Expressing Your Opinion and Getting Digitally Lynched

[Cloud_Strife]

I don't ever remember mentioning an ethnostate, forced deportations, or the subjugation of non-whites. Perhaps I do support all those things, but in order for you to know I'd need to have a desire to engage with you before offering my opinion. The trouble is your behavior is so incredibly toxic that I suspect you'll never truly know.

https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...tand-for-anymore.646502/page-26#post-15630728

"Someones never looked at the per capita numbers or the crime statistics.

The biggest welfare receipients are minorities. They also comit the more crime than whites. They're not sending their best!"

https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...tand-for-anymore.646502/page-25#post-15630653

"1. Defeating the left
2. Defeating the left
3. Restoring a homogeneous society that reflects the cultural and traditional values of its citizens and honors the social contract.

#3 cannot be realized until items 1 and 2 have been acheived."

You've already confirmed who and what you are, now deal with it.

... and you're still not the gatekeeper of political discussion, fyi.

Just some friendly advice to a person who wants to turn over a new leaf, perhaps you can as well.

 

[Kyriakos]

If it wasn't for ad hominems, you'd never see latin in this forum.

 

[BCheek]

https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...tand-for-anymore.646502/page-26#post-15630728

"Someones never looked at the per capita numbers or the crime statistics.

The biggest welfare receipients are minorities. They also comit the more crime than whites. They're not sending their best!"

https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...tand-for-anymore.646502/page-25#post-15630653

"1. Defeating the left
2. Defeating the left
3. Restoring a homogeneous society that reflects the cultural and traditional values of its citizens and honors the social contract.

#3 cannot be realized until items 1 and 2 have been acheived."

You've already confirmed who and what you are, now deal with it.



Just some friendly advice to a person who wants to turn over a new leaf, perhaps you can as well.

Oh, I'm certainly not denying I said any of that. I'm just denying the words you tried to put into my mouth.

Also, the, "Restoring a homogeneous society that reflects the..." bit was posted in a thread where people were being asked what American conservatives stand for and I thought that summed them up concisely, but I don't ever remember mentioning that I was a conservative. Oh well.

 

[Birdjaguar]

...Are likes in some way inferior to expressing support for an idea? Would one believe they weren't being dogpiled if the people liking posts disagreeing with them instead made their own posts painstakingly outlining how wrong they are?

When poster A's post is met with opposition and that opposing post is liked, poster A sometimes will take that like as a further criticism or attack. In reality, any motive by the liker is only known to the liker and the reasons for liking a post can be many and varied. Most of those reasons will be related to the poster they are liking.

 

[Patine]

It happen on occasion, but seems exaggerated here, like with Patine. Some of us take exception to his derailment of threads and get collective about the annoyance of it.

Oh, would you just can it, already! Your self-righteousness is far more aggregious than any pedantry could be. You go on and on about how annoying I am while making yourself even more annoying. And, of course, the self-righteous, condescending @Birdjaguar who decides, by his own judgement, what's appropriate or not to be discussed in a topic, and if he doesn't like being added, he demands it removed with a stupid, juvenile "catch phrase," likes your annoying posts, because your just as self-righteous and arrogant as each other. But you me out to distract others from the fact you're both these same traits too. I will no longer take criticism from those committing disingenuous hypocrisy or compensation to do so. "Let he who is without sin (on the issue) cast the first stone." You two may have stones in your hands here.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

That's not really comparable to entering a political internet forum and offering your opinion. I would hope there's some diversity of opinion otherwise it's a rather boring exercise. The vegan group on the other hand is a very narrowly defined interest group with a clearly defined agenda.

Just an observation related to vegan groups: Some people who say they are vegan can be the most hostile people I've ever encountered online. I've been lectured in RL about the contents of my fridge (by one of my support helpers, and I had to tell her to drop the subject... several times), but I've never been wished death by cancer and numerous other forms of violence as has happened online.

Except there are defined groups within this "political internet forum." If you have six people in a thread about, say, abortion, and five of those people believe abortion is a right and the sixth does not, is the sixth person being dogpiled when they make their opinion clear and find that the five others are in disagreement?

Often it isn't necessarily what you say but how you say it (general "you").

