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)
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.
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.
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%
D-LOGAN wrote:Spoiler: show
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.
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.
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.
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.
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, 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 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.
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.
Tesseracts wrote: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.
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 understand your distinction but don't find it to be an entirely substantive one on the following grounds:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
D-LOGAN wrote:intermitant
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.
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.
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?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests