Political discourse on The Comment Section

What's happening in your world? Discuss it here.
Forum rules
Play nice. We will be watching

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby NoodleFox » Mon Nov 13, 2017 8:20 pm

CoWZ05t.gif
CoWZ05t.gif (842.1 KiB) Viewed 6266 times
d44.jpg
d44.jpg (7.89 KiB) Viewed 6266 times

Haaay, mind if you stop slandering me, please?

Yeesh, never thought I'd see the day I'd ISIS a forum! (thatsajoke.png)
Well, if you want to see a boogeyman in me, go right ahead; I have no reason to (and truly no possible way to make you understand) go back and explain myself on why me jokingly stating I live in a goddamn satirical, fictional country doesn't make me a white nationalist.

Which leads my thinking to: Me having zero chance in making you understand how being fucking associated with the fucking alt-right is an insult. But I'll try:
HEY SPENCER, HOW'S BEING AN ALTY TREATING YOU?
Spoiler: show
alt-right.jpg
alt-right.jpg (32.7 KiB) Viewed 6266 times

Hey, why not add Trump supporters into the mix? I mean, they may have alt-right thoughts...
Spoiler: show
Collage 2017-11-13 13_41_32.jpg
Collage 2017-11-13 13_41_32.jpg (376.92 KiB) Viewed 6266 times

I tried, I guessss?

Which then leads my thinking to: Me also having zero chance in making you understand my opinions if the sources I give are fucking 'biased' from the start.
Which site was alt-right, hmm? The Daily Caller? Breitbart? RT? Politico? AP? Please tell me so I can stay away from those horrible fake news sites?

Also:
Marcuse wrote:She had every chance to walk away from the thread and say people were being awful, but she did not.

NoodleFox wrote:I'm done talking about this. I want nothing more to do with hearing others trying to weasel Spacey out of being a sick, fucking degenerate; him being gay has nothing to do with this anymore."

I wanted to drop it because I perceived people as defending a fucking child molester; maybe if you cut the shit about one stupid fucking sentence I stupidly spouted and said, "Okay, Spacey is fucking scum and should rot under the prison foundation", I would've been more than okay with that.

But you didn't. You didn't and bitched about this massive reach of me saying "Hey, there's a lot of man/boy relationships I've seen in the gay community-" equaling "All gay men in Hollywood are pedophiles."
Fuuuuuuuck oooooff with your notions of seeing me as a horrible person.

This's why I'm not coming back.
This's why I never posted any source in that blight of a conversation because I know you will dismiss it for not being from where you want it to be.

You can say you're not calling me a homophobic, bigot, transphobic, white nationalist Nazi (unlike every other left-leaning forum I've been run out of, amazingly), but you are, deep down.

I mean, why else would you twist my words into those people can witch hunt behind?

But in the end, I don't care. You don't know me.

The people that do accept me elsewhere, who have so many different opinions read what I have to say and will more or less agree with me or laugh along with me or will flat out disagree and call me the same meanie words (and worse) I've said, they know me - and I guess they're the same as me. We're all one big, happy, alt-right family.

I was never going to fit in here anyway, so why bother to keep putting in effort when people just attack character and assume the worst in humans? The worst in an internet nobody?

The worst in an internet nobody who has been warped into a boogeyman?

Godspeed, you bastards, I do wish you all well in life; I am not coming back after all of this and you will never hear from me again.

And thank you from the bottom of my blackened cynic heart to anyone who didn't see what never was there and stood up for me - that truly means the world to me. Thank you...

Thank you so much for believing in me.

Warm regards this winter - NoodleFox
  • 5

User avatar
NoodleFox
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2015 8:16 pm
Location: Kekistan
Show rep
Title: Third Person Facepalm-er

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby DoglovingJim » Mon Nov 13, 2017 8:50 pm

cmsellers wrote:
DoglovingJim wrote:Forgive me for my error, I assumed it was from the way you responded.

You see how easy it is to misunderstand what people meant?

DoglovingJim wrote:Fair enough, you view peoples frustration over CMSellers labeling of Noodle-Fox as crazy.

Uh, what? When did I say anything that could even be interpreted that way?

I'm talking about Fudge? That he views it crazy that people are even frustrated about you labeling someone as Alt-Right? I don't get it, this whole time I have been telling you guys about misinterpreting posts and yet you just still don't seem to realise it.

And regardless, according to the rest of the stuff since I'm not intending on giving a long-winded reply. Firstly I will never change my mind that it is wrong for someone to attach labels on another in the way you did, and secondly while you may not have been intending to mock Alt-Right people with your thread people can see it that way and that's the thing about different interpretations. Finally the "recent incident" in TCS in regards to an alleged child molester demonstrates nothing of what your thread was about, but I guess you simply have a really stylised interpretation of the matter (you really didn't need to try and use her as an example, I can't stress that enough).
  • 0

Last edited by DoglovingJim on Mon Nov 13, 2017 8:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image

Edgar Cabrera wrote:HOLY SHIT GUYS, IT'S DOGLOVINGJIM!!! HE'S HERE!!!

skoobadive wrote:It's the legendary DoglovingJim! Ohboy, this must be the greatest day of my life!

Cracked.com wrote:Initially, his interest in animals was "primarily a sexual attraction," but as he grew older, he also "developed the emotional attraction." We guess we could call what Jim does ... dog-lovin'
User avatar
DoglovingJim
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 2798
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 12:07 am
Location: No block of land is going to tie Jim and his dogs down.
Show rep
Title: Manly Man

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby Tesseracts » Mon Nov 13, 2017 8:52 pm

Noodle, I didn't read that as you wanting me to drop the subject. Instead I read it as you accusing me of supporting child rape. Rather than dropping it, that's adding fire to the flames. It hurts me to be treated like that, and it sucks quick some of you others are to throw me under the bus.

I expect better of TCS than partisan side-taking. Even in your post disassociating yourself from the alt right you are branding the left, which includes this website, as the enemy. If the left is your enemy and TCS is your enemy, it's because you want them to be. Ironically by lumping everyone you don't agree with into the left, you are participating in the same behavior that has upset you. This is true not just for Noodle but for everyone who does this, which happens to be quite a few of you. I'm sure I'm guilty of it to some degree as well because nobody is perfect. This really has to stop, I want CASS to be a place where people discuss ideas rather than attack each other as human beings.
  • 14

User avatar
Tesseracts
Big Brother
Big Brother
 
Posts: 9653
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 5:31 am
Show rep
Title: Social Media Expert

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby sunglasses » Mon Nov 13, 2017 8:53 pm

We require sources for CAaSS. If people pick apart the source and the information from the source, that's on them. It's happened to me a few times and helped me look for what makes a better source.

But seriously, to everyone in the future.

If you post in CAaSS, please be prepared to post sources if asked. This allows for debate and yeah, what Tess said about discussing things vs attacking.

Also, please be aware: archived links aren't able to be seen on all browsers and if someone is viewing things from their work wi-fi. It may be blocked. So if someone ignores a source and it's from an archived link-that may be why.
  • 13

TCS Etiquette Guide

Rules and FAQs

Zevran wrote:Magic can kill. Knives can kill. Even small children launched at great speeds can kill.
User avatar
sunglasses
TCS Moderator
TCS Moderator
 
Posts: 11541
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 2:52 pm
Show rep
Title: The Speaker of Horrors.

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby cmsellers » Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:08 pm

NoodleFox wrote:Hey, why not add Trump supporters into the mix? I mean, they may have alt-right thoughts...

Are those even pictures of Trump supporters? I know of one incident where a Trump supporter was supposedly attacked by antifa enough to bleed (because you shared that story) and it turned out he'd done it to himself.

NoodleFox wrote:Which site was alt-right, hmm? The Daily Caller? Breitbart? RT? Politico? AP? Please tell me so I can stay away from those horrible fake news sites?

Yes, yes, yes, no, no.
And I never said they are fake news; that's you projecting. But then, I've been over this before with both you and Max and I don't know how I can be clearer. A site which is unreliable is not fake news. A site which doesn't fact-check is not fake news. Fake news is exactly what it sounds like: sites that make thinks up out of whole cloth for clicks.

NoodleFox wrote:I wanted to drop it because I perceived people as defending a fucking child molester; maybe if you cut the shit about one stupid fucking sentence I stupidly spouted and said, "Okay, Spacey is fucking scum and should rot under the prison foundation", I would've been more than okay with that.

Honestly, it's unlikely that many people on TCS are going to wish for even the worst person to rot. That's just not the kind of place we are. You can call us bleeding-hearts, if you want, but I just don't have the energy to hate every awful person in the world.

NoodleFox wrote:This's why I never posted any source in that blight of a conversation because I know you will dismiss it for not being from where you want it to be.

I mean yeah, if you'd posted an article from Breitbart which was long on accusations and short on sources, we'd have questioned it. Extraordinary claims and all that. If the only place you can find a claim is a fringe site with an agenda, your null hypothesis should be that the claim is bullshit.

NoodleFox wrote:You can say you're not calling me a homophobic, bigot, transphobic, white nationalist Nazi (unlike every other left-leaning forum I've been run out of, amazingly), but you are, deep down.

Well, gis did call you homophobic and transphobic, I think. But nobody here has said you're a white-nationalist or a Nazi; those of us who have commented at all have said that you're very much not.

NoodleFox wrote:The people that do accept me elsewhere, who have so many different opinions read what I have to say and will more or less agree with me or laugh along with me or will flat out disagree and call me the same meanie words (and worse) I've said, they know me - and I guess they're the same as me. We're all one big, happy, alt-right family.

