Political discourse on The Comment Section

What's all the ruckus? (The Debate Subforum)

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby DamianaRaven » Tue Nov 14, 2017 6:04 am

It's libel anyway. Slander is spoken out loud.
  • 1

Anything worth doing is worth doing for money. (13th Rule of Acquisition)
User avatar
DamianaRaven
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 5878
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 3:37 am
Location: Yippee-ki-yay, motherfuckers!
Show rep
Title: Crazy Cunt

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby jbobsully11 » Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:46 am

DamianaRaven wrote:It's libel anyway. Slander is spoken out loud.

Agreed.
  • 2

Crimson847 wrote:In other words, transgender-friendly privacy laws don't molest people, people molest people.

(Presumably, the only way to stop a bad guy with a transgender-friendly privacy law is a good guy with a transgender-friendly privacy law, and thus transgender-friendly privacy law rights need to be enshrined in the Constitution as well)
User avatar
jbobsully11
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 2843
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 10:22 pm
Location: not the outskirts of nowhere anymore, NJ, USA
Show rep
Title: The Sporadically Employed

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby D-LOGAN » Wed Nov 15, 2017 3:16 pm

Fun With Mr. Fudge wrote: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.

First of all, no I'm not asking for any new rule to be made here. The current operating system here is what it is and don't want for or ask for any changes to it. What I was after was information, which I have received.

And as for how I viewed those two seperate incidents differently, yep. And I stand by that. I don't think that's the same as lying about someone, I believe that's just stating what someone said meant to you rather than specifically putting out that said person said specific thing they didn't say.
Like calling someone a racist or a sexist when the person accused doesn't believe they are or have said anything of the sort. It's of course objectionable and one should defend oneself against it and I am against the idea that anybody here is a rape-apologist or whatever, and if anyone is under the impression I agree with everything Noodle has said well allow me to dissuade you as I do not, as I stated in my first on this topic in this thread. In fact in some cases I would have responded far harsher than the responses from the powers that be have here if I was in their place, but that's neither here nor there, I do not believe it's necessary if I'm going to defend her in some insinstances that I should also vocally condemn areas said by her I disagree with, there's plenty of people here who've done that, and I've not objected to that. However as I've said I don't believe it's the same thing as the specific issue I've objected to. They're very different animals to my mind and my responses are therefore different.

Let me give you an example from this thread, you said of me-
"you are lying about other users when you say that calling someone alt-right is an insult."
So that's you essentially calling me a liar, which I do not believe I am. However I'm not treating it the same and reacting to you in the same way because it's clear it's you putting across an interpration of the events in question rather than restating what I've said specifically and that would have been very clear to anybody who came across that. You're not putting words in my mouth or whatnot. So I'm not saying you were lying by saying I was lying even though I don't think I was lying.

My goodness, why is it so hard to be equally charitable to Gis, Tess, and anyone else you accused of lying or twisting words?

Well I don't believe I have accused anyone but Gisambards of lying. And have been willing to accept lying is not the best way of putting it, although I still see it as just as objectionable.

Now I did respond to Tesseracts saying "Nobody said it was wrong to think gay men are pedophiles" as twisting Noodle's words, but I also accepted as Kate suggested that it was a case of an unclear rephrasing of her objections to Noodle's words. In fact if someone was to accuse me of twisting HER words or intent by doing that, while it wasn't my intent, I can see how a case could made for that.

And for my objections to calling Noodle alt-right associated, which I did and do believe was unfair, after discussing the matter I stated however that I was willing to agree to disagree with people on it in light of their take on the issues at hand.

But even if none of that was the case. Each situation is different so I'm not going to have an equal response to each one. I'll judge each situation by the factors at hand. Just because I responded to Incident A in a certain way, does not mean I will respond to Incident B in an identical manner as they might in my mind be different enough to require different responses.

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.

I'm not suggesting that. Defending child rape is worse. But degree of worseness of offensiveness isn't a factor in this.

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

Did I? When did I do that? I don't have a problem with anyone giving their opinions on her or her words regardless of how many other users do the same. Just as I have no problem with people giving their opinion that the people giving those opinions might be being unfair or reasonable or whatever.

Where did I accuse people of ganging up on her?

lying, being unfairly uncharitable, or some combination of those.


