic) as racist. Am i wrong?

Far as i know, you are tired of void discussions and repeating over and over yourself, i understand your boredom, but i genuinely think that qman is not the same case as xul. He is just a guy with less time of with less energies of discussing with you, but he looks rational enough to maid points and recognize other points. What i am criticizing so much is your sentence on qman.

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

living_failure said:
Just and example of the world desired by shiva, a world without discussion, just totally and pure political correctness:
https://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/22915704


Looks like Goebbels level of propaganda and crazy thought to be honest.




I really like how, years later, this thread is still brought up as conclusive evidence that I am too politically correct and want to shut down discussion of non-pc issues. If you bothered to read through the thread you would have found out I was joking and everyone was having fun - or do you honestly believe I think words like 'hamburger' and 'monday' need to be banned?

Looks to me you are the one judging a poster based on your perception of their person and not their actual words - and then using this personal judgment to condemn a discussion (or joke in the case of the linked thread).

I'm confident in my reputation as a poster both willing to participate in good faith discussions of all types and provide well thought out arguments on defence of my own beliefs.




I think you got me totally wrong. I quoted that text because i was trying to prove that judging a person and his intentions by his past posts is pointless and impossible.
The post was on Pub, here you are a lot of more serious, but i am still unsure if part of the post was actually serious, not that i care.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Onlineqman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 33,648
Last seen: 6 minutes, 8 seconds
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom] * 2
    #26409359 - 12/31/19 01:27 PM (6 months, 10 days ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

qman said:
Quote:

The Ecstatic said:
Ask Richard Spencer or Milo Yiannopolous




The court of opinion always wins at the end of the day. Shitty ideas and ideologies fall apart, why don't you have any faith in this very basic premise?



Because your premise is patently unsound.

17 million killed in the nazi holocaust, 100 thousand during the Bosnian genocide, 1 million in Rwanda.

Human economic activity is directly leading to a global environmental catastrophe without any signs of stopping despite all the necessary information haven been available for decades.

Totalitarian dictatorships that ignore all basic human rights still exist going into 2020.

Sometimes shitty ideas thrive.




Well, "shitty ideas" are subjective. That's why I suggest we examine why the court of public opinion exists the way it does in certain environments. Even war or genocide isn't always considered a shitty idea in the court of public opinion. It depends on which side you're on in the war or the genocide, correct?

The thing is, you don't get to decide what is a shitty idea and then claim you're saving humanity by de-platforming those ideas. The court of public will ALWAYS override your attempts to micromanage the flow of information and ideas.

So I agree, sometimes what me and you might consider shitty ideas will still thrive. Our goal shouldn't be to shut it down, but to examine and understand the thought process behind the motivations for the ideas.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 11,521
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 1 hour, 42 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: living_failure]
    #26409385 - 12/31/19 01:48 PM (6 months, 10 days ago)

Quote:

living_failure said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
By extension this argument you are providing would also claim that, if you live in a community where slavery is accepted, and any abolitionist activity would be met with social ostracism, that there would be no rational reason to be anti-slavery "because it is risky and troublesome".



Not the same case, egoistically speaking yes. But ethically speaking no. And as an ethic or a moral, nobody said anything if it being good or wrong, and emotionally you might feel guilty by not opposing slavery.
Not having a relationship with someone is not even remotely close to slavery.



I agree that, ethically speaking, a community that doesn't accept interracial couples is not the same case as a community that accepts slavery. That doesn't mean there still isn't an ethical reason to support interracial dating, and I was under the impression that you were just discounting the ethical arguments as less important than the social ones.

At what point does the ethics of the issue outweigh the social repercussions?




Quote:

living_failure said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
That doesn't seem like very strong logic. If something being "risky and troublesome" is sufficient to preclude any rational reason for doing something, then quite a few common human activities would have no rationale behind them either - for example, driving is riskier and more troublesome than just walking - IRRATIONAL!




That is absurd and a strawman, not even remotely what anybody said.
Would you drive your car blindfolded? no, it is risky i can already do it without being blindfolded.



Driving while blindfolded is an inherently dangerous proposition, so I hope we aren't comparing that to interracial dating - which gains its risk from possible social attitudes.