So wait, your complaint is that we don't call you names? But also you're insulted that I called you "alt-right"? But also you can call yourself alt-right because it's sort of the political version of the n-word? Am I getting this right?

NoodleFox wrote:I was never going to fit in here anyway, so why bother to keep putting in effort when people just attack character and assume the worst in humans? The worst in an internet nobody?

The worst in an internet nobody who has been warped into a boogeyman?

You're not a boogeyman, and nobody except maybe Gis has criticized your character. Now, I'm annoyed that you post alt-right false-flag stories and don't respond when I call you on them, which is why I stopped engaging with you in political threads. But several people on TCS are even more impossible to talk about politics with them, and I still enjoy talking with them about non-political things. I wish you'd talked more about your job at a vet, or come on Discord, but believe it or not, I liked having you around, because you provided a perspective we didn't really get on TCS. And while I'm sure you won't believe this, I'm very sorry to see you leave.
  • 11

User avatar
cmsellers
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9316
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:20 pm
Location: Not *that* Bay Area
Show rep
Title: Broken Record Player

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby Marcuse » Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:19 pm

I wanted to drop it because I perceived people as defending a fucking child molester; maybe if you cut the shit about one stupid fucking sentence I stupidly spouted and said, "Okay, Spacey is fucking scum and should rot under the prison foundation", I would've been more than okay with that.

But you didn't. You didn't and bitched about this massive reach of me saying "Hey, there's a lot of man/boy relationships I've seen in the gay community-" equaling "All gay men in Hollywood are pedophiles."
Fuuuuuuuck oooooff with your notions of seeing me as a horrible person.


I'm sorry you see this conversation in that way. I think your interpretation of me calling you a bad person is both incorrect, and demonstrably so. I asked you for evidence, and your response is to say that I wouldn't accept your evidence anyway so why bother. The problem is you didn't even try to present evidence, you called me a faggot (as well as the rest of the forum) and tacitly threatened to troll the board by posting our names. You don't know my response to it because I never had to chance to give one. If you'd done something more than post a couple of anecdotes, or claim personal experience of things, then I would have examined that. Maybe I would have accepted it as evidence, but we could have examined the claim openly and considered whether it's true or not.

I understand it was only one line, however it was a controversial one that was making other people upset too. I don't think anyone really disagrees with the point that Spacey is scum, so why would I expend a ton of time talking about it? It would have been really easy to defuse that by saying it was something said in the heat of the moment and it wasn't something you actually think. I know I would have dropped it then.

I think that sometimes there are some things which go against the political orthodoxy that are borne out by evidence. The claim that poor white boys are least likely to attend higher education is borne out by evidence, despite all the privilege theories doing the rounds. The claim that transgender people are disproportionately likely to be murdered is also borne out by evidence. It's not impossible to find evidence for claims like these, and it's possible to pick them apart and examine them too. That's fun and why I like discussing things with people here. What I don't like is being insulted for daring to ask the question.
  • 15

User avatar
Marcuse
TCS Sithlord
TCS Sithlord
 
Posts: 6592
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 8:00 pm
Show rep

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby D-LOGAN » Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:47 pm

Yo!

I'm back, sorry been mad busy with stuff in flesh and blood land lately. Anwho, first up, Kate, I'm just gonna skip over your post and go straight to Tess', not cause I'm playing favourites or anything but cause I think I end up covering most of what you were after, and it'd just be easier this way, plus It's kinda already a long enough post I'm posting.

Now-
Tesseracts wrote:Logan, you know what the answer is already.

Of course I do Tess', that's not the point, the point is this is an important milestone type situation for me to be in considering my views, I need to do some aul soul searching over this, and given I've been here over four years, I just didn't want any ambiguity here. What I have a problem with here is a real impasse for me now, and before I get down into some actual hard-core thinkin' on it, what I was really hoping for was a straight up "this is how it is, take or leave it" so I can get the crystal clear idea of where we all stand. And then I could go from there.

The whole "you know that we know that we all know what the deal is you know" is too vague for me at the best of times, let alone at a potential crossroads. I'm not trying to be a hard ass or nothing, but I genuinely did look at that as a way of simplifying and speeding up things.

Plus I'm not a hundred percent sure you get what I'm objecting to. As I think parts of what I've responded to show me. What I'm objecting to isn't people thinking and saying Noodle-Fox is a bigot or has said bigoted things, that's a topic for debate, and one I'd like to have. What I'm objecting to is when Gisambards said this:

"I think it's ridiculous to have concerns that someone like Noodle might feel unwelcome because people keep suggesting they're prejudiced when they go off about what useless freaks trans people"

Now to be fair, that's not technically saying 'Noodle-Fox said transpeople are useless freaks", not quite anyway.