When poster A's post is met with opposition and that opposing post is liked, poster A sometimes will take that like as a further criticism or attack. In reality, any motive by the liker is only known to the liker and the reasons for liking a post can be many and varied. Most of those reasons will be related to the poster they are liking.

And there are times when it's an obvious swipe at Poster A and the "liker" will tap dance around the motives (I've seen some rather disingenuous reasons trotted out are so obviously nonsense).

 

[Synobun]

And there are times when it's an obvious swipe at Poster A and the "liker" will tap dance around the motives (I've seen some rather disingenuous reasons trotted out are so obviously nonsense).

Yes, well, we can't all put personal feuds in our signatures like some.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Oh, I'm certainly not denying I said any of that. I'm just denying the words you tried to put into my mouth.

Also, the, "Restoring a homogeneous society that reflects the..." bit was posted in a thread where people were being asked what American conservatives stand for and I thought that summed them up concisely, but I don't ever remember mentioning that I was a conservative. Oh well.

Your views on minorities are indistinguishable from a racists, i don't think it's too much of a reach to say that you clearly don't have their best interests in mind.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Why not just say he's racist then? Seems weird to put that one step of separation in there if it's not necessary.

 

[Gorbles]

A couple of reasons. Because it's easier to point out similarities, and harder to refute, than just calling someone a name and have them react based on that. If the presumption is the poster exhibiting such behaviour is already acting in bad faith.

Also, a lot of bias can be more subconscious (despite being learned behaviour), which makes calling someone a racist for things they do not believe to be racist creates a dissonance that again, doesn't help the thread.

I'm also presuming the forum rules don't like it, but don't want to come at it from that angle. There are plenty of reasons to explain why someone's beliefs trend along racist lines for the sake of being constructive in an OT forum thread.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Other than the forum rules thing, those don't sound like good reasons.

 

[Commodore]

Are you being dogpiled if, IRL, you enter a group of vegans and proclaim your love for meat, and they all disagree with you? Why should one's opinion be limited to one disagreement, forcing the rest into silence, when they would be more than okay with multiple people agreeing with them

It's the manner in which that group expresses their disagreement that would determine whether or not dogpiling is occuring. You can express disagreement without making the other person feel "attacked".

 

[Gorbles]

Other than the forum rules thing, those don't sound like good reasons.

Why not?

 

[BCheek]

Your views on minorities are indistinguishable from a racists, i don't think it's too much of a reach to say that you clearly don't have their best interests in mind.

I find it astonishing how you came screaming out of the woods about something entirely unrelated to this topic, while managing to know for certain everything about me without any conversation, based entirely on what you are sure is going on in my own private thoughts. Then you proceeded to tell everyone what topics aren't allowed as if you're some self-appointed authority, inferring that others would be wise to "turn over a new leaf" so they could be welcomed into your ***** of a so-called "group." Some would describe that kind of behavior as highly toxic, others would say it's mentally unbalanced.

Why not just say he's racist then? Seems weird to put that one step of separation in there if it's not necessary.

Someone posted statistics and I made an accurate observation, so as of now I'm one step of separation away from being a racist. That's if you buy into the whole philosophy that data is racist when you disagree with it.

Moderator Action: Firstly, we expect people to not evade the auto-censor and to fully censor a swearword. Secondly, speaking as one appointed to tell everyone what topics aren't allowed, do not call another poster "mentally imbalanced", whether directly or by implication. ~ Arakhor
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Some would describe that kind of behavior as highly toxic, others would say it's mentally unbalanced.

I'm not the one who thinks minorities are bleeding the country dry.

You are.

 

[BCheek]

I'm not the one who thinks minorities are bleeding the country dry.

You are.

Again, you're putting words into my mouth. Minorities receive far more social assistance than what they contribute and they also commit more crime per capita. The data is what it is. These are present problems that directly impact other economic and social problems that currently exist in western countries.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Why not?

Well, I really don't think I need to go into any detail at all about why "because it's easier" is a really bad reason.

"Harder to refute" - I don't see why it would be. If you're trying to show that someone is racist (or a racist), then surely that accusation is harder to refute if you provide direct evidence, rather than indirect evidence. Unless you mean that the indirect evidence itself is harder to refute, which may well be true, but it also doesn't necessarily hold much (or any) weight. An absurd example would be something such as "like many racists, you have two legs". I'm sure this is a true statement, and it might well be hard to refute that you have two legs, but it also doesn't really go very far to proving your point.

