Random Thoughts IV: the Abyss Gazes Back

[Lexicus]

There used to be pro-North-Korea and pro-Stalin lefties on here (and their support was deadly serious) but I don't think I've ever used that as a tool to bludgeon them.

Is this some kind of joke? I remember interacting with at least one poster who supported both before being permabanned and I constantly bludgeoned them for it.

Yeah, seems like this is my 'Ben Shapiro advocates ethnic cleansing' post.

Has Ben Shapiro recanted the claims made in this post or what?

 

[Takhisis]

If that old post keeps leading to trouble then you might consider using the edit feature.

I'm saying that WHEN I engage in political topics I am typically dogpiled and strawmanned into oblivion.

You post things that go against facts as well as the opinion of a majority of people here then you can't expect them to do a CNN and stop posting when they as a block have matched the number of characters you've typed. This is an open arena where you are expected to back what you say and take criticism. It's what I do. What tim does. What Ajidica, Lexicus and cardgame and everyone else who's posting in this thread and in others.

Also, the tankies get a lot of criticism. It's just that they aren't posting much these days.

 

[Mouthwash]

Of course, we have no redefined "smearing him" as "quoting him"

How bout you go ahead and quote me, then?

Is this some kind of joke? I remember interacting with at least one poster who supported both before being permabanned and I constantly bludgeoned them for it.

No, there were others who were well-respected members of the forum. This was before you had a big presence in OT.

Has Ben Shapiro recanted the claims made in this post or what?

Yes, multiple times.

If that old post keeps leading to trouble then you might consider using the edit feature.

He didn't quote or link to it at all, so it doesn't seem like that would help. Keeping it around might be helpful in refuting lies that others might tell about it.

You post things that go against facts as well as the opinion of a majority of people here then you can't expect them to do a CNN and stop posting when they as a block have matched the number of characters you've typed. This is an open arena where you are expected to back what you say and take criticism. It's what I do. What tim does. What Ajidica, Lexicus and cardgame and everyone else who's posting in this thread and in others.

I mean, I'm all for a dogpile, but getting dogpiled by strawmen is just a headache with no payoff.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I mean, I'm all for a dogpile, but getting dogpiled by strawmen is just a headache with no payoff.

Maybe if you quit pretending you are being strawmanned life would get easier.

 

[Lexicus]

How bout you go ahead and quote me, then?

Can't be bothered. But you know perfectly well that you were arguing a few months ago that men "need" sex and women should accordingly be "socially pressured" into monogamous relationships so that men can have that need met. If you've since changed your mind, good on you.

Yes, multiple times.

That's nice. Funny that he doesn't seem to have changed his mind on most of the other claims he made in that pro-ethnic cleansing piece. He still regularly refers to the Palestinians as consumed by mindless hatred for Israel. "I no longer support ethnic cleansing, but have evolved my position to perpetual military occupation, denial of all political freedoms, with periodic 'grass mowing' operations" is uh...not very much of an improvement imo but whatever floats your boat I guess

I mean, I could handle 'dogpile' by itself, but getting dogpiled by strawmen takes lots of energy to deal with.

I love getting dogpiled. Pile me bby

 

[Takhisis]

He didn't quote or link to it at all, so it doesn't seem like that would help. Keeping it around might be helpful in refuting lies that others might tell about it.

Well, yes, but adding a disclaimer would add credence to your claim that you were joking or trolling or whatever. Otherwise you're letting it stand.

I mean, I'm all for a dogpile, but getting dogpiled by strawmen is just a headache with no payoff.

You're constantly claiming that you're misrepresented. I've told you before: why not read your posts before clicking/pushing/prodding/whatever-new-technology-Elon-Musk-comes-up-with-next-ing the ‘Post Reply’ button?

Because you did post, not so long ago, -just to stay on topic- ‘I don't care about the rights of Arabs’ (this is an almost literal quote). How do you expect such a post to be interpreted?

 

[Mouthwash]

Can't be bothered. But you know perfectly well that you were arguing a few months ago that men "need" sex

No, I said they need a relationship (or at least a reasonable opportunity for one).

and women should accordingly be "socially pressured" into monogamous relationships so that men can have that need met.

I don't think you understand what the word 'enforcement' means.

I also think that men should be socially pressured towards childrearing and marriage, so I guess both the Men's Right's activists and the usual crowd hate me now.

He still regularly refers to the Palestinians as consumed by mindless hatred for Israel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_Authority_Martyrs_Fund#Attitude_of_Palestinian_society

Because you did post, not so long ago, -just to stay on topic- ‘I don't care about the rights of Arabs’ (this is an almost literal quote). How do you expect such a post to be interpreted?

When my opponents ever starting actually quoting me saying all horrible things they attribute to me, it'll herald the end times.

 

[Traitorfish]

Mouthwash, I'm going to try and offer some constructive criticism here, and suggest that your reputation may owe something to your making a bold and sometimes slightly bizarre claims, then retreating to a more moderate position when you encounter push-back. Many of these "smears" you refer to are people responding, sincerely enough, to that initial claim, and simply failing to credit your attempts to distance yourself from that initial claim; it's inevitable and not unreasonable that people should take the initial claim as representing your true opinion, and and the revised position as back-tracking, so even if the majority of what you post is perfectly sensible, what people will remember is the initial, outlandish claim. If these initials statements are either not wholly sincere, or are misinterpreted, then I'd urge you to more deeply consider your initial intervention, and how it will be received, in the knowledge that you are throwing yourself into a pit of socialist vipers.