I have accused one person of lying, which as I've said I'm willing to use another term for if so required. And I've explained the reasons for my objections.
As to accusing people of being unfairly uncharitable with Noodle, yes I do, or at the very least I don't agree with some of the reasoning behind some responses to her or about her. As I also don't believe some of Noodle's responses or statements were fair. I have no problem saying either of those things, nor with others saying that. Nor do I feel a need to ensure I'm doing an equal ammount of calling out, as I say there's enough people on one side to do that.

There have only been two incidents I believe were extreme enough to call into question that were used against Noodle-Fox, one of which I agreed were fundementally based on differnces of opinion which could be left at that (although further developments have also come up on that front that I believe were also questionable but now's not the time for that as it tends to muddle things), the other of which I stand by.

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.

Yes I know, because you and I are very different people with very differnt takes on the situation at hand. That in and if itself doesn't have to be that much of a problem.

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.

I can accept that maliciousness didn't play a factor. At this stage I'd go more with some written version of recklessness with regards to putting out 'accusations' in the one case wherein people making statements may not share the idea that the terms they're using are as negatively emotionally charged and defamatory as others take them as.

And the other is what I've repeatedly said it was and continue to do so.

So, in the end, I think you've basically got the gist of what I'm saying here Fun With Mr. Fudge. I know you don't agree at all with my points, and I'm guessing your opinions of my stances are either that the logic I'm using is nonsensical at best or being intellectually dishonest about how I admninister my views.
And if either of those are indeed the case, I'm fine with that. The only standards I have to live up to at the end of the day are my own. And I'm okay with stances on these matters.
  • 1

Not just yet, I'm still tender from before.
User avatar
D-LOGAN
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3531
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 Deathclaw_Puncher » Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:25 pm

D-LOGAN wrote:
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%

But if you allow people to be wrong, they'll be......wrong.
  • 3

"Schmibby Dibby Kabibby"- Alex Hirsch
User avatar
Deathclaw_Puncher
Knight Writer
Knight Writer
 
Posts: 11674
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 9:42 pm
Location: Fair Oaks, CA
Show rep
Title: Locutus of Porg

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby D-LOGAN » Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:04 pm

That's a risk I'm willing to take. May God have mercy on my soul!!!!
  • 6

Not just yet, I'm still tender from before.
User avatar
D-LOGAN
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3531
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 Tesseracts » Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:07 pm

D-LOGAN wrote:
Spoiler: show
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.

I'm glad you haven't left forever yet. What Gis posted is an interpretation some may consider unfair, but it is not extreme enough to be considered a lie. Sometimes people exaggerate to get across how they feel about something, and it's clear some people feel strongly about the idea of not allowing trans people to contribute.

I doubt anyone looked at what Gis said and assumed it's what Noodle literally said word for word. Since this is the internet it's quite easy to look up what people actually said. We aren't in the business of creating easily disproven rumors.

If people were (hypothetically) going to go around accusing others of bigotry with no reasonable cause for doing so I would certainly object to that.
  • 10

User avatar
Tesseracts
Big Brother
Big Brother
 
Posts: 9425
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2013 5:31 am
Show rep
Title: Social Media Expert

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby Fun With Mr. Fudge » Wed Nov 15, 2017 5:35 pm

D-LOGAN wrote:
Fun With Mr. Fudge wrote: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.

First of all, no I'm not asking for any new rule to be made here. The current operating system here is what it is and don't want for or ask for any changes to it. What I was after was information, which I have received.


Fair enough. Allow me to explain. My undestanding is that you expressed a preference for (as distinct from requesting) a rule regarding that issue. I think that's a fair assessment based on your use of the word "unacceptable" to describe Gis's characterization and expressing positive sentiments about having a rule someone could cite when making complaints about what you said Gis did.

And as for how I viewed those two seperate incidents differently, yep. And I stand by that. I don't think that's the same as lying about someone, I believe that's just stating what someone said meant to you rather than specifically putting out that said person said specific thing they didn't say.
Like calling someone a racist or a sexist when the person accused doesn't believe they are or have said anything of the sort.


I understand your distinction but don't find it to be an entirely substantive one on the following grounds:

1) People typically interpret statements about actions as referring to categories of things or statements. For example, if someone says "Bob defended child rape," it is not only natural but I think ineveitable to beleve the speaker claimed that Bob spoke or otherwise behaved in a way tantamount to saying "I, Bob, think child rape is OK in general or in some specific instance." The fact that those words are not present doesn't make it an unreasonable interpretation in my view. To draw a hard line between the speicifc words and a description that can easily be construed as encompassing similar or exactly the same words in principle seems like focusing on an unhelpful technicality.

2) The framework you described, in my view, allows people to lie about actions but not words. I think it's reasonable to call Noodle's accusation a lie because she continued making it after people's positions were clarified. That seems like a willful misrepresentation that has the same effect as saying, "You said child molestation is okay." On a side note, some words are actions, such as when you declare that you've placed a bet. Some are statements about a person based on counterfactuals ("i.e., if X were the case, you would say Y") which have an indeterminate truth value. I just don't think language is so clear-cut as to make the kind of distnctions your discussing useful in most cases.


Let me give you an example from this thread, you said of me-
"you are lying about other users when you say that calling someone alt-right is an insult."
So that's you essentially calling me a liar, which I do not believe I am.


Moreover, I wrote that as part of a conditional statement. I said that if Person X (referring here to Gisambards) was lying, then you were lying. That's a bit of context you seem to have left out. I never said I adopted your framework. I argued that if I did, that's how I would interpret your claim. If I was unclear about that, hopefully this clarifies it.

My goodness, why is it so hard to be equally charitable to Gis, Tess, and anyone else you accused of lying or twisting words?

Well I don't believe I have accused anyone but Gisambards of lying. And have been willing to accept lying is not the best way of putting it, although I still see it as just as objectionable.


To clarify, here was an inclusive usage of "or," intended to denote "Tess twist" or "Gis lie" or other possible combinations, not a statement that you did every possible combination of those things. I just found it a useful way to capture "Test twist" and "Gis lie" at once. Hopefully thay clears that up.


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.

I'm not suggesting that. Defending child rape is worse. But degree of worseness of offensiveness isn't a factor in this.


I concede that offensiveness might not matter, but I think it makes your emphasis all the more strange. I also find it odd that someone should be allowed to do something worse than the thing you objected to but, based on what I believe your preferences (not requests) are, but not the thing you objected to. My understanding is that deemed Noodle's accusation acceptable in principle because it is a stance and not a direct statement about someone's words.

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.

Did I? When did I do that? I don't have a problem with anyone giving their opinions on her or her words regardless of how many other users do the same. Just as I have no problem with people giving their opinion that the people giving those opinions might be being unfair or reasonable or whatever.

Where did I accuse people of ganging up on her?


I accidentally omitted a word (and I have added the rest of the sentence in bold as to provide that explanatory context). I should have said "you two" after the second "yet" to refer to you and Jim. My use of "or" here was inclusive, which is to say, not all of those things necessarily apply to you. In past or present tesne you accuse(d) people of lying or being unfair. Jim accused people of ganging up on Noodle like a "pack of wolves" or something to that effect and of not giving her the benefit of the doubt. It's another instance of the "Tess twist/Gis lie" sentence structuring.


I have accused one person of lying, which as I've said I'm willing to use another term for if so required. And I've explained the reasons for my objections.

I still maintain that it was unjustified before and I have hopefully adequately explained my objection to your stance above. Moreover, I thought it and suggestions you earlier made about Tess's remarks (which you later amended) did not illustrate your stance on not seeing the worst in people, at least as I understood it. I thought in both of those instances, you absolutely saw the, if not the worst, something needlessly and unjustifiably bad in their intentions. But maybe that's just me.


So, in the end, I think you've basically got the gist of what I'm saying here Fun With Mr. Fudge. I know you don't agree at all with my points, and I'm guessing your opinions of my stances are either that the logic I'm using is nonsensical at best or being intellectually dishonest about how I admninister my views.
And if either of those are indeed the case, I'm fine with that. The only standards I have to live up to at the end of the day are my own. And I'm okay with stances on these matters.

I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I wouldn't call your logic nonsensical (I find you overall logical from what I can tell). I find it flawed and what I construe as your conclusions (in some cases, at least) to be problematic. But of course we can agree to disagree.
  • 7

User avatar
Fun With Mr. Fudge
Frequent Poster
Frequent Poster
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 8:54 pm
Show rep
Title: Jackbooted Hug

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby D-LOGAN » Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:59 pm

Whoooooooooooooooo, back again, and once again sorry about the intermitant responses. All over the place these days. Right so, let's finish this up-
Tesseracts wrote:I'm glad you haven't left forever yet. What Gis posted is an interpretation some may consider unfair

Like me. More than unfair even.
but it is not extreme enough to be considered a lie.