But to me it is putting it out there for anyone who comes across it as saying 'Noodle-Fox said transpeople are useless freaks", when she said no such thing. Now if one had said "what Noodle-Fox has said on this forum is no better than saying transpeople are useless freaks" or "it was tantamount to saying they're useless freaks" or "SHE'S A 1000 TIMES WORSE THAN SOMEONE WHO SAYS THEY'RE USELESS FREAKS!" that'd be different. That's just giving one's stance, not making a claim for all the world to read that someone said something very specific that someone didn't say.

And no, I don't think it's the same as calling someone a bigot because you think what they said was bigoted or a rape-apologist because you think something they said was rape-apologisty. These are things where, however hurt the person called such may be, the other person is still just giving their stances.
Whereas the other is putting it out there someone said something specific and extreme that they didn't say. I understand that some people don't see the difference. May not have any clue what I'm even talking about. Think I'm a crazy bastard etc. But that's not really the point, I do, which is why I'm making the issue of it.

I think people here should have a reasonable expectation that when other users put across what they've said, that they won't put across words that weren't in their mouth that form a very specific statement different to what they actually said. I think that's worth complaining about.

Now of course it wouldn't have to be exact for it be a fair restating. If Noodle-Fox had said that transpeople were 'freakish and she had no use for them' or they were 'abominations with no value in society' or 'mistakes of nature who couldn't do anything', then that would have been close enough for it in my opinion, which is after all what I'm basing all this on, to count as fair.

But as Gisambards has pointed out, this is what that accusation was based on-

"I'm all for trans rights. I'm a pro person, an egalitarian. BUT I'm also a realist: do you think it's a good idea to have people who have been statistically proven to be physically and mentally unstable and have a suicide rate of 40% in everyday life on the front lines?
To have a trans person who sees themselves as something else, who will eviscerate their body and constantly undergo horrific and painful procedures to feel normal, be able to proclaim, "Yes, I am healthy to join the military. I'm stable enough to fly a helicopter into an area where I'm going to be shot at. I'm going to be able to stand around doing nothing for hours on end, follow orders clearly and concisely, and I'm definitely able to stay clam when I'm being shot at."


Now you can say that's as bad as calling transpeople useless freaks, or that in your opinion someone who says this probably thinks transpeople are useless freaks, that's just giving your opinion and your opinion is now open to discussion ala-
"well I don't think it is."
"well I do."
And so on, and that's cool. But it isn't saying transpeople are useless freaks. To put it there as though it was and have that be something not even on par with starting threads calling out other users in the very first post here, then that's a problem for me. Because this is a moderated forum, which already has rules based on how others should be treated, I view this as akin to lying about someone. And therefore if this is okay, if I log on tomorrow and see Johnny McJohnson has said-
"That D-Logan guy, I'm sick of him always going on about how all Chinese women are useless wenches" and I'm like-
"I NEVER SAID ANYTHING OF THE SORT!"
But the response to any complaint is-
"Well that's how Johnny interprets something you said whether you said it or not, so it's fair game."

That doesn't strike me as fair on a moderated forum. If Johnny trully believes that may as well be what I think or that something else I said means is as bad as that, he can say that and I can defend myself, but I think he at least owes me having it be made clear that's not something I actually said.

And I know you gotta give leeway in normal human conversation. I mean if you say "Kevin says he lives in a big house" whereas Kevin actually said "He resides in a large home", then that's not crossing any line. But there needs to be a line, or it's fine to be lying from my view.

Again, that's the issue, not I'm against calling people bigots if you think they are, or saying things someone has said are bigoted if you think they are, but I am against the act of putting out there that someone said something so specific that they didn't say.

I understand people have gotten the wrong impression, that I am objecting to people calling people bigots when they think they are. But no, that's a conversation I quite like and enjoy, but it was the wrong place to let it happen here while I was making an actual objection.

I have learned that!

I hope that's clear now. And I know it's my fault if it isn't.

You know Gis did not break any rules.


Yes I know, I've checked the rules section since and bloody hell! There isn't a rule against this. I honestly probably never would have been cool with that at the time, Given how absolutely fundamentalist I was on the sanctity of people's words when I first got here. And I was WAY worse about that back then. I've really soften my stance on the matter since. But that's on me of course. If it's that important to me I shoulda made sure at the time. I just assumed it was at least frowned on.

But as I said starting a thread where you call out other users in the first post is at least advised against. So I have potentially something to justify certain things. Hence my request at some kind of official clarity. Not cause I'm asking for a bone to be thrown so I can trick my own mind into getting what I want, but to ensure I'm moving forward with all possible information.

I suspect you are insisting that I repeat myself because you want an excuse to leave.

Well not you specifically. Any mod would do. And it aint about needing excuses, it's about what's the right thing to do.

For me it is genuinely a question of me. It's not about the forum itself. Am I condoning acts that I claim to be against? Am I being hypocritical? Do I put my money where my mouth is when it comes down to it?

And conversely, am I making a mountain out of a mole-hill? Is it not better to argue a case? Is it standing one's ground to stay or is it standing ones ground to leave?

I mean it's some heavy shit for a devil-may-care hipster like me. I wanted to start it off with a very clear beginning point. But I understand that my request may actually make people uncomfortable, so I can just go ahead with what information I have that I assume to be correct, it's a little shaky for me, but needs must as the devil drives and all that.

In spite of everything I still think of you as a friend, and I don't want you to leave. I remember the old days on Cracked and I feel strongly about this community.

Thank you Tess', I'm very touched by that. Thems were some crazy times weren't they. And what a ride it's been.

Just so you know, I'm not doing all this for fun. I'm not doing this out of spite or anger. I'd prefer not to do all this. I aint one for the drama, well maybe some times, but not this situation, but given how clearly I've made my stances on certain matters, it strikes me as worse if I don't least reconcile some matters for myself.

I think I'd come off as hypocrite if I didn't. To myself in particular.

Kate and Marcuse both disagree with me on a lot of issues including trans issues. They are allowed to disagree with me, and I am allowed to think other people's views are transphobic. If we can't say, reasonably and civilly, that we think something is transphobic, we do not have free speech. I believe in free speech and support it as much as possible. I think Noodle should be allowed to say Hollywood has a gay pedophile problem. I think Noodle should be allowed to say I, Tesseracts, am a child rape apologist. It hurts me and I find it insulting, but it's not a violation of the insults rule.


Yeah. As I say that's not what I was objecting to, but again I get why people would think it was. And I do think that right there is a great conversation to have. And you are of course free to do that.
Noodle can speak her mind. If you think she's being bigoted or whatever, you should get to say that. And then if someone thinks you're being unfairer to her by saying that, they should be free to say that.

That last parts important by the way. If someone thinks you're being unfair to someone by calling them a bigot or suggesting they are, then they're no more silencing you by saying that, than you are silencing the first person by saying what you think of them.

But that's not this conversation, it's a great one to have IMO, but I don't wanna let myself veer off like this! I'm gonna stick to the topic at hand. I've learned my lesson.

I agree with Gis and I fully believe it is transphobic to say trans people are self-mutilating and disqualified from military service. I think I should be allowed to say that.

Yes. Of course you can. And people who disagree with you and think that's unfair or wrong or whatever should be allowed to say that. And you should be allowed defend your self, and they should be allowed ... etc. etc.

But again, that's not my objection.

My objection would be if in response to someone saying they think transgenderism is caused by a mental illness, that it's a form of self-mutilation and as such they are against people in this situation this serving in the military, you were to say "this person crossed the line with all that 'transpeople are worthless scum' talk" or something else they didn't say. Unless you made it clear in said statement they didn't actually say that, but that's your take on the matter.

I think others should be allowed to call me a terrorist sympathizer and rape apologist in response, although I really hope you don't.

Of course not.

Many people here would agree with what Gis said

And that's my problem. If there are indeed many people who agree it's okay to frame what Noodle said as 'transpeople are useless freaks' when she didn't say it. If that's what they agree with, not just it's a bigoted attitude to have, but the thing I objected to. Yep. That's ... a problem.

so it is very strange in my opinion to single her out specifically. Nothing about what she said is unusual by our standards.

Because I don't see anyone else doing that.

And no someone referring to as a rape apologist or terrorist supporter because of an interpration they took wouldn't be the same. If they said "Tess said rapists did nothing wrong and the victims are responsible for being raped" or "Tess says she supports terrorists and said literal terrorists are awesome" when you said no such thing, that would be the same issue.

I acknowledge people may not see the difference. But I do. So what options do I have? If there's one I'm missing, let me know, it'd help me out.

Let me ask you this. What is the alternative to allowing people to make claims you don't like? If someone does not say, out loud, that they object to something, they will still object in their head. Should they keep their opinion to themselves? I don't think so. I think everyone should express their opinion.

Which is not what I'm objecting to. I support people speaking their mind and voicing their opinions. And as I say I include people both saying someone's a bigot AND people saying it's unfair to call that someone a bigot for that reason and all that goes with it.

What I'm objecting to is framing people as saying things they didn't, to such a specific degree. If this was an unmoderated comment section or something, it's be different of course.

That's why I pushed for people to bring up their grievances instead of keeping it to themselves. I generally think it's better if we discuss things. I'm not certain that was the right decision, because this discussion seems to have just deepened the anger. However the anger would exist even if we didn't talk about it, so it's probably best to talk about it.

Yes it was the right decision. Don't let any of this sway you on that front.

I absolutely did not want NoodleFox to leave. I think this forum needs a diversity of opinions to maintain a healthy atmosphere of discussion. I made every effort to get along with and I spoke with her in PM to attempt to clear up misunderstandings. However, I do not blame myself or anyone else here for her leaving. If she doesn't like what we have to say, that's her prerogative.

Honestly this isn't really about Noodle-Fox or Gisambards, it's the principle of the matter for me. If it wasn't this, the matter would have come up eventually. I'm surprised it hasn't before, maybe it did and I missed it or it didn't occur to me at the time. The thing that this is about for me is if this forum is against people directly insulting other users and sock-puppet accounts and whatnot, but in no way is against framing people as saying things they didn't say so specifically even on an advisory front, than am I, ME, endorsing such a principle?

Because that's what it all MUST come down to at the end. If I don't stand by my principles, what use am I to anyone? And more importantly, am I even actually betraying them?

That's what I find myself pondering.

The election of Donald Trump has really created a rift in this community. The current political atmosphere is causing division everywhere. I don't want it to happen, but I fe?el powerless to stop it. I can't tell people what to think or what to say. I can't tell people to stop reading websites like Kiwi Farms or Rawstory. I can't stop anyone from leaving. I want an atmosphere where people can debate, openly and honestly, about any issue without assuming bad intentions or attempting to shut down discussion.

Well, I think this is the best way to go about it honestly. I know it's unpleasant, but in the long run it'll be shown to be right. Like you say, best to just get things out in the open.

Clean, clear, consise.

BOO-YEAH!

Anyway, that's what I'm currently now mulling over in my trussled up brain.
  • 5

Last edited by D-LOGAN on Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:42 am, edited 2 times in total.
Not just yet, I'm still tender from before.
User avatar
D-LOGAN
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3590
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:08 pm
Location: Éire
Show rep
Title: ALL PRAISE UNTO MIGHTY KEK!

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby gisambards » Mon Nov 13, 2017 11:56 pm

This is just a repeat of the same thing. "Gisambards described what someone said in a way I disagree with, and I find it unacceptable that this won't be punished." I maintain that the specific piece I quoted contains Noodle saying trans people are fundamentally useless (which I think is an apt summary of what someone is saying about people who they say are incapable of standing around for hours, following orders or keeping calm under pressure) and is attempting to make them sound freakish through her description of what trans people ostensibly do to themselves. I think this can be summarised as her effectively saying trans people are useless freaks.

To make it so that I'd be punished for expressing it that way would be an unacceptable violation of freedom of speech.

I also just want to take this opportunity to point out that you are really being a hypocrite: I can provide a specific example of you doing to me what you're accusing me of doing to Noodle, with the only difference being that I'd actually at the time explained that I didn't mean what you later said I'd said. So if you say what I'm doing is an unacceptable lie that needs punishing, I can demonstrate that you've done it worse.
  • 5

User avatar
gisambards
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 2088
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 11:45 pm
Show rep

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby D-LOGAN » Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:01 am

gisambards wrote:This is just a repeat of the same thing. "Gisambards described what someone said in a way I disagree with, and I find it unacceptable that this won't be punished." I maintain that the specific piece I quoted contains Noodle saying trans people are fundamentally useless (which I think is an apt summary of what someone is saying about people who they say are incapable of standing around for hours, following orders or keeping calm under pressure) and is attempting to make them sound freakish through her description of what trans people ostensibly do to themselves. I think this can be summarised as her effectively saying trans people are useless freaks.


I'm aware people won't see it the way I see it, I'm saying I see it as you putting it out there as she said transpeople are useless freaks specifically.

To make it so that I'd be punished for expressing it that way would be an unacceptable violation of freedom of speech.

I don't want you to be punished Gisambards. I'm not asking for any measures against you, what's done is done on that front.

I also just want to take this opportunity to point out that you are really being a hypocrite: I can provide a specific example of you doing to me what you're accusing me of doing to Noodle, with the only difference being that I'd actually at the time explained that I didn't mean what you later said I'd said. So if you say what I'm doing is an unacceptable lie that needs punishing, I can demonstrate that you've done it worse.

Maybe I did. What was it? If it was what you say it was and it strikes me as so, I'll apologise.
  • 3

Not just yet, I'm still tender from before.
User avatar
D-LOGAN
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3590
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:08 pm
Location: Éire
Show rep
Title: ALL PRAISE UNTO MIGHTY KEK!

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby gisambards » Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:19 am

D-LOGAN wrote:I'm aware people won't see it the way I see it, I'm saying I see it as you putting it out there as she said transpeople are useless freaks specifically.

So because she hadn't said what I said she'd said, your assumption wasn't that I'd interpreted and summarised her post a certain way, but that I'd chosen to lie about what she said specifically? How is this not, by your standard, you lying about me?
I don't want you to be punished Gisambards. I'm not asking for any measures against you, what's done is done on that front.

You've directly said you don't want to partake in a forum where what you say I've done is acceptable. If your'e not saying I should have been punished, what are you saying?
D-LOGAN wrote:Maybe I did. What was it? If it was what you say it was and it strikes me as so, I'll apologise.

You said I body shame women, because on an unrelated thread I said I didn't think Daisy Ridley looked convincingly like a woman who'd grown up scrounging in a desert. I phrased it poorly at the time, but clarified what I specifically meant when Kate challenged me. Regardless, much later, you explicitly said I body shame women. The key difference here, and what I'd argue makes you doing it worse, is I explicitly clarified at the time that that was not what I meant, whereas Noodle, despite ample opportunity, said nothing at the time nor has said anything since to suggest my summation wasn't accurate.
  • 0

User avatar
gisambards
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 2088
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 11:45 pm
Show rep

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby D-LOGAN » Tue Nov 14, 2017 12:52 am

gisambards wrote:So because she hadn't said what I said she'd said, your assumption wasn't that I'd interpreted and summarised her post a certain way, but that I'd chosen to lie about what she said specifically? How is this not, by your standard, you lying about me?

Okay, I can't know what's in your head and therefore I shouldn't put it across as deliberately lying. However I'm just as against phrasing it in a fashion that puts across what she said in so specifically different a fashion from what she actually said.

You've directly said you don't want to partake in a forum where what you say I've done is acceptable. If your'e not saying I should have been punished, what are you saying?

From this point on is what I'm talking about. What's happened has already happened. I know there is no rule against what you did, but I would have assumed it was at least frowned upon. That's what my issue was, to find out that.
You said I body shame women, because on an unrelated thread I said I didn't think Daisy Ridley looked convincingly like a woman who'd grown up scrounging in a desert. I phrased it poorly at the time, but clarified what I specifically meant when Kate challenged me. Regardless, much later, you explicitly said I body shame women. The key difference here, and what I'd argue makes you doing it worse, is I explicitly clarified at the time that that was not what I meant, whereas Noodle, despite ample opportunity, said nothing at the time nor has said anything since to suggest my summation wasn't accurate.

You said-
"Rey does more than female characters used to be able to do in Hollywood, but she still doesn't look like a real woman, is still a massive Mary-Sue, and is played by a woman who had a vast advantage in getting the role because of her accent."

So yes. You did body shame Ms. Ridley, by saying she didn't look like a real woman. I listened to your responses in the original thread and I still stand by that. That was body shaming.

Now to be fair, I started off that by saying "And you body shame women (If it's okay for you to bring up stuff from the past it's okay it's okay for me)" when I should have said "and you body shamed a woman", I stand by the fact you did body shame her, but I'll apologise for not saying it in a singular tense.

But even so, that's not the same as what I've accused you of doing. That's an example of someone describing what someone else did, like calling some a bigot when they don't think it's true. I never put across that you said words you didn't say. I didn't go "and you said Daisy Ridley is a filthy animal" or something that you didn't actually say. I was describing what you did not relaying your words with different ones that didn't mean the same thing.

And if there are examples of me doing that anywhere, as I say I'll apologise.

I'm about what comes next now.
  • 2

Not just yet, I'm still tender from before.
User avatar
D-LOGAN
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3590
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:08 pm
Location: Éire
Show rep
Title: ALL PRAISE UNTO MIGHTY KEK!

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby gisambards » Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:14 am

This is just ridiculous now. I have no idea what your motive is continuing to go on about it, because you now know that what I did is considered acceptable here and that's not going to change, but frankly I'm starting to think your problem is more just with me - the behaviour I've exhibited that you apparently consider completely unacceptable is so nebulously-defined and yet simultaneously ridiculously specific that it becomes impossible to believe you're genuinely outraged by it. How is anyone supposed to believe that you're this offended by what you insist I've done, but would be fine with someone directly stating someone had bigoted views when they didn't? Particularly after watching you jump through the most ridiculous hoops to explain why you doing exactly the same thing was completely different, I really don't see how this is anything other than you picking on me specifically.
  • 4

User avatar
gisambards
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 2088
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 11:45 pm
Show rep

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby cmsellers » Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:21 am

Logan, considering that you've been one of the most vocal defenders of free speech on these boards in the past, considering that you've stood with me in defending Windy's right to troll and the right of people to engage in so-called "hate speech," I find your position now a bit perplexing.

I have two questions for you:

1. How would you phrase a rule to ban the speech you think should be banned on this forum but isn't?

2. Do you believe that free speech includes the right to be wrong?
  • 11

User avatar
cmsellers
Back-End Admin
Back-End Admin
 
Posts: 9316
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:20 pm
Location: Not *that* Bay Area
Show rep
Title: Broken Record Player

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby D-LOGAN » Tue Nov 14, 2017 1:27 am

gisambards wrote:This is just ridiculous now. I have no idea what your motive is continuing to go on about it, because you now know that what I did is considered acceptable here and that's not going to change

That does appear to be the case.
but frankly I'm starting to think your problem is more just with me - the behaviour I've exhibited that you apparently consider completely unacceptable is so nebulously-defined and yet simultaneously ridiculously specific that it becomes impossible to believe you're genuinely outraged by it.

Well it isn't. Simple as that, if you don't believe me, think this is about some vendetta I have against you when I all I can do is say I don't, then so be it. I can't change that. And I'm not outraged BTW, just against what I've said I'm against.
How is anyone supposed to believe that you're this offended by what you insist I've done, but would be fine with someone directly stating someone had bigoted views when they didn't?

Because the person in that situation is just stating their case, they could be completely wrong but they're not falsely attributing words to someone else that weren't said.
That doesn't mean the person whom they're saying this too shouldn't be offended or speak up for themself, but it's not the same thing.

And I don't know how anyone would go about believing anything. They either do or they don't.
Particularly after watching you jump through the most ridiculous hoops to explain why you doing exactly the same thing was completely different, I really don't see how this is anything other than you picking on me specifically.

Well as I say, I can't make you think anything. If you don't believe me, then you don't believe, but I've made my case and that's all my honest stance on the issue at hand.

Oh, and if you felt that the point of all this was for me to get something to happen to you, like a warning or banned or whatever, then I'm sorry. I should have made it more clear right from the start that I wasn't asking for that.

cmsellers wrote:Logan, considering that you've been one of the most vocal defenders of free speech on these boards in the past, considering that you've stood with me in defending Windy's right to troll and the right of people to engage in so-called "hate speech," I find your position now a bit perplexing.

I have two questions for you:

1. How would you phrase a rule to ban the speech you think should be banned on this forum but isn't?

2. Do you believe that free speech includes the right to be wrong?


1. I don't. I was thinking for this to be along the lines of starting a thread where you bring up some other user's name in a negative fashion. Not against a rule or anything but just something that wasn't encouraged.

2. 100%
  • 5

Not just yet, I'm still tender from before.
User avatar
D-LOGAN
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3590
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:08 pm
Location: Éire
Show rep
Title: ALL PRAISE UNTO MIGHTY KEK!

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby Fun With Mr. Fudge » Tue Nov 14, 2017 2:32 am

NoodleFox wrote:Haaay, mind if you stop slandering me, please?


You accused people of defending child rape, and you wanna talk about slander? Seriously? Someone making claims like that about Tess and others (even when Tess and others repeatedly explained their actual point) is way worse than suggesting you might be homophobic. And quite frankly, you did yourself no favors by using a homophobic slur to insult people and refusing to simply answer questions and move on.

Fuuuuuuuck oooooff with your notions of seeing me as a horrible person.


Again, from someone who actively accused people of defending a child molester when they clearly weren't doing that and yet still went out of their way to clarify that they weren't doing that. Benefit of the doubt my big beefy ass.

Also, Noodle, you've written this:
why I never posted any source in that blight of a conversation because I know you will dismiss it for not being from where you want it to be.


and this:

I wanted to drop it because I perceived people as defending a fucking child molester; maybe if you cut the shit about one stupid fucking sentence I stupidly spouted and said, "Okay, Spacey is fucking scum and should rot under the prison foundation", I would've been more than okay with that.

But you didn't. You didn't and bitched about this massive reach of me saying "Hey, there's a lot of man/boy relationships I've seen in the gay community-" equaling "All gay men in Hollywood are pedophiles."


Firstly, strawman. No one even sort of said you were calling all gay men in Hollywood pedophiles. Secondly, you either (1) meant to suggest that gays have a pedophile problem but just didn't post a source or (2) people blew your comment out of proportion. Which is it? I assume I won't get an answer on that, but these two things don't work together in my view. And if you didn't mean to say there was a "gay pedophile problem" why would you even suggest you had a link to support that idea?

I mean, why else would you twist my words into those people can witch hunt behind?


I can't stress this enough. You publicly accused people of defneding child molestation with no actual evidence to that effect and did not even try to explain your reasoning from what I could see. People will also see that actual twisting of words when they read the thread.


Moreover, Logan, you went out of your way to post a passage earlier to explain why you thought NoodleFox accused people of being child rape apologists even though you acknowledged that the statement did not say that. You did not call her a liar or say you would personally like for there to be a rule making that statement unacceptable. My goodness, why is it so hard to be equally charitable to Gis, Tess, and anyone else you accused of lying or twisting words?

Yes, I know you think it's somehow different from literally saying "X said Y" but to suggest that someone is defending child rape is way worse in my mind. Yet you and and at least one other person have managed to be super charitable to Noodle - who did not retract her accusation or apologize despite having the opportunity to do so when she made her last post. Yet you have and maybe continue to accuse others of ganging up on her, lying, being unfairly uncharitable, or some combination of those.

i don't even get this anymore. Maybe people didn't call Noodle a liar or accuse her of twisting words because she left, or there is some other reason I don't see. But this seems like such an obvious double-standard to me. In fact, it's worse than one in my view because I don't think that Gis, Tess, CMSellers, and others who were accused of being malicious towards and unfair to Noodle were being either of those.
  • 18

User avatar
Fun With Mr. Fudge
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 8:54 pm
Show rep
Title: Jackbooted Hug

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests

cron