Perhaps you can better explain what exactly you mean by "risky and troublesome" then because I'm not understanding why you consider my analogy to be a straw man. Driving is a lot more risky and troublesome than walking, but there are still many rational reasons to drive - interracial dating might be more risky and troublesome (depending on the community attitude), but there are still many rational reasons to date interracially.

Perhaps this analogy is more appropriate: same-sex relationships are often more risky and troublesome because of anti-lgbtq social attitudes - does that mean there is no rational reason to date if you're queer?





Quote:

living_failure said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
(...)
So you believe we should conform our behaviors and principles to whatever is socially acceptable, without taking into consideration anything else? If that approach was widely adopted, wouldn't we still be living under divine monarchies and believing that the sun revolved around the earth? Challenging these views was once considered "not socially acceptable" either.




He is not stating and nobody stated in any moment that it is good to follow blindly the community values. Just that in that case it is irrational to be with a black guy when the community will reject you (because you know, every ethical and moral decision is singular). As anybody knows, even if one takes GREAT PLEASURE by being with a black guy it is not equivalent to fighting a monarchy or against the Heliocentrism.



I think you should stop trying to answer for qman. Speak for yourself, rather than what qman hypothetically thinks.

Clearly there is support here for blindly following community values when considering the single issue of white women dating black men - I'm asking qman questions to better understand exactly how widely they apply this principle.

And yes, dating a black guy is not the equivalent to fighting a monarchy in the same way that saying fuck the king is not the equivalent to fighting racism - even if one takes GREAT PLEASURE in saying it - let's try and apply a little intellectual honesty in this discussion okay?




Quote:

living_failure said:
Also no, if egoistically speaking fighting the monarchy is bad for you because people will reject you i can assure you only the antisocial rejected fellas would fight the monarchy, because that is pretty much what happened the most in history.
Another different question is when fighting the monarchy is only addressed by the law and order and not society, and when fighting (which is indeed a big risk) a monarchy is better than the alternative egoistically speaking, not as some kind of... categorical imperative? i don't know.

So no, indeed, people usually choose to not fight monarchies when social rejection is presented. So your hypothetical case of eternal monarchies because the thing that destroyed them was bravery ignoring society rejection is just that, hypothetical, it is not how the world works.



"I can assure you only the antisocial rejected fellas would fight the monarchy, because that is pretty much what happened the most in history."
What are you, the holder of truth? Why should I take your assurances without evidence?

To be honest, I'm not sure if I fully understand the point you are trying to make here. I don't think I made the argument that bravery in ignoring society rejection is what destroys monarchies - I made the argument that too much stock put onto social acceptance would significantly limit progress as a society, and gave some examples where our development as a society was only able to occur when social norms were discounted.

I agree that most people usually choose to not fight monarchies, and social rejection is likely to be an aspect in this decision - that doesn't contradict my claim that 'socially acceptable' is not a very useful category, nor does it form a defence for your argument that going against social norms is irrational.



Quote:

living_failure said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

living_failure said:
The problem with love it is that it is emotional and not rational. if you choose to be with the loved one even if the community disagrees is in fact rebellious (that was his point).



And racism is rational? Racism is built off of fear and hate; it is emotional and not rational.

Why should we listen to irrational hatred over irrational love?




I never stated anything about racism, i even stated that i am not racist.
I was literally explaining why from the point of view of the text that qman said love it is seen as a rebellious act.

First of all, racism can be rational (and irrational), from my point of view it is wrong, and i am ready to argue about the wrong parts of rational racist thought because i am not afraid of rational people nor an authoritarian.

Not al racism is build of hatred or fear, and not everybody doing good deeds are rational of with good will. This is not high-school, world is not black and white, racist are not crazy scientific nazism.



Yes and from the point of view of that same text, listening to the racist beliefs of the community (see: hatred and fear) is a rational act.

Please provide one rational form of racism, oh holder of truth.




Quote:

living_failure said:
Qman was banned, even if they removed the ban, he was indeed banned.
It served exactly the opposite, qman is now afraid of speaking, which is what you wanted and that makes me call you authoritarian and intolerant.