I can see why some people would think that.

Sometimes people exaggerate to get across how they feel about something, and it's clear some people feel strongly about the idea of not allowing trans people to contribute.

If you're going to be putting out in the world what someoene else said in a different thread or format, where all an observer can see right there is what you are putting out, I believe one has an ethical responsibility to ensure they're putting across what the person actually said.

If it's all in the same thread or same video and people can see the original statement that's a different situation, and honestly if it's a case where someone loses their temper and says something in the heat of the moment during an argument where again the entire discussion is all there for the world to see, I could give a little leeway. But if it's in a different thread, after the fact, then I'll most certainly voice my umbrage.

Like the conversation as a whole is an interesting one to have for me. For instance I'm against a ban on transpeople in the military. As far as I'm concerned transpeople are first and foremost people, and like all people each and everyone of them is an individual and should be treated and judged on their own merits. So any blanket ban on them for this is unconscionable to me.

Now there are as I understand groups where this would be fair, like I think diabetics was mentioned before. But that is a very specific physical ailment, that wouldn't be analogous to transgenderism in this format. Know what I mean?

However at the same time if someone was to say anyone who supports a ban on transpeople is no different to someone who says transpeople are useless freaks, is something I wouldn't agree with it and would be happy to put up for debate.

I genuinely don't believe not believing someone is fit for military service is the same as saying they're useless or that transgenderism, or another similar situation, is caused by a mental illness and that the surgical modifications one in that situation may want to perform are self-mutilation, is the same as calling them freaks. I don't agree with the spitrit, but I'd say they're very different things.

And that's the kind of discussion I've always enjoyed having here. But it needs for me to be in a situation where there's a fair starting point.

I doubt anyone looked at what Gis said and assumed it's what Noodle literally said word for word. Since this is the internet it's quite easy to look up what people actually said.

Never the less, if you're going to be putting out what someone else said in a different thread, I'm saying you should put across what they actually said, not leave it to whomever comes across it to have to go look it up themselves to see if it's true.
That hardly takes much effort in my opinion.

We aren't in the business of creating easily disproven rumors.

And yet, that was what I've been objecting to.

If people were (hypothetically) going to go around accusing others of bigotry with no reasonable cause for doing so I would certainly object to that.

I'd say most people would be. But calling people bigots without reasonable cause isn't the problem I've been bringing up ... Not that I'm for doing it either per say, but it's just not what I've been discussing.

Fun With Mr. Fudge wrote:Fair enough. Allow me to explain. My undestanding is that you expressed a preference for (as distinct from requesting) a rule regarding that issue. I think that's a fair assessment based on your use of the word "unacceptable" to describe Gis's characterization and expressing positive sentiments about having a rule someone could cite when making complaints about what you said Gis did.

I think the easiest most concise way of explaining it would be to say, I was getting a feel for the room.
I got it.
I understand your distinction but don't find it to be an entirely substantive one on the following grounds:

I don't think I need to quote your full grounds, I think I get what you're getting it.

At the end of the day, you and I are very, VERY different people with extremely different views on the world in many issues.
Simple and everyday as that.

Moreover, I wrote that as part of a conditional statement. I said that if Person X (referring here to Gisambards) was lying, then you were lying. That's a bit of context you seem to have left out. I never said I adopted your framework. I argued that if I did, that's how I would interpret your claim. If I was unclear about that, hopefully this clarifies it.

Yeah, I think the point is, you get my point. So I think we can put that one to bed :D

To clarify, here was an inclusive usage of "or," intended to denote "Tess twist" or "Gis lie" or other possible combinations, not a statement that you did every possible combination of those things. I just found it a useful way to capture "Test twist" and "Gis lie" at once. Hopefully thay clears that up.

Very different people you and I Fun With Mr. Fudge.
I'm more of a harpoon than a net man.

I concede that offensiveness might not matter, but I think it makes your emphasis all the more strange.

Well I'm a strange fellow Fun With Mr. Fudge, don't let anyone tell ya any different.
I also find it odd that someone should be allowed to do something worse than the thing you objected to but, based on what I believe your preferences (not requests) are, but not the thing you objected to.

I don't object to everything I find objectionable. I pick and chose what discussions I want to engage in, particularly when I see plenty of others to cover the slack in the conversations I'm not having.

My understanding is that deemed Noodle's accusation acceptable in principle because it is a stance and not a direct statement about someone's words.

Acceptable is not the right word, it's a different form of objectionable wordage which requires a different response.

Fun With Mr. Fudge wrote: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.
Did I? When did I do that? I don't have a problem with anyone giving their opinions on her or her words regardless of how many other users do the same. Just as I have no problem with people giving their opinion that the people giving those opinions might be being unfair or reasonable or whatever.

Where did I accuse people of ganging up on her?


I accidentally omitted a word (and I have added the rest of the sentence in bold as to provide that explanatory context). I should have said "you two" after the second "yet" to refer to you and Jim. My use of "or" here was inclusive, which is to say, not all of those things necessarily apply to you. In past or present tesne you accuse(d) people of lying or being unfair. Jim accused people of ganging up on Noodle like a "pack of wolves" or something to that effect and of not giving her the benefit of the doubt. It's another instance of the "Tess twist/Gis lie" sentence structuring.


So the 'you' in that paragraph you used when speaking to me, wasn't directed at me, but at a me/Dog Loving Jim gestalt entity, voltroned together to create a seperrate being? A 'D-Loving Jogan' if you will.

You see when I'm talking to people about what they've said, I talk about what they've said, what other people may have said would be nothing to do with them. But different strokes and all that.

I still maintain that it was unjustified before and I have hopefully adequately explained my objection to your stance above. Moreover, I thought it and suggestions you earlier made about Tess's remarks (which you later amended) did not illustrate your stance on not seeing the worst in people, at least as I understood it. I thought in both of those instances, you absolutely saw the, if not the worst, something needlessly and unjustifiably bad in their intentions. But maybe that's just me.

I will try to give people the benefit of the doubt as often as I can, but depending on circumstances I will in some cases be of the opinion that there is reason to see unfairness or bad acting on their part and I'll say so, because that'll strike me as the fair response. I will not be starting off with a omin-useage idea of how I'll always react to every situation. Instead I'll treat each situation individually.

And someones I'll be wrong, and if I can be showed that I'll retract. But I won't be casting no nets.

I appreciate you taking the time to respond. I wouldn't call your logic nonsensical (I find you overall logical from what I can tell). I find it flawed and what I construe as your conclusions (in some cases, at least) to be problematic. But of course we can agree to disagree.

NO! That's unacceptable, the internet is too small for two people to have two different opinions, that's just anarchy! Only one of us can be right, and by God no one's going nowhere till one accepts the other as the victor!!!!
  • 5

Not just yet, I'm still tender from before.
User avatar
D-LOGAN
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3531
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 DamianaRaven » Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:07 pm

D-LOGAN wrote:intermitant


Intermittent.
  • 3

Anything worth doing is worth doing for money. (13th Rule of Acquisition)
User avatar
DamianaRaven
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 5878
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 3:37 am
Location: Yippee-ki-yay, motherfuckers!
Show rep
Title: Crazy Cunt

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby D-LOGAN » Wed Nov 22, 2017 6:47 pm

I made my choice Damiana, and I stand by it.

LET THE WORLD CHANGE TO SUIT ME!!!!
  • 6

Not just yet, I'm still tender from before.
User avatar
D-LOGAN
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3531
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 DamianaRaven » Wed Nov 22, 2017 8:51 pm

We only do that intermittently, so...
  • 2

Anything worth doing is worth doing for money. (13th Rule of Acquisition)
User avatar
DamianaRaven
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 5878
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 3:37 am
Location: Yippee-ki-yay, motherfuckers!
Show rep
Title: Crazy Cunt

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby IamNotCreepy » Wed Nov 22, 2017 10:56 pm

I think the best way to go about political discourse on TCS is to criticize each other's grammar and spelling.
  • 11

User avatar
IamNotCreepy
Time Waster
Time Waster
 
Posts: 1223
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2015 5:00 am
Location: Inside the "Cone of Uncertainty"
Show rep
Title: I'm not...

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby DamianaRaven » Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:32 pm

It's more of a personal affliction with me than anything political. Plus, Logan and I have a bit of history regarding that, so it's all in good fun!
  • 1

Anything worth doing is worth doing for money. (13th Rule of Acquisition)
User avatar
DamianaRaven
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 5878
Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2013 3:37 am
Location: Yippee-ki-yay, motherfuckers!
Show rep
Title: Crazy Cunt

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby gisambards » Thu Nov 23, 2017 3:10 am

D-LOGAN wrote:I genuinely don't believe not believing someone is fit for military service is the same as saying they're useless or that transgenderism, or another similar situation, is caused by a mental illness and that the surgical modifications one in that situation may want to perform are self-mutilation, is the same as calling them freaks. I don't agree with the spitrit, but I'd say they're very different things.

And once again, what you're saying here is:
You personally didn't interpret Noodle's post the same way I did, and therefore I'm lying and that's horrendous. Of course you're using the usual wash of ridiculous semantics and feigned niceness to make it seem like there's any sort of rationality to you continuing to badger on about this, but at the end of the day there isn't.

First of all, by continuing to argue that what I've done is "unacceptable", you are continuing to be a hypocrite of the highest order. I know you spouted out some semantic bullshit to explain why what I've done to Noodle is totally different to you doing exactly the same thing to me, but it was just semantic bullshit. You've done exactly what you insist is unacceptable on my part - I would in fact argue what you did was worse, given that it was totally irrelevant to when you brought it up, thus serving no reason other than to be an attack on my character, and was counter to the explanation of my words I'd offered at the time - and not only that but you continue to defend your having done it. You are an absolute hypocrite.

Secondly, that ridiculous insistence on semantics and getting details, as is a running theme with rules of behaviour you pretend are important to you, immediately fall away when it suits you. For example, your repeated insistence that all Noodle said was that she didn't think trans people were fit for military service, and that that's what I interpreted as her calling trans people "useless". But that's not what she actually said, if we're being remotely specific, is it? Suggesting as much is just as much a generalisation as me summing up what she said as saying trans people are useless.

So overall, your argument is based on literally nothing. It has no reason, no internal logic, it's built around your own lies about the person you're defending, and deeply hypocritical to boot. The entire central reasoning for it is flawed - if you want to encourage proper debate around controversial subjects, encouraging behaviour like Noodle's is categorically not the way to achieve that. The suggestion that you're still arguing it because you believe it's right is completely ridiculous, because it simply isn't. So why are you still arguing it?
  • 5

User avatar
gisambards
Time Waster
Time Waster
 
Posts: 1881
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 11:45 pm
Show rep

Re: Political discourse on The Comment Section

Postby D-LOGAN » Thu Nov 23, 2017 2:03 pm

gisambards wrote:And once again, what you're saying here is:
You personally didn't interpret Noodle's post the same way I did, and therefore I'm lying and that's horrendous.

What I'm saying is, you went onto another thread and put it across that Noodle said things she didn't say. That's what I'm objecting to. I'm not against people stating their interpretation of other's words when it's being made clear that's what they're doing. If people wanna point out what Noodle's words mean to them, I'm fine with that. I may disagree and I'll argue the case, and if people think that's unfair and want to debate that, I'm fine with that too. That's just discussion.

In fact I've said that's a conversation I'd enjoy. Stating what your interpretation of someone's words is, good or bad, and debating that has never been what I've been calling out. And I'm very sure I've been clear on that subject at this stage.

Of course you're using the usual wash of ridiculous semantics and feigned niceness to make it seem like there's any sort of rationality to you continuing to badger on about this, but at the end of the day there isn't.

Your opinion of me is exactly that, your opinion of me. So you go right ahead and think whatever you want of me and my supposed 'niceness'. It's utterly immaterial to me.

First of all, by continuing to argue that what I've done is "unacceptable", you are continuing to be a hypocrite of the highest order. I know you spouted out some semantic bullshit to explain why what I've done to Noodle is totally different to you doing exactly the same thing to me, but it was just semantic bullshit.

I disagree and I've explained why. And I 100% stand by it.
You said the character played by Daisy Ridley doesn't look like a real woman. That is the definition of what body shaming is to me. What Noodle said wasn't the definition of transpeople are useless freaks.
You wanna argue it's as bad, go ahead. That's not my objection. My objection is putting it out she said something she didn't say.

I absolutely refuse to have one blanket pre-set reaction for every situation. I will judge each by their own merits. As such because I react to Situation X with Reaction Y doesn't mean I'll also react to Situation Z with Reaction Y, as the issues at hand may be different.

And that's the case with what you did to Noodle and what I did to you. I am totally comfortable, with the exception of the ammendment I made, that the difference between these passes muster and therefore I stand by it, without the slightest fear of hypocrisy or favourtism.
At the end of the day, I live by my standards not anyone elses, and I set them by what I think is fair. You don't agree, then don't agree.
You've done exactly what you insist is unacceptable on my part - I would in fact argue what you did was worse, given that it was totally irrelevant to when you brought it up

As I said at the time and was sure to include in this very thread when I quoted myself- "If it's okay for you to bring up stuff from the past it's okay it's okay for me". Turnabout is fair play. You brought up stuff I said in previous threads that you found objectionable during that conversation, so I returned the favour.

thus serving no reason other than to be an attack on my character

Any time one states what another user was unfair, dishonest, offensive, bigoted etc. one could state the argument they're attacking the other's argument. That's part and parcel with dealing with contentious subject matter. We put our thoughts out there it's all open for criticism.

It's been stated here that people shouldn't have to use kit gloves when responding to things others have said that they find objectionable. I concur. So I'm not using any with you, nor ask of you to do so with me or anyone else here.

and was counter to the explanation of my words I'd offered at the time - and not only that but you continue to defend your having done it. You are an absolute hypocrite.

Each instance will be it's own instance. I am happy that I've upheld what I feel are fair standards on both cases given their specific situations.
Very happy with it, in fact.

And I will continue to say this, because I like repeating myself, not every instance is the same, therefore not everyone will be treated the same depending on the facts.

You can interpret this as me bending over backwards or jumping through hoops if you want, I however believe I'm walking in a straight line, taking each incident as it comes, juding each instance by it's own merrits and by the facts at hand.

As I think I should.

And as for your explanation on why what you said wasn't body shaming, I reject them. Which I'm free to do. Just as you're free to reject any explanation of Noddle-Fox's words and still feel it was as bad as saying transpeople are useless freaks.

You can think whatever you want about Noddle-Fox or myself, and state your thoughts, as I've said many times before your opinion isn't what I was objecting to.

Secondly, that ridiculous insistence on semantics and getting details, as is a running theme with rules of behaviour you pretend are important to you, immediately fall away when it suits you. For example, your repeated insistence that all Noodle said was that she didn't think trans people were fit for military service, and that that's what I interpreted as her calling trans people "useless". But that's not what she actually said, if we're being remotely specific, is it? Suggesting as much is just as much a generalisation as me summing up what she said as saying trans people are useless.

Again not against interpreting people's words, and debating what people's meaning when it's clear that's what you're doing. Interpreting what someone has said means to you is fine, whether you interpret it positively or negatively. But if you're putting it out on another thread I'm saying, and will continue to say you should make sure you are being fair when putting across someone else's words.

You didn't do that. So I called you out and I'd do it again.

So overall, your argument is based on literally nothing.

I disagree and have explained multiple times why.
It has no reason, no internal logic, it's built around your own lies about the person you're defending, and deeply hypocritical to boot. The entire central reasoning for it is flawed

You can think what you like about me, as far as I'm concerned I have been fair and open to adjusting my reasoning with the people involved here.

- if you want to encourage proper debate around controversial subjects, encouraging behaviour like Noodle's is categorically not the way to achieve that.

I'm not encouraging anything, people here can do what they like within the rules set out here.
As long as Noodle or anyone else follows the rules, then anything contraversial or otherwise they say is up for debate and criticisism, and that criticism is up for criticism, and that is too and so on.
The suggestion that you're still arguing it because you believe it's right is completely ridiculous, because it simply isn't. So why are you still arguing it?

Because the conversation is still ongoing. If you don't wanna hear what I have to say, by all means Gisambards, stop listening to me.
  • 3

Not just yet, I'm still tender from before.
User avatar
D-LOGAN
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 3531
Joined: Sun Apr 14, 2013 7:08 pm
Location: Éire
Show rep
Title: ALL PRAISE UNTO MIGHTY KEK!

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests