Total posts: 627
Posted in:
-->
@Tejretics
1. How much damage will they cause to the current system? (9 importance, more damage is good)
2. Will they stop mass immigration? (8 importance, obviously pro for stopping)
3. Will they stop the check the growth of massive corporation like Amazon? (7 importance, Amazon is probably one of the biggest threats to human decency in America)
3. Will they engage in completely unnecessary foreign wars? (7 importance, I would prefer not)
4. Will they engage in smarter trade deals and not fall for the stupid neo-Ricardian pablum? (6 importance)
4. Will they fight the 'culture wars' deftly? (6 importance, against further alterations, and for a rollback of alterations which have already taken place)
5. Do they share my religious views? (4 importance, by which I mean traditionalist Catholicism)
By far the most important aspect for me is the ability to deftly dismantle every power apparatus in America, from the media to the bureaucracy to the courts. Tear it all apart, it's poisonous, corrupt, and downright evil. Longterm goal is the elimination of capitalism, but I don't think that it's likely in my lifetime.
Created:
Lol
Something can be a 'punishment' without being unbearable. The technical definition of a punishment used in behavioral psychology is simply a facet of operant conditioning: a way to reduce the frequency of a target behavior through the introduction of an 'bad' stimulus (spanking) or the removal of a 'positive' stimulus (grounding). By your own argument, banning is a punishment, because you claim that it is a 'stupid rule' introduced to decrease the frequency of a certain behavior. That is literally the textbook defintion.
Something can be a 'punishment' without being unbearable. The technical definition of a punishment used in behavioral psychology is simply a facet of operant conditioning: a way to reduce the frequency of a target behavior through the introduction of an 'bad' stimulus (spanking) or the removal of a 'positive' stimulus (grounding). By your own argument, banning is a punishment, because you claim that it is a 'stupid rule' introduced to decrease the frequency of a certain behavior. That is literally the textbook defintion.
Also, to equivocate means to equivocate two things to one other. Hitler=Donald Trump is an equivocation. Hitler = A man; Donald Trump = A man is not. Just as 'Robber shooting a person = Blocking on a forum' is an equivocation, but 'Robber shooting a person = Punishment; Blocking on a forum = Punishment' is not.
I really don't care if you block me. As I've already said, I just view it as indicative of intellectual frailty or thin skin, but understand why the function exists, even if I've never personally made use of it. I was just correcting a mistake on your part because it'ss one that I see commonly repeated for whatever reason (I imagine the complete failure to teach grammar or logic in the American college and primary education systems, which I myself fell victim to for a long time).
Created:
-->
@Raltar
Say someone robs a bank, puts a gun to a customers head and asks the teller for money. The teller refuses and the robber kills the customer. Should the courts punish the teller for not giving money?False equivalence fallacy. I'm just going to leave it at that.
You should really read the Wikipedia page that you linked. A false equivalency fallacy is a specific fallacy that compares two things in an equivocal manner which aren't equivocal. Read the examples given in the article:
"They're both living animals that metabolize chemical energy. There's no difference between a pet cat and a pet snail.""The Deepwater Horizon oil spill is no different from your neighbor dripping some oil on the ground when changing oil in his car."
Nowhere did Outplayz ever try to insinuate that bank robbers shooting clerks was equivalent in any sense to banning someone on an online forum, in moral or practical terms. What he did do was use an example to demonstrate a principle that he was using in another argument. The example was certainly more severe, but that just makes it a more useful example because the principle is more stark. This is one of those common logical misunderstandings; someone uses an analogy or example to demonstrate something, and because the examples used are different someone screams that they are 'comparing' x to y, and x and y are different so you can't do that. 'How dare you compare him to Hitler!' It's not a logical fallacy unless you are equivocating (insinuating that they have equal worth or weight), but the accusation often gets thrown at people who make no such insinuation. I find it hilarious that the analogy section was removed from the SATs because they're 'irrelevant to success in a college or work environment'. Lol, I guess so, though it becomes apparent that they are irrelevant only because our country is so ill educated that nobody knows what an analogy is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
This whole moderation fiasco is like a farce at this point, might as well break out the popcorn. I knew that ideological homogeny could blind people, but I never imagined that they would induct a literal religion forum votebomber into a 'good voter' group lol.