Qman was indeed permabanned, and then upon further consideration it was revoked - so therefore that initial permaban became just a warning.

Since then, I've seen qman make numerous posts in reference to their newfound victim status and fear of speaking - but I haven't actually seen them refuse to participate in discussions nor am I aware that their continued participation is being punished. I do see less dogwhistles though. Have you noticed anything different?

Furthermore, can you show me where I stated that I want qman to be afraid of speaking, and any stated reasons why? I don't remember saying that?

Besides, what's your end goal? It's not like I have any more authority on third website than any other poster - why should I listen to you and feel bad for just speaking my mind? That makes me call you authoritarian and intolerant.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 11,521
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 1 hour, 42 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: qman] * 1
    #26409394 - 12/31/19 01:52 PM (6 months, 10 days ago)

Quote:

qman said:
I'm not the only one acknowledging that inter-racial relationships are sometimes viewed as problematic to their communities.

You do realize black women are usually the most outraged when black men date/marry white women?  There's tons of books on the very subject. https://www.amazon.com/Aint-All-Good-Black-Should/dp/0913543993

"Why do black women feel so hurt when they see black men with white women?"



I also agree that everything changes with time, but we're discussing the current environment, not why or how it should change for the better.



"Black women can be racist too" doesn't answer any of the questions posed.

Quote:

qman said:
Most men see a white women engaging in deviant behavior when she dates a black man



Qman, what method are you using to measure the beliefs of "most men"? What reason do these men have to consider this behaviour as deviant? Do you include yourself in the "most men" category; why or why not?


Quote:

qman said:
Are there some very respectable black men out there? Yes, of coarse there is, but that does not change the fact that it is not socially acceptable. While some people may think this attitude is stupid, I am sure it makes sense to plenty.



So you believe we should conform our behaviours and principles to whatever is socially acceptable, without taking into consideration anything else?



Please answer the questions posed.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 11,521
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 1 hour, 42 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: qman] * 1
    #26409412 - 12/31/19 02:03 PM (6 months, 10 days ago)

Quote:

qman said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

living_failure said:
The problem with love it is that it is emotional and not rational. if you choose to be with the loved one even if the community disagrees is in fact rebellious (that was his point).



And racism is rational? Racism is built off of fear and hate; it is emotional and not rational.

Why should we listen to irrational hatred over irrational love?




Fear is a survival mechanism, is fear sometimes irrational?  Yes. Is it sometimes rational? Yes, that's why the trait still exists in humans today.

Racial tribalism exists in basically every human today, is that rational?  If it improves the chances of survival, yes it is.  Is that still applicable in the year 2020?  It depends on the environment.



Rational doesn't mean 'improves chances of survival', it means in accordance with reason and logic. Taking care of a sick orphan doesn't improve my chances of survival, but it would not be irrational to take care of them anyways.

Racial tribalism is irrational. What environments in 2020 do you still consider it applicable?

Why should we listen to irrational hatred/fear over irrational love?


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRJ Tubs 202
Male

Registered: 09/20/08
Posts: 4,132
Loc: USA Flag
Last seen: 7 days, 20 hours
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #26409425 - 12/31/19 02:07 PM (6 months, 10 days ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:

Driving while blindfolded is an inherently dangerous proposition, so I hope we aren't comparing that to interracial dating - which gains its risk from possible social attitudes.




When we consider the vast history of our species, there may be many good (functional) reasons for not mating with people outside of your immediate community. From a biological and epidemiological standpoint. Consider the diseases you might expose your family and community to by going with an outsider.   

If a Chinese boy is raped by three Mexican men, and he grows up in fear of Mexicans, I believe that's rational.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 11,521
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 1 hour, 42 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: RJ Tubs 202] * 1
    #26409448 - 12/31/19 02:15 PM (6 months, 10 days ago)

Quote:

RJ Tubs 202 said:
When we consider the vast history of our species, there may be many good (functional) reasons for not mating with people outside of your immediate community. From a biological and epidemiological standpoint. Consider the diseases you might expose your family and community to by going with an outsider.



Skin tone is not a reliable predictor of physical proximity. Just because we share the same skin tone does not necessarily mean we will share the same resistance to disease. Interracial dating is not an inherently dangerous activity.


Quote:

RJ Tubs 202 said:
If a Chinese boy is raped by three Mexican men, and he grows up in fear of Mexicans, I believe that's rational.



The fear would be understandable, but it wouldn't be rational. Using a sample of three to make a statistical conclusion about a population of over 140 million people is not based on reason or logic


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineRJ Tubs 202
Male

Registered: 09/20/08
Posts: 4,132
Loc: USA Flag
Last seen: 7 days, 20 hours
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom]
    #26409465 - 12/31/19 02:27 PM (6 months, 10 days ago)

Skin tone isn't a reliable predictor of physical proximity in a multi-cultural society, such as the US right now. But for most of human history it has been, right? Our brains evolved in an environment that was much different than modern multi-cultural society. And when it comes to trauma and being harmed, I don't think the mind is overly concerned with statistics or sample size. It's focused on avoiding the chance of being harmed again. As a kid I was abused by a woman and today I still sometimes struggle with a fear of women.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Onlineqman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 33,648
Last seen: 6 minutes, 8 seconds
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom] * 2
    #26409507 - 12/31/19 03:03 PM (6 months, 10 days ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

qman said:
I'm not the only one acknowledging that inter-racial relationships are sometimes viewed as problematic to their communities.

You do realize black women are usually the most outraged when black men date/marry white women?  There's tons of books on the very subject. https://www.amazon.com/Aint-All-Good-Black-Should/dp/0913543993

"Why do black women feel so hurt when they see black men with white women?"



I also agree that everything changes with time, but we're discussing the current environment, not why or how it should change for the better.



"Black women can be racist too" doesn't answer any of the questions posed.

Quote:

qman said:
Most men see a white women engaging in deviant behavior when she dates a black man



Qman, what method are you using to measure the beliefs of "most men"? What reason do these men have to consider this behaviour as deviant? Do you include yourself in the "most men" category; why or why not?


Quote:

qman said:
Are there some very respectable black men out there? Yes, of coarse there is, but that does not change the fact that it is not socially acceptable. While some people may think this attitude is stupid, I am sure it makes sense to plenty.



So you believe we should conform our behaviours and principles to whatever is socially acceptable, without taking into consideration anything else?



Please answer the questions posed.





What method?  Just hearing how humans interact with each other and the attitudes associated with interracial relationships REGARDLESS of the racial or ethnic makeup of the community. You do accept that seems to be universal to some degree in most cultures?

As far as myself, I would state I'm pretty picky and discriminatory in regards to the women I date. But guess what?  Everyone is discriminatory when it comes to relationships and mating.

As far as behavior that isn't socially acceptable at the time, that's a decision everyone has to make and see if it's worth it or not. Tripping on LSD isn't socially acceptable, but that didn't stop me 20 years ago.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 11,521
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 1 hour, 42 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: RJ Tubs 202]
    #26409525 - 12/31/19 03:14 PM (6 months, 10 days ago)

Not even historically. Skin tones are spread across large physical areas. Two dark skinned people could originate as far away from each other as Nigeria to Australia. Two light skinned people could originate as far away from each other as London to Constantinople. Cultural aspects like language, fashion, and custom would be much more reliable predictors of physical proximity and immunity compatibility imo.


And you are correct that the mind, especially when dealing with trauma, is not particularly concerned with statistics, sample size, or rationality - it's focused on avoiding further trauma. That is why I say that the fear can be understandable despite being irrational. I was in a house that was destroyed by a tornado when I was very young and I left with an irrational fear that the slightest hint of stormy weather was another tornado on way. Given my history, a fear of rough weather was understandable, but there was rarely any rational reason to fear a tornado.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineshivas.wisdom
בּ
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 02/19/09
Posts: 11,521
Loc: Turtle Island
Last seen: 1 hour, 42 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: qman] * 1
    #26409539 - 12/31/19 03:29 PM (6 months, 10 days ago)

Quote:

qman said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
"Black women can be racist too" doesn't answer any of the questions posed.

Quote:

qman said:
Most men see a white women engaging in deviant behavior when she dates a black man



Qman, what method are you using to measure the beliefs of "most men"? What reason do these men have to consider this behaviour as deviant? Do you include yourself in the "most men" category; why or why not?


Quote:

qman said:
Are there some very respectable black men out there? Yes, of coarse there is, but that does not change the fact that it is not socially acceptable. While some people may think this attitude is stupid, I am sure it makes sense to plenty.



So you believe we should conform our behaviours and principles to whatever is socially acceptable, without taking into consideration anything else?



Please answer the questions posed.





What method?  Just hearing how humans interact with each other and the attitudes associated with interracial relationships REGARDLESS of the racial or ethnic makeup of the community. You do accept that seems to be universal to some degree in most cultures?

As far as myself, I would state I'm pretty picky and discriminatory in regards to the women I date. But guess what?  Everyone is discriminatory when it comes to relationships and mating.

As far as behavior that isn't socially acceptable at the time, that's a decision everyone has to make and see if it's worth it or not. Tripping on LSD isn't socially acceptable, but that didn't stop me 20 years ago.




What method? You made the claim that "most men see a white women engaging in deviant behavior when she dates a black man" and I'm asking what method you used to form that conclusion. "Just hearing how humans interact" isn't very specific.

I also asked 'what reason do these men have to consider this behaviour as deviant?' and again you neglected to answer.

I also asked 'do you include yourself in the "most men" category; why or why not?' and you neglected to answer it directly - opting instead to dodge the question and talk about how you and everyone else can be discriminatory when it comes to relationships.

And finally, instead of the vague response about how the decision to conform to the socially acceptable is one everyone has to make and an anecdote about the time you took some LSD, why not explain your specific conditions that lead you to conform with the socially acceptable (like with interracial dating) and what specific conditions lead you to not conform (like the time you took lsd).

Evasive answers don't make a discussion. It only gives me the impression that in the 7 years since you made that post in Sexuality and Relationships, the only real change in your beliefs is that you learned to avoid being so explicit.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Onlineqman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 33,648
Last seen: 6 minutes, 8 seconds
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom] * 1
    #26409548 - 12/31/19 03:37 PM (6 months, 10 days ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

qman said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

living_failure said:
The problem with love it is that it is emotional and not rational. if you choose to be with the loved one even if the community disagrees is in fact rebellious (that was his point).



And racism is rational? Racism is built off of fear and hate; it is emotional and not rational.

Why should we listen to irrational hatred over irrational love?




Fear is a survival mechanism, is fear sometimes irrational?  Yes. Is it sometimes rational? Yes, that's why the trait still exists in humans today.

Racial tribalism exists in basically every human today, is that rational?  If it improves the chances of survival, yes it is.  Is that still applicable in the year 2020?  It depends on the environment.



Rational doesn't mean 'improves chances of survival', it means in accordance with reason and logic. Taking care of a sick orphan doesn't improve my chances of survival, but it would not be irrational to take care of them anyways.

Racial tribalism is irrational. What environments in 2020 do you still consider it applicable?

Why should we listen to irrational hatred/fear over irrational love?




Hmm, I'll actually disagree with you that human survival mechanisms are not usually rational. It is logical that humans are programmed to survive at almost any cost. If taking care of a sick child doesn't hurt your chances of survival, there's nothing illogical about it.

"Racial tribalism is irrational"

That's not true, if it was "irrational" it wouldn't still exist in humans today. You don't like this part of human nature, but it does serve a function.  In fact, it's so important for the survival of humans, it still remains a very active trait even in modern civilizations.

Racial tribalism is alive and well in many parts of the world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_farm_attacks

Look at the political world today, people are constantly dividing themselves and the issues with their racial identity. That is racial tribalism at work. Are you going to tell minorities to stop self organizing based on their racial makeup?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Onlineqman
Stranger

Registered: 12/06/06
Posts: 33,648
Last seen: 6 minutes, 8 seconds
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom] * 1
    #26409571 - 12/31/19 03:56 PM (6 months, 10 days ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
Quote:

qman said:
Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
"Black women can be racist too" doesn't answer any of the questions posed.