I wouldn't really regard it as merely "calling someone a name" if you have actual grounds for calling them racist. It's not just a mean word, it means something.

Assuming the person is acting in bad faith - unless I'm missing some context, I don't see why this would be a fair assumption. I also don't really see how it's relevant anyway. If you have evidence that someone is [a] racist, then that should speak for itself and it shouldn't really matter how they are conducting themselves.

The last point about dissonance - if you're saying that the person will deny the charge if faced with evidence they don't want to accept... surely that's even easier to do with indirect evidence than direct evidence?


So yes, all-in-all I feel that if you're choosing to say "you share arguments with racists", rather than "you share racist arguments", then that just strongly suggests you don't really have anything concrete to base the accusation on.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Yes, well, we can't all put personal feuds in our signatures like some.

While it's true that specific negative interactions prompted some elements of my sig, these are issues I've been dealing with to some degree online for the last 15 years (in fact, my views of apologies that don't acknowledge that the offense really occurred were developed many years ago - before you were even born).

It just got to the point where someone posted something that became the proverbial straw, or crossed a line in some other way that I will no longer sit back and just take without some form of protest.

 

[Patine]

While it's true that specific negative interactions prompted some elements of my sig, these are issues I've been dealing with to some degree online for the last 15 years (in fact, my views of apologies that don't acknowledge that the offense really occurred were developed many years ago - before you were even born).

It just got to the point where someone posted something that became the proverbial straw, or crossed a line in some other way that I will no longer sit back and just take without some form of protest.

This reminds me of someone I met at work (probably close to 15 years ago, in fact). He made a bizarre and odd, even ridiculous (though not offensive, just weird) suggestion about some co-workers and I conducting interactions. It was rejected out of hand (as it REALLY was out there). This individual then became noticeably upset and very passive aggressive and non-cooperative with work. Within less than a week, a supervisor made it very clear to knock it off. He then made his attempt to "apologize," by saying, "I'm sorry for inappropriate behaviour - but you REALLY should have tried my idea." He was transferred to an office across the city two weeks later.

 

[Gorbles]

Well, I really don't think I need to go into any detail at all about why "because it's easier" is a really bad reason.

"Harder to refute" - I don't see why it would be. If you're trying to show that someone is racist (or a racist), then surely that accusation is harder to refute if you provide direct evidence, rather than indirect evidence. Unless you mean that the indirect evidence itself is harder to refute, which may well be true, but it also doesn't necessarily hold much (or any) weight. An absurd example would be something such as "like many racists, you have two legs". I'm sure this is a true statement, and it might well be hard to refute that you have two legs, but it also doesn't really go very far to proving your point.

I wouldn't really regard it as merely "calling someone a name" if you have actual grounds for calling them racist. It's not just a mean word, it means something.

Assuming the person is acting in bad faith - unless I'm missing some context, I don't see why this would be a fair assumption. I also don't really see how it's relevant anyway. If you have evidence that someone is [a] racist, then that should speak for itself and it shouldn't really matter how they are conducting themselves.

The last point about dissonance - if you're saying that the person will deny the charge if faced with evidence they don't want to accept... surely that's even easier to do with indirect evidence than direct evidence?


So yes, all-in-all I feel that if you're choosing to say "you share arguments with racists", rather than "you share racist arguments", then that just strongly suggests you don't really have anything concrete to base the accusation on.

I disagree, mainly because this (the bolder part) makes no sense considering you already said you consider the terms analogous. You're now saying something different - that the phrasing used isn't the same as calling someone racist.

Calling someone a racist isn't direct evidence of anything. It's a label. It can be an accurate label, but a label nonetheless. Illustrating how someone is using racist arguments - intentionally or otherwise - both serves as a refutation (in that folks don't typically want to be making racist arguments. I'm assuming? Hoping, really), and also as a warning to other readers that there could be something bad faith here.

I mean, if you want to call BCheek a racist, and that's a fair part of this discussion, feel free (I'm not telling you to break any rules, nor do I recommend that). It just seems you're more interested in poking holes on Cloud's argument, which to me is missing the point.

One last point on "it being harder to refute". A common defense from racists who don't want to be called on their behaviour is to object to being called such. If you frame it according to the actual arguments being made, you make the debate about the argument (as it should be, ideally).