Created:
-->
@Raltar
GoldTop was the user whom I was referring to (the subject of this thread), who as far as I know didn't spam vote any debates. Commenting on debates can be ignored, and if the information is being spread publicly it's banned as either call-out thread or cross-thread contamination in most cases. If someone is talking about you in PMs, tough titty in my mind; it's the internet, and people gossip just like in real life. The only thing that would really be 'problematic' is spamming debate votes, but we kind of have a system in place to take care of that. Now, as to whether that system is biased you certainly might have a point there. There's one particular user who has not once voted for the conservative/theist position in any debate, but is apparently now part of the 'high quality vote' group on this site lol.
As far as I know, there's only one user of this site who ever went as far as the first example (probably the most intense example of bullying I can recall), and I think that he probably learned his lesson. There are a couple who sent threatening PMs, but they were pretty quickly chastised and punished for it.
Created:
-->
@Outplayz
In regards to the block function. I think the block function is enough. Bc then the user can't address you and you won't see their notifications. If you decide to continue talking to them bc they brought you up... i think the person made the choice then to continue talking to the person they blocked. If they block them... just don't talk to them. It's really that easy... or am i being unsympathetic again bc apparently my skin is made of steel...
This is the key issue, I think. I don't see how someone can claim that someone is 'harassing' them if they are choosing to continue contact with said person after the site has given them a way to effectively not see that person's notifications. Mostly its just people with frail egos who are distraught that someone is criticizing them publicly and want the mods to shut it down. Rather than an issue of bullying or stalking, it's just the tired old human standby of not liking criticism. Because that's all that I really saw GoldTop do to RM: make some pointed personal criticisms that honestly were often right on the mark. I don't know if he was making death threats in PMs or sending him dickpics or something, but from what was visible I didn't see anything terribly nasty. Nothing like any of the serious bullying that we saw on DDO, like contacting people's real life Facebook friends unsolicited to shittalk them or sending violent PMs.
Created:
-->
@Maher
Can the expression of controversial political ideas threaten another's safety?
No
Why or why not?
The definition of the word 'safety'.
This is a serious question.
Not really.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
That sounds more productive than the debate tbh.
Created:
He probably doesn't want to waste his time
Created:
Posted in:
"A little while ago certain doctors and other persons permitted by modern law to dictate to their shabbier fellow-citizens, sent out an order that all little girls should have their hair cut short. I mean, of course, all little girls whose parents were poor. Many very unhealthy habits are common among rich little girls, but it will be long before any doctors interfere forcibly with them. Now, the case for this particular interference was this, that the poor are pressed down from above into such stinking and suffocating underworlds of squalor, that poor people must not be allowed to have hair, because in their case it must mean lice in the hair. Therefore, the doctors propose to abolish the hair. It never seems to have occurred to them to abolish the lice. Yet it could be done. As is common in most modern discussions the unmentionable thing is the pivot of the whole discussion. It is obvious to any Christian man (that is, to any man with a free soul) that any coercion applied to a cabman's daughter ought, if possible, to be applied to a Cabinet Minister's daughter. I will not ask why the doctors do not, as a matter of fact apply their rule to a Cabinet Minister's daughter. I will not ask, because I know. They do not because they dare not. But what is the excuse they would urge, what is the plausible argument they would use, for thus cutting and clipping poor children and not rich? Their argument would be that the disease is more likely to be in the hair of poor people than of rich. And why? Because the poor children are forced (against all the instincts of the highly domestic working classes) to crowd together in close rooms under a wildly inefficient system of public instruction; and because in one out of the forty children there may be offense. And why? Because the poor man is so ground down by the great rents of the great ground landlords that his wife often has to work as well as he. Therefore she has no time to look after the children, therefore one in forty of them is dirty. Because the workingman has these two persons on top of him, the landlord sitting (literally) on his stomach, and the schoolmaster sitting (literally) on his head, the workingman must allow his little girl's hair, first to be neglected from poverty, next to be poisoned by promiscuity, and, lastly, to be abolished by hygiene. He, perhaps, was proud of his little girl's hair. But he does not count.
...It never seems to strike these people that the lesson of lice in the slums is the wrongness of slums, not the wrongness of hair. Hair is, to say the least of it, a rooted thing. Its enemy (like the other insects and oriental armies of whom we have spoken) sweep upon us but seldom. In truth, it is only by eternal institutions like hair that we can test passing institutions like empires. If a house is so built as to knock a man's head off when he enters it, it is built wrong.