Quote:

qman said:
Most men see a white women engaging in deviant behavior when she dates a black man



Qman, what method are you using to measure the beliefs of "most men"? What reason do these men have to consider this behaviour as deviant? Do you include yourself in the "most men" category; why or why not?


Quote:

qman said:
Are there some very respectable black men out there? Yes, of coarse there is, but that does not change the fact that it is not socially acceptable. While some people may think this attitude is stupid, I am sure it makes sense to plenty.



So you believe we should conform our behaviours and principles to whatever is socially acceptable, without taking into consideration anything else?



Please answer the questions posed.





What method?  Just hearing how humans interact with each other and the attitudes associated with interracial relationships REGARDLESS of the racial or ethnic makeup of the community. You do accept that seems to be universal to some degree in most cultures?

As far as myself, I would state I'm pretty picky and discriminatory in regards to the women I date. But guess what?  Everyone is discriminatory when it comes to relationships and mating.

As far as behavior that isn't socially acceptable at the time, that's a decision everyone has to make and see if it's worth it or not. Tripping on LSD isn't socially acceptable, but that didn't stop me 20 years ago.




What method? You made the claim that "most men see a white women engaging in deviant behavior when she dates a black man" and I'm asking what method you used to form that conclusion. "Just hearing how humans interact" isn't very specific.

I also asked 'what reason do these men have to consider this behaviour as deviant?' and again you neglected to answer.

I also asked 'do you include yourself in the "most men" category; why or why not?' and you neglected to answer it directly - opting instead to dodge the question and talk about how you and everyone else can be discriminatory when it comes to relationships.

And finally, instead of the vague response about how the decision to conform to the socially acceptable is one everyone has to make and an anecdote about the time you took some LSD, why not explain your specific conditions that lead you to conform with the socially acceptable (like with interracial dating) and what specific conditions lead you to not conform (like the time you took lsd).

Evasive answers don't make a discussion. It only gives me the impression that in the 7 years since you made that post in Sexuality and Relationships, the only real change in your beliefs is that you learned to avoid being so explicit.




I'm answering the questions, but you just don't like the answers. Do you really have to even ask why interracial relationships are considered deviant behavior in must cultures across the world? I'm sorry you can't accept that my EXPERIENCE dictates my sentiment on the issue. I asked you a question, do you accept that interracial relationships are considered problematic to some degree in most cultures?

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but this discussion is about how people across different cultures and races view interracial relationships, not my personal opinion about it. What I think is irrelevant and meaningless relative to how humans in general view it and for what reasons.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBigbadwooof
Trump's Bone Spurs
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 10,416
Last seen: 17 days, 5 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: shivas.wisdom] * 3
    #26409640 - 12/31/19 05:10 PM (6 months, 10 days ago)

Quote:

shivas.wisdom said:
By extension this argument you are providing would also claim that, if you live in a community where slavery is accepted, and any abolitionist activity would be met with social ostracism, that there would be no rational reason to be anti-slavery "because it is risky and troublesome".

That doesn't seem like very strong logic. If something being "risky and troublesome" is sufficient to preclude any rational reason for doing something, then quite a few common human activities would have no rationale behind them either - for example, driving is riskier and more troublesome than just walking - IRRATIONAL




I don't know that that analogy is correct. It would be correct, if posed directly to Qman, but Qman's relentless apologist is making the case that, to use your analogy - A person is not an advocate of slavery (or racist), just because they abide the culture of slave ownership (or culture of racism) that surrounds them.

Which begs the question, if you stand idly by, and watch evil men do evil things, and even follow suit, due to intense social pressures (even against your desire), are you guilty of the same evil? The Nuremberg trials would certainly say yes.

I would argue, that a person is the sum of their actions, rather than that of their ideals (particularly those that they do not live, or act upon).

A quote that is appropriate here is 'Be the change you wish to see in the world' - Ghandi

Is it irrational to be the change you wish to see in the world? I think not.


--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"Real change never happens from the top down, but from the bottom up. The American Revolution, Civil Rights movement, Women's Suffage, etc' - Bernie Sanders
Every one of you should see this video.
"Not to be a dick but we grow felonies and are adults here. And that's the real answer!" - Trusted Cultivator


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBigbadwooof
Trump's Bone Spurs
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 10,416
Last seen: 17 days, 5 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Bigbadwooof] * 1
    #26409794 - 12/31/19 07:07 PM (6 months, 9 days ago)

To address Qman's post, and why it is in fact racist, I think we ought to first define racism.

Racism, in my mind, is active discrimination against a group of people, based on their race. That is the most basic, fundamental definition of racism.

Qman has made one of two possible, dubious assertions, in my mind. (Not trying to be fallacious, these are the only two ways I see to interpret his post)

A) Society is observably racist, and therefore there is no conceivable reason why a white woman would engage in race-mixing. Adherence to societal norms is paramount, above all else, lest a person be subject to the most tragic of fates (in his mind); ostracization. Succumbing to societal pressures is the only rational way a person can act.

B) There is no reason for a white woman to fraternize with black folk, as they are beneath her. She could only be doing such a thing to get back at her parents, as there is no other reason a white woman would bump uglies with an untouchable. White men won't date her, if she has been tainted by black cock, the forbiddenest of cocks, because it's gross.

If A is true, Qman is a coward, if B is true, Qman is a racist. I suspect B is true. I guess I'll leave that up to Qman, though.

In either case he is suggesting she engage with black folks in a discriminatory way, based on their race, though, so I guess in either case he is a proponent of racism.


--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"Real change never happens from the top down, but from the bottom up. The American Revolution, Civil Rights movement, Women's Suffage, etc' - Bernie Sanders
Every one of you should see this video.
"Not to be a dick but we grow felonies and are adults here. And that's the real answer!" - Trusted Cultivator


Edited by Bigbadwooof (12/31/19 07:15 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleTantrika
Miss Ann Thrope
Female


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/26/12
Posts: 17,138
Loc: Lashed to the pyre
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Bigbadwooof] * 4
    #26409802 - 12/31/19 07:18 PM (6 months, 9 days ago)

do not have a lot to add to this,
but as someone who has too much interest in the production side of professional pornography
there has been a long-standing sentiment that actresses who do a scene with even one black guy on film lose a financially significant portion of their audience
remember an interview with Lisa Ann where she talked about how the start of her career was spent under contract that outright did not allow her to film with black actors

not me agreeing with the sentiment or arguing against there being racism within it; just recognizing that it has been a larger social sentiment bearing economic reprecussions


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineBigbadwooof
Trump's Bone Spurs
 User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 12/07/13
Posts: 10,416
Last seen: 17 days, 5 minutes
Re: i now understand why we have a no flaming rule. [Re: Tantrika] * 3
    #26409932 - 12/31/19 08:55 PM (6 months, 9 days ago)

Quote:

Tantrika said:
do not have a lot to add to this,
but as someone who has too much interest in the production side of professional pornography
there has been a long-standing sentiment that actresses who do a scene with even one black guy on film lose a financially significant portion of their audience
remember an interview with Lisa Ann where she talked about how the start of her career was spent under contract that outright did not allow her to film with black actors

not me agreeing with the sentiment or arguing against there being racism within it; just recognizing that it has been a larger social sentiment bearing economic reprecussions




That's an excellent observation, which I suppose gives credence to Q's assertion that white men aren't interested in a woman who has been with a black man. I suppose that is a sad reality. I don't believe that it hinders the points I have made, but it does demonstrate that there are many men who feel the way Qman does, which is unfortunate.

I will say that in my personal life, when I see a woman with a black man, I often assume she is culturally dissimilar to me, and I am less likely to pursue her down the road. That is, until I get to know her better. My xgf is half black, but culturally she is very similar to me. The cultural differences between black and white people, particularly here in Michigan, as opposed to the West coast, are quite profound.


--------------------
"It is no measure of good health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society," - Jiddu Krishnamurti
FARTS
"Real change never happens from the top down, but from the bottom up. The American Revolution, Civil Rights movement, Women's Suffage, etc' - Bernie Sanders
Every one of you should see this video.
"Not to be a dick but we grow felonies and are adults here. And that's the real answer!" - Trusted Cultivator