|
On November 14 2012 09:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 09:00 Maxyim wrote:
Why are you guys trying so hard to paint Ryan as a closet racist? His meaning was clear and correlates to the "47%" comments from Romney as well as exit poll data - minorities and single women voted overwhelmingly Democrat, and both of these groups are much more likely than other groups to be on welfare. In short, the American Majority has learned to vote for Santa Claus just like the rest of the civilized world.
God it sucks to be a straight white Christian male in today's world.
This is a singular example as I haven't been keeping a running track but I'm pretty sure everyone knows here that Kwark is passive aggressive when he posts and posts things that would get most users banned or warned progressively until a ban.
I was just bringing this up as more of a curious statement, is it just because the mod power is there so nothing can be done or no one really cares? And if that's the case why can't everyone just post as poorly as this specific post.
I mean I've had my share of similarly rude posts I've typed and I got my equal share of warnings for the stupidity, I feel it should be equated or at least not brushed aside.
NOTE**** this isn't the first time someone mentioned Kwark as being passive aggressive, in the general election thread he was inferring that a user was an idiot.
EDIT:
Example of a user warning
On November 13 2012 13:16 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 12:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 10:50 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 13 2012 10:32 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 10:22 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 10:15 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 10:09 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 10:03 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 10:01 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 09:59 sc2superfan101 wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On November 13 2012 09:52 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On November 13 2012 09:19 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 08:13 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 08:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 08:07 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 08:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 08:03 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 07:58 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 13 2012 07:55 Souma wrote:On November 13 2012 07:53 sc2superfan101 wrote:
[quote]
it is not tax evasion to put your money in an off-shore account, as it is not currently illegal to do so. it's common sense. Whether it's common sense or not does not make it any less greedy or unpatriotic lol. I'm not going to argue over semantics. how is it greedy and unpatriotic to want to keep your money from being wasted? 'wasted' Give me a break. Is there anything you want to contribute to this conversation that has more than two hues? If not then I will gladly step back because this is not something I wish to argue over with someone who mistakes the sky for a rock. I'm thinking shades of grey here. the perception among these people is obviously that putting their money here will lead to a net loss for them, or they wouldn't put their money somewhere else. obviously their perception is that it is being wasted, so why is it unpatriotic to not want your money to be wasted? Listen to yourself. It's a net loss for them so they won't do it - that's EXACTLY what greedy is, and in turn it's unpatriotic because you screw over many Americans because of it. If I refuse to give you my cupcake because it would be a net loss for me, that's me being selfish! Argue that it is not fair for them to pay more taxes. Argue that tax hikes will not be better for the economy. But don't you dare say not paying taxes is anything less than greedy and unpatriotic. it is not greedy to keep your cupcake because you want to enjoy it. otherwise it would be greedy to ever keep any money or wealth or property for yourself. It is greedy. That is the definition of greed. Whether you agree it's a bad thing, a good thing, unnecessary or necessary is a different thing all together. But, by any definition, it is greed. Now, the question is, are you willing to stand by your principles even if you acknowledge that it is 'greed'? Because honestly, what does it matter what we categorize it? Do you need some arbitrary self-assurance that it is not greed for you to stand tall? If so then your argument is shallow at best. I doubt this is the case, though. of course it's not greed. greed would be to deprive someone of something they deserve to satisfy a want. depriving myself of something I deserve so that they can have something they want is charitable, sometimes, but to not do so is not greedy. whether it's greedy or not is irrelevant. my whole point is that you want to punish them for some perceived greed on their part. my argument is that 1) it is not greedy at all, and 2) even if it was greedy, it's not your place to punish them. and further, by your definition of greed, it is extremely greedy for you (or anyone else) to demand their money. No, greed is not 'depriving someone of something they deserve.' Show nested quote +Greed is the inordinate desire to possess wealth, goods, or objects of abstract value with the intention to keep it for one's self, far beyond the dictates of basic survival and comfort.
We're not "punishing them for being greedy." Stop grabbing things from out of thin air. We are punishing them for not paying their due taxes. the inordinate desire far beyond the dictates of basic survival and comfort. do you have any evidence that they have no payed their legal share of taxes? What do I care if they pay their 'legal' share or not? That was never the argument and is irrelevant. you said you were punishing them for not paying their due taxes. that can only be true if they have no paid what they are legally required to have paid. otherwise it is not due, at this point in time. ex post facto is not fair play. you cannot turn around after that fact and say they haven't paid enough their due when they paid all the government asked from them. Yes I said their 'due' taxes, aka the taxes they should be paying if the system was to work how it should be working and not how it currently is (you know, the system in its current corrupt state). Once again what the hell does this matter at all? You asked why taxing the rich does not create a burden on the economy. I don't care whether it's fair or unfair, legal or illegal, greedy or not greedy. Seeing as how you're so obsessed over the issue I can only take it that you care about what it is categorized under and your argument is evidently shallow. the point is that you want to punish them for the system being "corrupt". and I would be perfectly willing to go back to a discussion about whether taxing the rich more than we do now, or even at the level that we do now, is good for the economy. the conversation kind of just naturally evolved in this direction (probably because it is self-evident that taxes are always a net loss on productivity) It's not exactly "punishment" if we merely close all these loopholes they lobbied for in the first place, but if you want to think of it as "punishment" go ahead. It's obviously not self-evident that taxes are always a net loss on productivity. Your world is so black and white. I'm not going to get into this discussion. If you're so curious you can scroll through paralleluniverse's many posts on how trickle-down economics is a giant farce. Many others have demonstrated the same thing over and over again throughout this thread. Take the information, don't take it, I don't really care, but I'm not going to rehash the same ol' tired arguments. in a perfect world, would taxes be required? no, because everyone would spend their money on exactly what was needed (taking care of roads, hospitals, sewage, etc.) and there would be no need to protect their money or persons (taking care of policing, military) and they would be willing to help each other out (taking care of firemen, FEMA, etc.) in fact, in such a world, it is evident that taxing would lead to a net loss, because the disinterested government cannot possibly spend the money more efficiently than the interested person. since we do not live in such a world, taxation is necessary. however, it is a necessary evil. the loss in efficiency is balanced by the gain in security. however, we should not forget that such a loss in efficiency does exist, and doesn't disappear just because it is a necessary loss. But in a perfect world where everyone worked hard and took their fair share and was willing to help out their fellows, communism would work. isn't the fair share whatever they can get, minus the agreed upon wages and paying back investments? even in a perfect world, communism wouldn't exist because communism presupposes that the workers deserve as much of the profit as the investors and managers. they don't. That's just adorable. Maybe you should rush back to the drawing board because you clearly don't know what you're talking about. User was warned for this post
Similar post in nature, adds nothing but ad hominem yet one is warned and one is allowed.
This is especially noteworthy since Kwark uses his mod functions, or so I've noticed, readily on hand and in some cases this is mildly ironic.
|
OMG yes another KwarK thread
*grabs popcorn 
|
United States41976 Posts
It was sarcasm. It doesn't suck to be one of the entitled group in society and being one of them while simultaneously complaining about the poverty of the out groups is worthy of ridicule.
Since the civil rights movement and women's liberation there's been this strange thing where straight white men like to complain about those groups while being completely unaware of their privilege. It's typified by statements such as "why can't we have straight pride rallies" and the like.
|
On November 14 2012 10:08 KwarK wrote:Since the civil rights movement and women's liberation there's been this strange thing where straight white men like to complain about those groups while being completely unaware of their privilege. It's typified by statements such as "why can't we have straight pride rallies" and the like.
!!!
This needs to be a modnote at the top of all threads with anything to do with these sorts of things.
|
On November 14 2012 10:08 KwarK wrote:
It was sarcasm. It doesn't suck to be one of the entitled group in society and being one of them while simultaneously complaining about the poverty of the out groups is worthy of ridicule.
Since the civil rights movement and women's liberation there's been this strange thing where straight white men like to complain about those groups while being completely unaware of their privilege. It's typified by statements such as "why can't we have straight pride rallies" and the like.
You've debated his stance in this thread, not your facetious post. What makes it alright, other then the fact your name is red, act the same as the people you so willingly ban? I don't see Falling seeming to ever act in such a way and he gets very much invested at times into debates (especially that US debate thread).
This isn't about whether he was insinuating the suppression of women but the way you reply to posters you moderate on multiple occasions. I don't understand how there is such a disconnect.
I also (along with I believe every poster after the specific users post you're referring to) argued his stance as ridiculous, but they didn't resort to rhetoric and disconnect through sarcastic plies.
Hope that clears the meaning of this thread up, no one is disagreeing that what he was inferring was ridiculous.
|
United States41976 Posts
I did not feel that his post merited a full response as it was mainly bitching about women and blacks. I felt the simplest way to illustrate what was wrong with his post was to illustrate how myopic and entitled he was by parodying the core of his argument.
|
What gets your banned or warned is often direct confederation, just being moody, sassy, sarcastic usually is fine depending on the topic is, but what gets your warned or banned is direct insults. It's a pretty easy line to follow.
Don't want mods on your back about posting style don't do these things.
1. Image macros
2. memes
3. one liners(it's risky you can sometimes get away with a nice one liner at a start of a thread but it's also very likely to get you banned, although puns seem to get past this for w.e reason.)
4. Direct insults, really making anything personal, ie calling a specific player/person out.
5. Conspiracy theories (Probably a conspiracy in itself :D)
6. Hater comments, ie something that has a fanbase you just go into the thread to post xxx is lame, yyy is great. Which is pretty unrelated to the topic.
7. Backseat moderating(if you're going to do it you have to be very sly about it, usually be being passive aggressive, or hyper aggressive and just berate the specific post not the poster just the post)
probably other things too, but it's really number 4 that gets people in trouble the most.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
I don't see any problems here.
|
On November 14 2012 10:42 KwarK wrote:
I did not feel that his post merited a full response as it was mainly bitching about women and blacks. I felt the simplest way to illustrate what was wrong with his post was to illustrate how myopic and entitled he was by parodying the core of his argument.
Well then I suppose we have this thread as a source as to the limits of one line rhetoric permitted as long as it is the simplest way to illustrate what is wrong with a users post.
Thanks for clearing all of this up.
|
Just posting to correct you in that KwarK doesn't have a red name; KwarK has a banling icon.
|
I don't think brevity and meaning are closely correlated enough to warrant an equivalent comparison; in the vast majority of cases, the "message" of a post is fairly clear, regardless of length, and its propriety ought to be regarded as such.
|
thats the worst post of kwark's you could find?
|
On November 14 2012 11:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
thats the worst post of kwark's you could find?
No, not by a long margin but I don't have active records of mod postings as I never thought I'd need them but it's a seemingly continous process lately.
|
On November 14 2012 11:14 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 11:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
thats the worst post of kwark's you could find? No, not by a long margin but I don't have active records of mod postings as I never thought I'd need them but it's a seemingly continous process lately.
hard to take the thread seriously when that is the only example mentioned and you make such a bold statement:
I'm pretty sure everyone knows here that Kwark is passive aggressive
|
Katowice25012 Posts
I don't find this to be passive aggressive, this is just normal sarcasm to me. I don't think it's unwarranted at all in situations like this, if anything it's an amusing way to keep the thread on track that bypasses possibilities of a derail.
|
Political sensitivity, and far more snarky than sarcastic. But not aberrant.
I don't really think this warrants this much attention. I also don't know the purpose of this thread is. Are we supposed to bash Kwark, or shall I quote my sarcastic post from an LR thread in response to another flame-starter:
On November 04 2012 12:04 MountainDewJunkie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 04 2012 12:03 Nick_54 wrote:
Why does Naniwa have to be such a dick. Just gg like a normal fucking person. HANG HIM
|
On November 14 2012 10:59 Plexa wrote:
I don't see any problems here.
The only real question I have is, Why is it always Kwark? At what point do the TL staff say enough is enough? Kwarks snarky posts usually align with the popular majority of TL, but that doesn't make them any better (or worse).
Or, at what point does Kwark decide to stop pissing people off just for the sake of pissing people off?
I've always been told that if you're pissing everyone around you off, maybe the problem isn't everyone around you. Granted, not "everyone" thinks Kwark takes his mod powers to far, but if we're being honest, there's probably a reason why users post things like "Yay! another Kwark thread /popcorn" and "oh look! the weekly Kwark thread."
In Kwark's defense, its been my personal experience that he can be reasonable, but from me to you kind sir, please stop pissing on people's toes just because you can.
Found this just a minute ago. I believe it was a warning sent to the user quoted in the OP. Seems applicable here (please correct me if I'm wrong):
Don't take the easy way out of making an actual argument by being a condescending dick. I have my own reservations about the thought process of a lot of people in this thread in particular but to post like this is unacceptable.
Hold yourself to a higher standard and people will think more of your for it, especially if you are arguing against someone is is determined to ignore your positions.
|
No, the reason why I like to read Kwark threads and bring out the popcorn isn't because it's another growing list of instances in which Kwark was unreasonable.
It's because 9 times out of 10, he was entirely justified in doing what he did, and is reasonable enough to explain the obvious in amusing ways to us. The popcorn is laughing at clueless users who have no idea what posting on TL should look like. The only issue I have with Kwark is with how he treats any and all religion-related argument, but that's the 1 out of 10.
|
Oh look its the weekly Kwark thread! Maybe we should email Kwark's sponsors?
|
On November 14 2012 11:14 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2012 11:09 dAPhREAk wrote:
thats the worst post of kwark's you could find? No, not by a long margin but I don't have active records of mod postings as I never thought I'd need them but it's a seemingly continous process lately.
Well clearly its time to start taking active records of mod postings.
Come with a proper case i say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