The mob can never rebel unless it is conservative, at least enough to have conserved some reasons for rebelling. It is the most awful thought in all our anarchy, that most of the ancient blows struck for freedom would not be struck at all to-day, because of the obscuration of the clean, popular customs from which they came. The insult that brought down the hammer of Wat Tyler might now be called a medical examination. That which Virginius loathed and avenged as foul slavery might now be praised as free love. The cruel taunt of Foulon, "Let them eat grass," might now be represented as the dying cry of an idealistic vegetarian. Those great scissors of science that would snip off the curls of the poor little school children are ceaselessly snapping closer and closer to cut off all the corners and fringes of the arts and honors of the poor. Soon they will be twisting necks to suit clean collars, and hacking feet to fit new boots. It never seems to strike them that the body is more than raiment; that the Sabbath was made for man; that all institutions shall be judged and damned by whether they have fitted the normal flesh and spirit. It is the test of political sanity to keep your head. It is the test of artistic sanity to keep your hair on.
Now the whole parable and purpose of these last pages, and indeed of all these pages, is this: to assert that we must instantly begin all over again, and begin at the other end. I begin with a little girl's hair. That I know is a good thing at any rate. Whatever else is evil, the pride of a good mother in the beauty of her daughter is good. It is one of those adamantine tendernesses which are the touchstones of every age and race. If other things are against it, other things must go down. If landlords and laws and sciences are against it, landlords and laws and sciences must go down. With the red hair of one she-urchin in the gutter I will set fire to all modern civilization. Because a girl should have long hair, she should have clean hair; because she should have clean hair, she should not have an unclean home: because she should not have an unclean home, she should have a free and leisured mother; because she should have a free mother, she should not have an usurious landlord; because there should not be an usurious landlord, there should be a redistribution of property; because there should be a redistribution of property, there shall be a revolution. That little urchin with the gold-red hair, whom I have just watched toddling past my house, she shall not be lopped and lamed and altered; her hair shall not be cut short like a convict's; no, all the kingdoms of the earth shall be hacked about and mutilated to suit her. She is the human and sacred image; all around her the social fabric shall sway and split and fall; the pillars of society shall be shaken, and the roofs of ages come rushing down, and not one hair of her head shall be harmed."
- G. K. Chesterton -
Created:
-->
@Castin
Yeah, technology is really doing a number on everyone, but especially the next generation. It's crazy how mind-numbingly stupid society has become about accepting 'progress'. At no other time in history has a young kid seen hundreds or thousands of different naked adults by the time he turns sixteen, or interacted chiefly through an electronic interface, or been exposed to the kind of unique visual language format which the internet offers every single day. We are in completely uncharted territory, tinkering with factors of human development that affect EVERYTHING within out society, and we're doing it with complete reckless abandon. You'd think that more people would stop, have a little humility, and say 'wait a minute, these are some pretty drastic changes, maybe we stop at some point'. But that almost never happens, there's a mind-numbing 'this happens, so it's good. Because it's good, it's okay that it happens' chain of thought and the whole bizarre procession of novelties marches on. Not only do they not get the 'hard knocks' social development, they are alienated from nature, sexually neurotic, and socially withdrawn.
Created:
Posted in:
Old people being ground into pellets for school lunches: 60 years.
Created:
Posted in:
Usury should be punishable by death, not the basis of our economic system.
Landholdings should be tied to family, not individuals.
Limited liability is inherently unjust and evil.
God is going to severely punish America for basically ruining the entire world.
Most people in any given time period, especially ours, are intensely mistaken on certain socially reinforced points, and are completely blind to that fact.
Most of the problems in this world are rooted in the scale of human society, not ideology or policy, and will continue to get worse unless something drastic happens. The system is structured in such a way that at this point the only thing which would fit the bill is a massive natural disaster of some sort.
These are some of the most insightful words written in the 20th century:
"The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in 'advanced' countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in 'advanced' countries."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
I want to impale bankers and pornographers on the National Mall, and bring back feudalism. What does that make me?
Created:
-->
@Castin
The definition that bsh used in an earlier post, broken down. I have no problem with the first two definitions, but the last one had nothing whatsoever to do with the common definition of sexual definition until some shrivelled HR catlady decided to write it in there.
Created:
-->
@Castin
Ah, codswallop. I would never "assume no sane person could find grievous fault with me", but if I became bullied by a domineering and manipulative pathological liar with no apparent empathy, I would say that person has sociopathic tendencies, and I'd likely be right to say it. I'd also seek a second opinion from someone I considered to have good judgment, as a check on my bias. Then I would commence Operation Eat Me And Fuck Off. For the record, I don't think Goldtop was a sociopath.
That's not what I said though, I said that only a narcissist sees ANYONE who bullies them as a sociopath. The vast, vast majority of the time, 'bullying' is done because you're breaking some unspoken social rule (that usually has a good reason for existing), or because you're doing something that most people find annoying, which is why the bully is able to function without himself being bullied. Are there some people who are 'sociopathic' and 'psychopathic' who bully? Absolutely. But sociopathy and psychopathy are both rare mental disorders, and are much more easy to find in the diagnoses of armchair psychologists than in actual clinical research.
It's true they're usually normal people. No one is pure evil. But I think it's a bit naive to think bullies are just trying to correct or improve their victims. We shouldn't assume it's tough love. Most of them are doing it for personal pleasure, and their motives are destructive.
I think that our society sees attempts at correction as destructive, because we've adopted this kind of insane 'love me or leave me', 'I'm beautiful and deserve to loved as I am' mentality. The fact is that all people are shitty. We all have flaws, we all do shitty things. Attempts to bend some of our pieces into a better position aren't destructive because we are not defined by our flaws, weaknesses, and failing. It's true that pride can creep in there; that's always a big temptation from the bully's PoV, which is why a healthy social ecosystem has a bully food chain. This is the kind of environment that I grew up in, and I just cringe sometimes at what an insufferable little shit I would have turned out to be if my ego hadn't been hammered out a bit. Were the bullies saints? No. Neither were the people who bullied the bullies. We were all just humans who saw someone doing something obnoxious or shitty, said 'stop being a little shit', and maybe felt a bit of undeserved pride. That's better than going through life demanding that the whole world lick your asshole 24/7 and not even being aware of how awful you are being.
However, if you said ill-meaning bullies can still be useful in helping one build a thicker skin -- serving as unwitting training dummies, if you will -- I could get behind that.
I think that they're vital to the formation of a functional conscience and self-awareness. Sometimes you have to be forced out of yourself, made to ask yourself 'jeez, maybe I am acting like an ass hole and had that coming'. It's not really something that most people can do on their own, without being put into an uncomfortable situation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
All the cool people are voting for anonymity. Plus, the arguments against it are pretty retarded giving the report limitations and the coming updates which will require a reason.
Created:
Posted in:
Mike edited one of my PMs to this, somebody help:
Союз нерушимый республик свободных
Сплотила навеки Великая Русь.
Да здравствует созданный волей народов
Единый, могучий Советский Союз!
Славься, Отечество наше свободное,
Дружбы народов надёжный оплот!
Знамя советское, знамя народное
Пусть от победы к победе ведёт!
Сквозь грозы сияло нам солнце свободы,
И Ленин великий нам путь озарил.
Нас вырастил Сталин — на верность народу
На труд и на подвиги нас вдохновил.
Славься, Отечество наше свободное,
Счастья народов надёжный оплот!
Знамя советское, знамя народное
Пусть от победы к победе ведёт!
Мы армию нашу растили в сраженьях,
Захватчиков подлых с дороги сметём!
Мы в битвах решаем судьбу поколений,
Мы к славе Отчизну свою поведём!
Славься, Отечество наше свободное,
Славы народов надёжный оплот!
Знамя советское, знамя народное
Пусть от победы к победе ведёт!
Created:
-->
@bsh1
Regardless of the specific situation, the definition that you used is absurdly broad, and represents a typical bait and switch. You say 'I'm going to ban sexual harrasment'. Most people are fine with that, because when you say 'sexual harrasment', we think:
First, lewd or suggestive comments which constitute unwanted advances.
And, maybe:
Second, lewd or suggestive comments designed to make the recipient uncomfortable or to mock the recipient.