(Before you ask, I don't have any examples to hand, because I'm genuinely not trying to score points, here; it's just something to consider.)

Does anyone else think it's kind of ironic that people who use/post the NPC meme exhibit without fail the exact mental tendencies the meme is supposed to be satirizing?

Given the politics of its enthusiasts, this sort of projection is pretty par for the course.

 

[Mouthwash]

Yes, my conversation-starters sometimes aren't well communicated, and I often use shorthand language where a thorough explanation is needed. But more often my interlocutors simply spout as many egregious falsehoods as they think they can get away with (I was very careful from the beginning when explaining why genders roles and marriage are healthy, but here Lexicus is saying that I think all men ought to receive a girlfriend to fulfill their sex quotas).

 

[Manfred Belheim]

My treatment of you was outrageous by pretty much any standard, but was not only accepted but openly welcomed by the community at large, and that's what sends a message.

Really? Maybe in face-to-face real world company, where people still feel some sort of obligation towards politeness, it would have been outrageous. On here it just seems to be the standard level of discourse whenever any sort of diagreement breaks out. I'm honestly surprised you even remember that specific example as being something noteworthy.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

The thing is, do you really want the far right to get away with stating that people can be legally killed by the state? Perhaps you're too far removed from it, but death squads is the very near past for me IRL, so the consequences of having a legal death penalty are perhaps clearer to me than to you. As Traitorfish pointed out, once you allow for people being executed for some reasons then you're changing the discussion from whether people have the right to live to when do they, because it's then obvious that they do not necessarily or permanently have the right to live.

Why is that a special case though? Why is it not equally a concern to allow for the state to incarcerate people? Because, by the same argument, once they have that power, what's stopping them just locking up anyone they want to for arbitrary reasons. Or the right to fine people. Or the right to issue (and withdraw) library cards, etc.

I'm not saying that isn't necessarily a concern of course (there was some concern over the length of time people could be detained without charge under anti-terrorism laws for example), but you can't really grant the state powers to do anything at all if that's the way you think. It also kind of denies the ability of the electorate to influence at any level other than a binary choice, which we know isn't really the case. And to be honest, if the state has the power and the will to start arbitrarily executing people for any reason, completely against the will of the people, then it's not like they really need the permission in the first place.

 

[Arakhor]

Moderator Action: Personal threads are not permitted at CFC. This thread's recent focus on one specific poster (in a serial thread about random thoughts, no less) is threatening to make this into a personal thread.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Does anyone else think it's kind of ironic that people who use/post the NPC meme exhibit without fail the exact mental tendencies the meme is supposed to be satirizing?

Kind of unavoidable since that's all anyone is exhibiting when they repost memes. Hence memes being crap.

 

[Lexicus]

No, I said they need a relationship (or at least a reasonable opportunity for one).

Yes, my conversation-starters sometimes aren't well communicated, and I often use shorthand language where a thorough explanation is needed. But more often my interlocutors simply spout as many egregious falsehoods as they think they can get away with (I was very careful from the beginning when explaining why genders roles and marriage are healthy, but here Lexicus is saying that I think all men ought to receive a girlfriend to fulfill their sex quotas).

Well, in a sense I do want them (along with men) to be forced* into sex/intimacy with someone else. I just want it to be within the bounds of institutions rather than as atomized individuals.

*Really just socially pressured.

So uh yeah I dunno if you're just misremembering what you actually argued but either way

Anyway in the spirit of the thread, random thought: I hope the rain in this (Pittsburgh) area on election day doesn't discourage (m)any people from voting.

 

[Mouthwash]

Would it be infractable to respond to Lexicus here?

 

[Arakhor]

I would advise taking it to PMs.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Really? Maybe in face-to-face real world company, where people still feel some sort of obligation towards politeness, it would have been outrageous. On here it just seems to be the standard level of discourse whenever any sort of diagreement breaks out. I'm honestly surprised you even remember that specific example as being something noteworthy.

Really? You've reminded me of it several times. Some of which appeared to be intentional. Either way, I have a better than average memory.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Really? You've reminded me of it several times. Some of which appeared to be intentional. Either way, I have a better than average memory.

Have I? Other people seem to bring it up more often than I do, and even then it's just the whole argument, not specifically your particular reaction in it. As for your memory, I wasn't surprised you remembered it, I was surprised you remembered it as being noteworthy. Other than your frequent references to fecal matter, I don't see much about your reaction that stands out from typical "disagreements" on here. If anything it was one of the more reasonable ones.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Have I? Other people seem to bring it up more often than I do, and even then it's just the whole argument, not specifically your particular reaction in it. As for your memory, I wasn't surprised you remembered it, I was surprised you remembered it as being noteworthy.

The way other people have continued to bring it up seems an indication that I was further beyond the pale than I usually travel. Whenever someone accuses me of "hounding people" they almost always refer to you. That made it a handy example here, if not particularly "noteworthy." Besides, you mentioned the old avatar just the other day so it was fresh on my mind.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

The way other people have continued to bring it up seems an indication that I was further beyond the pale than I usually travel.

Well like I said, when I've seen it brought up it's just about the topic in general, or my "trolling" or whatever, not what you said.

Whenever someone accuses me of "hounding people" they almost always refer to you.

I've not noticed if they do. Maybe that's just in PMs or threads I don't go in.