My experience with game

[rah]

And unpleasant asshats still serve the purpose of making us always question our own beliefs. Without them the it would get pretty boring around here after everyone finishes patting each other on the back. There is no excuse for not being civil.

 

[Farm Boy]

You're not aiming that "asshat" correctly, Rah.

 

[rah]

If I show up at your house and crap on the carpet

1. this is not your house, it's a community of diverse opinions.
2. voicing an opinion you don't agree in a discussion forum isn't the same as crapping on your carpet.

I expect there to be 'lively discussion' but feel that sometimes it lowers itself into just bullying.
Excuse me if I think we should be better than that.

 

[rah]

You're not aiming that "asshat" correctly, Rah.

Yeah, I've worn that one before. Doesn't mean I was proud of it.

 

[inthesomeday]

There is no excuse for not being civil.

Wanna bet

 

[yung.carl.jung]

And another person get's bullied from the OT.
Another victory for free speech.

Mary was jumped from like 3 different people at once for stating her beliefs and didn't back down. The same happens to Valka and Mouthwash often times. That person just wanted to have his ridiculous position accepted as the end-all be-all of truth and when it didn't work out, he quickly ran out of ammunition and gave up.

To say it as sexist as humanly possible:

He needs to grow a pair. CFCOT isn't about coddling, it isn't a right-wing hugbox and it isn't a left-wing circlejerk. If you voice an opinion you have to be ready to accept criticism from all sides.

 

[Farm Boy]

Yeah, I've worn that one before. Doesn't mean I was proud of it.

Me too! Both counts.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

it's a community of diverse opinions.

That statement becomes much different depending on whether you emphasize 'community' or 'diverse.'

I have some opinions that are, if not unique within this community, certainly not widely held. After tens of thousands of posts I'm sure that most regulars around here could rattle off a long list of my opinions they disagree with, sometimes disagree with to such a degree that 'total' would be accurate. I knew that coming in, and I know that now. I don't crap on the rug by introducing armed violence against the police as the only realistically viable solution into any and every discussion that comes up. If I did I would expect to be run out of here like any other rug crapper, not touted as an example of community tolerance. Because I understood from the gate that community trumps diverse in that statement.

And, yes, 'but what about my poor manliness being subjugated by all this wimmen whining' is crapping on the rug. It isn't 'presenting a diverse opinion that perhaps the community is unaware of'...especially when it is being dumped on the rug for the fortieth time. Eventually the community puts out the dog, or they have to just adapt to the stench...or move to another house.

 

[inthesomeday]

I don't crap on the rug by introducing armed violence against the police as the only realistically viable solution into any and every discussion that comes up.

Jeez Tim you can @ me next time

 

[rah]

I don't think him whining about all those wimmen is as bad as introducing armed violence against the police.
Are you trying to say, that if he was a regular and people knew he was a asshat, he could have gotten more civil treatment. Really.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Jeez Tim you can @ me next time

LOL...actually, that was an @me, not an @you. I think most people would list my propensity for violence and my antipathy for law enforcement as their things about me they disagree with most.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't think him whining about all those wimmen is as bad as introducing armed violence against the police.
Are you trying to say, that if he was a regular and people knew he was a asshat, he could have gotten more civil treatment. Really.

I just wanted to make the point that it isn't necessary to be totally agreed with on every issue to be a part of this community, using my own not widely accepted views as examples. And no, being a regular that people know as an asshat wouldn't get him good treatment, nor should it. If anything, the opposite. The guy who posts endless asshattery shouldn't be treated better for his occasional foray into not being one. But, yeah, someone who is known as 'not an asshat' can post some disagreeable stuff now and again without getting burned at the stake. That's why at this point pretty much all the disagreeable things I believe are in fact pretty common knowledge in the community. I don't dump them on the carpet every day, but I have mentioned them often enough. That's tolerance of diverse opinions, without nose plugs.

 

[rah]

I guess I just have more tolerance and wish other did also But different strokes for different folks and all.

But I'll admit that there are a some people here that I'm willing to ignore some stuff because I like them.

And decades in management has tempered me along those lines.

 

[Farm Boy]

Humans are loyal before just.

It's not a super welcoming trait, to say the least.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'm thinking you were more trying to discount something that couldn't be packed into your position.

To be honest/specific: I was considering doing that, but realized I don't know the real % and couldn't find them easily, so I switched to asking to see.

The "military as path to leadership" is absolutely a real thing in the US, right now.

Conscription is *not* a thing right now in the USA, however. At least, it's not a major political selling point to have been conscripted.

And those rewards were not available to women, en masse, because it was 'obvious at a glance' that they didn't serve. That glance generally was enough to set aside even the few women who did serve.

The cause of what you describe is not conscription, it's discrimination after the fact. It's also old at this point.

You try to be all debate referee and rule other posts as being offside or something, but only the ones you disagree with.

I am engaging in the debate. Where did I claim to be referee?

Furthermore you don't offer an alternative explanation for the experience of women in our societies, you just voice your own denial and refuse discussion and so implicitly claim some kind of unvoiced centrist position.

I didn't deny women see discrimination though. The vast majority of my time in this thread was instead refuting the false assertion that misandry "isn't a word" or that it doesn't exist on general scales. Those are both false claims.

I don't know if I'm "centrist" or something else. There are aspects of "right" and "left" that I openly hold in disdain, but there are also topics where I'm further right or left than some people who describe themselves as one of those. I don't know what you call that, but I do know it's not relevant to this thread and that quoted is a weak attempt to attack my credibility rather than actually addressing anything I posted.

It is extra dishonest because if you believe in secret female supremacists then you are in fact a radical reactionary with no legitimate claim to the status quo or the centre/moderatism.

I just said it wasn't a secret, so it is disingenuous to now claim I said there are "secret female supremacists". Not all feminists are female supremacists. There is a relatively small percentage of extreme feminists who obviously fit that bill (go onto YouTube and you can find direct, recorded statements from them). There is also a more grey area where some push for laws that are obviously not "equal". That is a power play and equality can't be the goal when pushing/passing legislation that favors non-equality.

Its basically an extra wordy version of what Manfred does. He says "You are wrong, but I choose not to explain the manner in which you are wrong, because that might involve explicitly stating a position that could then be criticized."

I did express a position (statements were misandry, and that misandry exists), and provided a link to data which demonstrated some of the claims were false. The dishonest practice is ignoring the contents of my post and attempting to shift focus to my intentions, not what I have posted.

You give logic a bad name.

I don't know about that, but perhaps you can do me one better and start applying some .

 

[ulyssesSgrant]

Well, no, it actually isn't. Never has been. Is there a good reason that it should be? If I show up at your house and crap on the carpet is there some 'societal restriction' that says you are required to make me welcome?

This thread is moving fast. I'm just talking about basic human decency. The assumption should be that people come here to talk about ideas - to share theirs, and to listen to others. When people are mocked or bullied, then tend to walk away believing they were treated this way because there weren’t any good arguments against what they said. Bad ideas speak for themselves, they fall apart when brought into the light, so I don’t typically feel the need to silence them.

That being said, I don't really think you guys did bully him, at least not most of you. I just think purely for pragmatic reasons it's better to find some common ground and then give an argument why you disagree vs mock and silence.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The assumption should be that people come here to talk about ideas - to share theirs, and to listen to others.

When someone reiterates a point that has already been presented and summarily rejected repeatedly the evidence doesn't support the assumption that they are here to "share theirs and listen to others." As I said, I have a lot of views that get rejected every time I present them, at least by part of the community, and a few that are rejected with extreme prejudice (in the espionage sense) by pretty much everyone. I could be really annoying and just keep reiterating those views...if my intention was to be annoying. But I actually do fit the assumption.

Conscription is *not* a thing right now in the USA, however. At least, it's not a major political selling point to have been conscripted.

Most people of an age to be running for office were either subject to possible conscription themselves or have it as first hand close family experience (like I was never at risk to be drafted, but my older brother 'volunteered' strictly to avoid the draft), and yes, it is actually a major political selling point. Obama was knocked for lack of military service, and so is Commander Bonespurs. Obama v Romney made an issue of "which military avoidance process was worse." GWBush was knocked for service to avoid real service, much like my brother's. There was not a single candidate for congress in November who had military service in their background that did not campaign on it, and even if they were young enough to be certifiably not conscripted the votes they were appealing for by doing so include votes of people who were.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

When someone reiterates a point that has already been presented and summarily rejected repeatedly the evidence doesn't support the assumption that they are here to "share theirs and listen to others." As I said, I have a lot of views that get rejected every time I present them, at least by part of the community, and a few that are rejected with extreme prejudice (in the espionage sense) by pretty much everyone. I could be really annoying and just keep reiterating those views...if my intention was to be annoying. But I actually do fit the assumption.




Most people of an age to be running for office were either subject to possible conscription themselves or have it as first hand close family experience (like I was never at risk to be drafted, but my older brother 'volunteered' strictly to avoid the draft), and yes, it is actually a major political selling point. Obama was knocked for lack of military service, and so is Commander Bonespurs. Obama v Romney made an issue of "which military avoidance process was worse." GWBush was knocked for service to avoid real service, much like my brother's. There was not a single candidate for congress in November who had military service in their background that did not campaign on it, and even if they were young enough to be certifiably not conscripted the votes they were appealing for by doing so include votes of people who were.

Fair enough. Shows how much mind I paid that crap, but if it's still a thing so be it. I will accept that this can potentially be used as a tool to discriminate against women (and to a lesser extent, younger men who were not subject to conscription but are running for office).

I suppose it shouldn't surprise me. Holding a gun and pointing it at someone, or doing more mundane but healthier tasks like stacking boxes are crucial services for the country, but I don't see why they are predictive of who will make/enforce policy well. As such, selecting based on this kind of factor is inviting bias.

 

[Farm Boy]

Our system isn't based on who will make/enforce policy well. People like Senator Duckworth and hold her service up as laudable, hence she is given power.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Our system isn't based on who will make/enforce policy well.

This seems obviously flawed, but...

I don't see why they are predictive of who will make/enforce policy well.

This begs the question of what actually would be predictive?

A candidate that talks the game of having their heart in the right place might be just talking the talk, and even if they aren't there is no evidence that they aren't just incapable of getting anything accomplished. For those too young to remember it the rallying cry of the GOP, circa 1978, was 'weren't you better off with the really sharp crook than you are with the honest fool?'

Lawyers are definitely the best skilled for crafting effective laws that bring policy into reality...but lawyers are almost certainly not to be trusted with the task.

So, what predictors can really be used? Or are we stuck with "elect them and hope, then boot them if it goes bad." That, by the way, is a strong argument against term limits.