Those two are what the word has classically meant, and together encompass the common language understanding that the word carries. However, lo and behold, the fine print holds a definition which basically weasles 'hate speech'-eseque language policing into the definition:
Third, comments targeting a user's sex, sexual attractiveness, sexual performance, or orientation which are designed to make the recipient feel uncomfortable or to mock the recipient
So now 'sexism', making premature ejaculation jokes, calling someone ugly, or saying something that might make gay people feel bad are all 'sexual harrasment'. You've used the rightful opprobrium that people feel over some creep making unwanted lewd advances to people online as a trojan horse to sneak in a bunch of stuff that most people just don't have a problem with. Far from laissez faire moderation, the mods can apparently play mind reader and judge the motives of someone, but they also have such a ludicrously loose definition of what's out of bound that it includes attempts at mockery or making someone 'uncomfortable'.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
It's just a weird affectation that took off, I think. The long ee is just something that everyone started saying because it 'sounds smart' while still being incorrect. People are odd like that.
Created:
-->
@Castin
Considering that, by bsh's definition, it's sexual harassment to call someone ugly, I can't say that the accusation really carries much weight.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Someone on an internet forum who doesn't know what words mean. Nothing to see here.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Only a narcissist sees anyone who bullies them as a sociopath, because they assume that no sane person could find grievous fault with them. In reality, most bullies are just normal people who have a very different idea of what is appropriate, and attempt to rectify what they see as errors in your behavior. The amount of 'bullies' that someone has is usually commensurate to the amount of character flaws that they put on display, and their hysterical refusal to correct any of them just attracts more bullies, like moths to a flame. Far from being 'sociopathic', bullying in any social economy is a way of fixing bad behaviour. It's only seen as bad in itself by people who are immature, or just lack the ability to accept criticism. Of course, you can argue that a specific bully is off the mark, but the act itself is very healthy.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Bullying is important, especially when done early and often. It checks people's egos, stops them from developing sociopathic tendencies early in life. GoldTop was performing a public service, so this really is a travesty. You know you can't be a fly nigga if you raise your hand.
Created:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
The funniest thing about the Russian collusion line is that the same people who hold to it likely approve of FDR. Lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Filthy birds, what else could I be referring to?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Where's the rule about getting rid of the disgusting feathered vermin that have infested our fair site?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Are you for or against that? Personally, I think that it would be for the better. You can pretty much never have a discussion in the religion forum without it becoming a God-debate pissing contest between the same handful of people.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@drafterman
Mike, his arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft the bannhammer from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that he, bsh, was to carry the banhammer. That is why he is your mod!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ramshutu
its ridiculous sh*t like this, that makes moderators reluctant to do anything at all, which leads to deterioration of websites as “anything goes” invariably means a race to the bottom. It’s why it took years to get Bronto banned on DDO, and why a bunch of Russian bot accounts are still there.So pull those training pants up, and act like a grown up.As as I said: people like you are literally the reason we can’t gave nice things.
Actually, there are still bot accounts all over DDO because Juggle never gave Airmax the tools to enforce things like wide-range IP bans and served as absentee landlords. Without the physical tools to manage mass spam attacks, where literally millions of posts can be put up quickly, he would have had to delete each post individually or do regular mass, time-gated deletions.The bots are there because their spamming screws with things like search engine algorithms and Alexa rankings, not to actually advertise products, and Juggle doesn't care because they still make ad money on the clicks. Typical overconfident buffoonery, lol, especially your inability to realize that you and many other religion forum posters offer the same one-dimensional contributions that Bronto did, you just run the other side of the script.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tyrone
In the past decade, violence has been largely restricted to the right because the left is capable of using the state as a violent apparatus to, for example, control how parents raise their children or enforce leftist ideas of ideal family structure through court divorce settlements. The left has also stopped being anti-corporate, so a right wing radical has no remaining recourse if, for example, WalMart is causing multi-generational small businesses to close down or drugs are flooding into their town, or crime is accompanying waves of migrants. A generalized leftist who wants to enforce his program can do so through legal means, and as they continue to strip the right of any legitimate means to express political will on the right, that will will eventually be expressed violently. Trump's takeover of the Republican party was largely an attempt to resolve this within the bounds of the legitimized system, and leftist attempts to defang Trump's administration are causing pressure to build again.
