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 DoglovingJim » Thu Nov 23, 2017 2:33 pm

D-LOGAN wrote:
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.


Took the words right outta my mouth, I'll always be objecting to the same thing no matter how many people think it's alright.
  • 3

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 gisambards » Thu Nov 23, 2017 2:51 pm

You really do have a talent for using a lot of words to say absolutely nothing of substance.

You can't even explain how what I supposedly did is bad.
D-LOGAN wrote: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.

We all understand this. The problem I have is that this insisting on total literalness when referring to what other people have said is not a standard you've ever shown any indication of having in the past - and as I've pointed out (and I know you disagree and think you can explain why this isn't the case, but you actually can't because it just is) you've engaged in a much worse variety of the same behaviour.

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.

This just continues to demonstrate what a ridiculous hypocrite you are. You are clearly not applying the same standards of literalness you're insisting it's unacceptable I didn't apply. And yes, I know, your "objection is putting it out she said something she didn't say" - as opposed to directly accusing someone of something they didn't do, which is much more civil. But that's a bullshit distinction, and just a prime example of the idiotic semantics your entire argument is based around.

I absolutely refuse to have one blanket pre-set reaction for every situation. I will judge each by their own merits.

This is quite possibly the only honest thing you've said so far. Unfortunately, you missed the part about how the situation's "own merits" is based purely on who's who. You like yourself and dislike me, so it's okay for you to attack my character with irrelevant comments (and yes, I know you claim to have a reason for why it was relevant, but that reason is incredibly childish so it really doesn't justify it). Whereas because you dislike me and, while too much of a coward to admit it, like people like Noodle, me flippantly summarising something Noodle said is deeply unacceptable.
  • 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 DoglovingJim » Thu Nov 23, 2017 3:20 pm

gisambards wrote:
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.

This just continues to demonstrate what a ridiculous hypocrite you are. You are clearly not applying the same standards of literalness you're insisting it's unacceptable I didn't apply. And yes, I know, your "objection is putting it out she said something she didn't say" - as opposed to directly accusing someone of something they didn't do, which is much more civil. But that's a bullshit distinction, and just a prime example of the idiotic semantics your entire argument is based around.


Hmm... Something you didn't do?

gisambards wrote: 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.


Find me where Noodle-Fox specifically says that transgendered people are useless freaks and then the comparison might be fair, otherwise Dr. Logan isn't being unreasonable at all as he works on a case-by-case basis. It's not hypocrisy if the cases can be distinguished by several factors like these ones are, why do you essentially demand them to be be lumped together and treated the same when they are not the same?

Image
  • 2

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 gisambards » Thu Nov 23, 2017 3:47 pm

I explained at the time that body shaming Daisy Ridley was not my intention, when challenged by Kate. If you or Logan want to take your blinkers off and actually go back to the thread in question, you'll see that that's the case. And I've explained why I think what Noodle said is the same as calling trans people useless freaks.

The problem I have now is that for Logan to take what I said (in reference to a fictional character), and then say "You body shame women," is
a) actually far more of a leap of judgment than my suggestion about Noodle (are you honestly telling me you think taking one comment I made about an actress being too dolled-up for the situation their character was supposed to be in and using that to accuse me of being someone who insults real women - plural - for their size is more reasonable and acceptable than suggesting that someone who says trans people self-mutilate and are incapable of following orders was calling trans people useless freaks?);
b) ignored my subsequent clarification of what I'd meant (something your precious Noodle never bothered to provide, instead having tantrums and insulting people);
c) unlike my summary of what Noodle said, was not said flippantly;
d) was directly accusatory;
e) was totally irrelevant; and
f) cannot remotely be claimed as an attempt to encourage conversation or debate about what I said, but was simply meant to be an attack on my character.

The only distinction between what I did and what Logan did is that Logan did it in a far more repugnant way. Other than that it's exactly the same thing.
  • 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 » Thu Nov 23, 2017 6:43 pm

gisambards wrote:You really do have a talent for using a lot of words to say absolutely nothing of substance.

Well while I generally do like to be appreciated for my many talents, in this case I'll have to turn down the compliment as I feel I've gotten my point across substantially regardless of whether or not others agree or find it useful or even sensible.
But thanks though.
You can't even explain how what I supposedly did is bad.

I have. Multiple times. If I was to hazard a guess Id say the reason you don't see it is because you don't think you did anything wrong. But hey, I aint no psychic.
We all understand this. The problem I have is that this insisting on total literalness when referring to what other people have said is not a standard you've ever shown any indication of having in the past - and as I've pointed out

While I have in the past advocated an Ultra-Literalistic mindset, due in no small part to my interactions with folks here, I have since essentially abandoned the entire concept as foolhardy.

As such I don't think that's the case here. In fact, I gave several examples of how if what Noodle said wasn't literally what you put it out that she said, even though it wouldn't have been a word for word quote, it would have been fair to do what you did.

So no, I don't believe I am asking for total literalness. I've been cured of that folly.
(and I know you disagree and think you can explain why this isn't the case, but you actually can't because it just is)

Well I guess if you were the Decider of Things I'd have to agree, but you're not so I don't. So I actually can explain, as I have, and I still think it just isn't.

you've engaged in a much worse variety of the same behaviour.

Given I don't believe you and I share the same idea of what 'same' means I'm happy to disagree.

This just continues to demonstrate what a ridiculous hypocrite you are. You are clearly not applying the same standards of literalness you're insisting it's unacceptable I didn't apply.

Me viewing your body shaming of Daisy Ridley's body type by body-shaming Daisy Ridley's body type is not analogous to you putting it across what Noodle said was that transpeople are useless freaks.

You think what she said was just as bad, that's a matter for debate, but once more, not what I'm talking about.
And yes, I know, your "objection is putting it out she said something she didn't say" - as opposed to directly accusing someone of something they didn't do, which is much more civil. But that's a bullshit distinction, and just a prime example of the idiotic semantics your entire argument is based around.

I don't live by what your distinctions are.

This is quite possibly the only honest thing you've said so far.

Once more, I'd love to take that as somewhat of a compliment but alas I don't think it fits. See I reckon I have been honest throughout this entire endeavour, and while I know you may not think so, that doesn't affect whether it's true or not. I know it's true and that's what counts.
Unfortunately, you missed the part about how the situation's "own merits" is based purely on who's who. You like yourself and dislike me, so it's okay for you to attack my character

I can see why you'd think that, I am by no means a member of your fan club nor you mine I'd imagine, however the simple fact is I have called out other users here who I like or respect or am fond of interacting with, both here and in other threads and in private conversations when I think they''ve done something that's unfair or crosses some kind of line.
And I've also defended people I'm not a fan of when I think the situation warrants. So I truly think I'm good here.

I don't let likes or dislikes of others get in the way when I think someone should be called out when I think they should be, either here or indeed in real-life flash and blood land.

But hey feel free not to believe me. It's your prerogative.

with irrelevant comments (and yes, I know you claim to have a reason for why it was relevant, but that reason is incredibly childish so it really doesn't justify it).

Well whether or not you think anything I've done is justified or I you, doesn't really matter does it? We're neither of each other's boss.

I however do think it's justified. I took issue with you putting it out that Noodle-Fox said something she didn't (regardless of you thinking it was the same in spirit) because I don't think that was fair.

I do think it was fair to say you body shamed Daisy Ridley's body-type because you did. Your reasoning afterward on that thread didn't change what you did.

And I brought it up in the original thread because you'd brought up something I'd said in another thread to use against me rather than stick to the what was going on in the thread at hand. You went thread fishing for something on me, so I returned the favour.

Tit for tat.
Whereas because you dislike me and, while too much of a coward to admit it, like people like Noodle, me flippantly summarising something Noodle said is deeply unacceptable.

Firstly it is acceptable to say what Noodle-Fox said, just as it's acceptable to find it objectionable and call it out. No issues there.
Secondly I hate to burst any bubbles here, but I genuinely couldn't care less what you think of me, you can think I'm either the biggest coward or the greatest hero that ever walked the face of the Earth and I would be utterly indifferent to your thoughts on the subject. The only thing I'm interested in is whether or not I think I'm fair and I do.

(And just to be clear the fact I don't care doesn't mean I won't respond, I may not care what some rando in a pub thinks on some topic that's come up, that doesn't mean I won't respond to stimuli if I feel like it)

And regardless of my well-stated like for myself, I have on multiple occasions on this forum accepted I've been in the wrong, apologised for when I thought it was necessary or altered my views or stances when I thought it was fair.

I'm very comfy right now.

Now the following isn't directed to me, but I'm involved so I'll take a crack at responding.

gisambards wrote:I explained at the time that body shaming Daisy Ridley was not my intention when challenged by Kate.

Your intention or not it's what you did.
In fact I'd imagine a great many instances of body-shaming are from people who didn't think they were doing so at the time.

If you or Logan want to take your blinkers off and actually go back to the thread in question, you'll see that that's the case.

Afraid I can't put this down to blinkers, you see I saw your explanation, they didn't change the fact you body-shamed.

And I've explained why I think what Noodle said is the same as calling trans people useless freaks.

And I've explained why I don't think that's a fair comparison, which is a perfectly fine discussion to have, differences of opinions and all that, but which still doesn't change the fact that viewing something as the same as something else doesn't make, at least in my humble opinion, fair to put it out there as what someone else said, for the reasons I've repeatedly given.
The problem I have now is that for Logan to take what I said (in reference to a fictional character)

Played by a non-fictional woman who has the same body as Rey, so saying the character doesn't look like a real woman is saying Ms. Ridley doesn't look like a real woman. That's not just interpretation.
and then say "You body shame women," is
a) actually far more of a leap of judgment than my suggestion about Noodle (are you honestly telling me you think taking one comment I made about an actress being too dolled-up for the situation their character was supposed to be in and using that to accuse me of being someone who insults real women - plural - for their size is more reasonable and acceptable than suggesting that someone who says trans people self-mutilate and are incapable of following orders was calling trans people useless freaks?);

I have already amended the idea that because you body shamed one woman once that doesn't mean you body shame women in the plural tense. And I apologised.
I'm now sticking with you body shamed a woman. And I stand by it.

And for the rest of your sentence, yes, doing what Noodle-Fox did was not the same as saying transpeople are useless freaks. you and anyone else are free to say you think it is as bad, but it's still not the same as what she said.

b) ignored my subsequent clarification of what I'd meant (something your precious Noodle never bothered to provide, instead having tantrums and insulting people)

Well regardless of how precious anyone is to anyone else, your clarification didn't change what you did. If it had I wouldn't have used it.

c) unlike my summary of what Noodle said, was not said flippantly;

Flippancy isn't a factor.
d) was directly accusatory;

Darn tooting.
e) was totally irrelevant; and

If you're talking about the Ridley/body shaming thing, I've explained exactly why I brought it up, because you'd just done the same to me. We were having a conversation about one thing on a specific thread, you brought up something I'd said in another thread, so I did the same back to you.

See, that's the context of that situation.
f) cannot remotely be claimed as an attempt to encourage conversation or debate about what I said, but was simply meant to be an attack on my character.

Again, my previous statement.

The only distinction between what I did and what Logan did is that Logan did it in a far more repugnant way. Other than that it's exactly the same thing.

I say it isn't. And I stand by it and call out your's and do so without the slightest fear of hypocrisy. If I had some, I'd acknowledge and amend.

My love for myself wouldn't protect me from my calling myself out if it wasn't.
  • 1

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 Tesseracts » Thu Nov 23, 2017 7:12 pm

I'm not responding to this discussion any more, because I feel like everything that can be said has already been said. I recommend the rest of you do the same. I'm not trying to censor or silence you, it's just that I think further discussion is only reinforcing the divide. You're not changing anyone's mind, you're just making things more bitter. You're free to take offense to something someone else has said, but unless you're genuinely trying to understand each other arguing won't change it.
  • 5

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 gisambards » Thu Nov 23, 2017 7:30 pm

There's nothing to understand from the other side of this discussion, so I'm out. It just extremely annoying that, once again, I'm on the receiving end of Logan's trollish behaviour, and nothing's ever done about it.
  • 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 » Thu Nov 23, 2017 7:41 pm

Well regardless of you being out, you made some final comments about me, so I'll respond. I do think there is things to understand from every side and I feel confident that I haven't trolling but been completely honest throughout all this. And if there's something anyone thinks I've done that's wrong or that something should be done about me, by all means make a complaint. But I stand by my stances, and my behaviour here.
  • 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 NathanLoiselle » Thu Nov 23, 2017 8:25 pm

Transgenders, how do they work? Fucking magnets!
  • 0

User avatar
NathanLoiselle
TCS Junkie
TCS Junkie
 
Posts: 4484
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 3:49 am
Location: You'll Never Know!
Show rep

Previous

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 27 guests