But that doesn't mean that the left isn't violent, only that their violence is legitimized. And even if it is legitimized, I can't think of any act of political violence which was more shocking and credibly threatening than that attempt to shoot up a group of Republican congressmen a while ago.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tyrone
I disagree with this, and I actually don't understand how you can believe this in light of literal firing squads on both sides in relatively recent history. The left and right fringes are both more than capable of political violence, have both historically employed political violence, and are now both much more neutered (in the West) than they were previously. This is because they exist in a decadent, sprawling empire that keeps its populace in a more or less sedate, contented state through a combination of ideological, sensory, and electronic diversion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
I think that it was so offensive to the left because it immediately undermined one of the key underpinnings of their political outlook. Most people on the left see themselves as more intelligent than those on the right. They see those on the right as misguided, or just too dumb to grasp their outlook. What the mass use of the NPC meme did was demonstrate in an incontrovertible way that many people on the right are familiar enough with leftist arguments and ideology to predict the their responses before they actually give them. This undermines the mass psychology of the left, which leans especially heavy on the self-perception of the self as 'better' which Hoffer mentions in his works on mass movements, and so they went a little berserk over it. On the right, the mechanism through which that mass psychology is created is a bit different, so the NPC meme isn't nearly as potent when used in reverse. The exception to this is the Ben Shapiro-esque wing of the new right, which does rely on stoking that self-perception effect and so is somewhat open to an angle of attack which breaks down their formulaic thinking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tyrone
I think that consumption should be decriminalized, treatment for addicts made available, and that distribution should be heavily criminalized. Historically, this has been more effective for eliminating drug use than any other policy. Our current policy is the worst, which lets distributors off with a slap on the wrist while turning the prosecution of addicts into a side industry.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Buddamoose
Yeah. The sad thing is that this was literally what a bunch of us warned about when the CoC was published (that a few progressive pet causes would become enforced on the whole site) and it's come true in ways that are pretty absurd even by my dim, pessimistic expectations.
Created:
-->
@Nd24007
Do you live in a cave inhaling geothermal fumes all day, where kings and commoners alike seek out your oracular vision?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Smithereens
I think that this discrepancy really gets down to the real problem with the CoC and its enforcement: it isn't about preventing harm at all, it's about control. This is a debate site which is supposed to welcome all views, but bsh's enforcement when it comes to things like blackface, words like 'tranny' and 'nigger', and other leftist shibboleths takes for granted that the leftist consensus on these issues is the truth and then enforces the CoC based on that presumption. That means that political bias is baked into the system from the getgo, and that's the problem with a CoC which tries to make conversation 'nice': nice for whom? Many people on the left can't see it, but they would see it real quick if I was mod and decided that using female pronouns for a MtF transgender person was abusive because I, personally, see transgenderism as a mental disorder.Go fuck yourself.This for example, has far greater capacity for harm than flippant use of the word tranny in a conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
Just to be clear, it may be my fault, not the mods', since we have no means of deleting only the first post from the topics and therefore they might have had to delete the whole topic to achieve the goal.
It was a single forum post that was deleted within a thread that is still up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
If that happened, it would just be a powerful unspoken referendum that people prefer a more lax moderation environment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DebateArt.com
@Castin
I think that we should extend some basic CoC to the titles and description, which will be publicly viewable. So, 'no call-out thread' applies.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
No, they really aren't. Airmax had a great sense of humor, about everything, and people respected him infinitely more because of it. In fact, I will go out on a limb and say that it was actually the biggest key to his success. A leader who is unable to laugh/unwind and acts like they have a stick up their ass all the time is seen as fragile, emotional, and untrustworthy. One who can laugh about something that is objectively funny, can make a sensible decision to which they stick, and talks to the people whom they have power over in a natural, human matter will win trust. Nobody wants to be managed by an android.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
You can engrave that on my tombstone.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Castin
You have to realize that the reason that you and every other human being with any sort of soul laughed at that video was because it was funny. An obviously white guy putting black crap on his face and acting as if he is black, even going so far as to act as if he's proven his point and calling his critics 'racists' is funny because it's farce. Reacting with laughter to absurdity, overconfidence, and delusion is just the natural human reaction to something like this; it's not funny because it's 'racist'. It isn't even 'racist'. The point of the video, and the reason behind its humor, is the overconfidence of the person in it. To get all 'snooty', the Greeks called this 'dramatic irony', because the audience is aware of something that the character isn't (namely, that no one in the audience is convinced that he's black), and so an emotional response is provoked (humor).
Only miserable people who want others to share in their misery can suppress that simple, organic reaction and replace it with this bizarre, mechanistic bitterness. They're the spiritual version of a neurotic who dissects every flower that he comes across, looking for some sort of disgusting bug, instead of just enjoying the scenery. Don't let these sad people convince you to feel shame for one of the few things that we shouldn't feel shameful about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@triangle.128k
Created: