|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
This was a pretty nice discussion until JimmiC came in swinging with his long-standing beef with GH.
|
Now we just need JonnyBNoHo to come in and respond and the circle will be complete
|
|
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 08 2020 02:31 JimmiC wrote:
LL I'm not sure why you always take pot shots at me, as I have not to you, but it might just be that you love drama, because even when you were not participating in the USpol thread you always show up here at any drama to get in some shots. If you wish me to post less, it would make more sense for you to not post about me than too post about me. Which was the point I was trying to make (albeit way to repetitively) , which got me my last ban.
It's interesting to take a potshot in the same sentence you complain about unwarranted potshots.
There are things to be said about GH and his posting, but I call it like I see it: in the interactions between you and him, it's clear who is the problem poster, and it's not really a "both sides are wrong" problem or anything of the sort. It's pretty much consistently your inability to let a line of bait go, and GH being rightly annoyed at that BS. Not all that unlike what happened with the Neb situation, where you just wouldn't let it go and Neb unfortunately got caught in the crossfire for being rightfully annoyed with a pattern of troll behavior. I see quite a few of these situations, and it's not hard to see a common denominator. It's not really personal, per se, to the extent that calling out specific patterns of behavior isn't personal. But if you see it as a personal attack to call out such specific behaviors that I'm annoyed with, then so be it.
|
|
|
On June 07 2020 12:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
I would enjoy you returning to the thread but also am considering just walking away myself. Kinda feels like when I realized I had outgrown the McDonalds playplace.
On June 07 2020 13:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
I know posters like you, farv, neb, and others could foster a stimulating and enlightening political discussion, but you guys gave up on that to encourage coddling some obsequious neophytes that still seem pretty intransigent imo.
On June 07 2020 14:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
Part of the comparison to the playplace is that it was still fun for years after I had outgrown it. Watching a bunch of people like yourself pull a dog catching the car recently was fun for example.
GH true personality. It's amazing there are those who will fanatically continue to defend GH till the ends of the Earth. Never forget GH acolytes, this is who your prophet is. He is but a man and a very small, petty man he is.
He thinks you are neophytes genuflecting at his divine playground, everybody else is but a child or a dog or unelightened. The only reason he is able to act this way is because of you fanatical acolytes. He defecates on his non-worshippers and call the forum we all share a McDonalds playplace, disparages and dismisses everybody else, demanding to be in an exalted authority position and you lap it up enabling his mindset.
______________________________________
Btw, I called out that GH thinks he is in charge of his own personal playground. But I didn't think he would take me up on that same language and prove me right.
On February 18 2020 18:41 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Apparently it's not enough for GH to turn the US Pol thread into his personal playground where dissenters are treated in the most condescending manner; not even discussing politics is allowed, where an innoculous discussion on the nature of oligarchy cannot be allowed to occur, as that disagreements is dissent from GH's opinions.
_________________________
Of note, what gave GH this latest display of his righteous fury on path of enlightenment? His own inability to engage on good faith and then getting called out for it when casting on others to engage on good faith. (Thank goodness someone TL+ gifted the post otherwise I would never have seen it.)
On June 06 2020 04:02 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 06 2020 02:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 06 2020 02:23 Sr18 wrote:On June 06 2020 02:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 06 2020 02:03 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 06 2020 01:11 Simberto wrote:On June 05 2020 23:44 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 05 2020 23:39 Sr18 wrote:
GH, how would you go about law enforcing without law enforcement? It seems impossible to me. First, law enforcement and police aren't synonymous, as we see criminal cops literally all over the country right now. I don't understand the questions because they presume a relationship between police, crime, and society that doesn't exist. Like the "why don't you peacefully protest instead" assumes a relationship between politicians actions and the people protesting that simply doesn't exist. Okay, i think i see where you are coming from, and also why people are really confused. If i understand you correctly, when you say "the police", you mean the organisation which is currently called police in the US, with all its structural problems on so forth. So if you say "abolish the police", you mean to get rid of this organisation, and come up with another organisation without these problems to do law enforcement (but not some of the additional stuff that police in the US tend to do, and especially not the racist and/or overly violent parts) Is that how you use that word? Meanwhile, when people you are discussing with say "police", they mean "a law enforcement agency of some sort". Which leads to lots of confusion, because a society without any law enforcement agency whatsoever sounds like a very utopian concept which doesn't really fit with reality very well. But getting rid of the currently problem-riddled US police organisations and replacing them with something else is not that absurd. This is my interpretation of GH's argument as well. It's the closest I've seen. Which is why I suggested people that want to better understand my position (and police/prison abolition generally) start with this and this so that fruitful discussion can be had. Otherwise I'm not seeing a point. Honestly, I've provided a very simple and concrete example of one of the vital roles that the police perform and have asked you how this role will be performed in the absence of a police force. Your questions regarding the definition of police are not relevant to answering my question, because it is clear that the police play a role in enforcing civil verdicts. So again, in your desired future, where the police has been abolished, who performs this function? And note that this is just an example of one of the many vital functions of a police force. We can go over the other ones next if you'd like, but I'm starting to wonder if you even have an answer to the question. Have you tried googling it? I'm just curious if you've put more effort into badgering me for that answer than actually looking for it. You've put a lot of effort into evading questions while casting aspersions about lack of effort. I mostly see good faith questions being posed to you that you don't seem to know how to answer. I don't know why this is, and I don't expect you to write a treatise, but you could at least provide a limited answer that advances the discussion rather than repeating the same statements. If people don't understand those statements, repeating them won't help. If you don't want to talk about it then stop responding to all these people. I want to see your answers but I don't want to see 3 pages of people going back and forth saying "what do you mean tho." I take your reluctance to link an easily obtainable google result to be a reluctance to endorse any of the popular google results. And if that's the case, then googling a popular result won't help them figure out what your views are, will it? I for one think "abolish the police" is a stupid slogan to use in a popular campaign for sociological and political reasons. It might have a well-defined meaning in narrow contexts but tossing it around casually is just a way to stoke conflict and misunderstanding. Consider: you and others have already pointed out how little (suburban, educated, home-owning, white) people know about "real police work." That implies that "police" already has a flexible semantic content, and that just because people support "the police" there is no logical connection between unqualified support for the determinable content "police" and unqualified support for the determinate content "police" that you want to abolish. So people supporting the "police" (determinable) does not mean they support the "police" (determinate) and the conflation of these two has only led to (sometimes violent) misunderstandings. Look at the limited support libertarian-leaning republicans have given to reducing police budgets and limiting police mission statements recently.
and his response:
On June 07 2020 00:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
IgnE and plenty of others have told me to drop it in situations like this
Up is down, orange is blue, east is west, sacred is profane in GH land.
|
Is IgnE confused/bothered or does he get what happened there?
I explained myself pretty thoroughly
And posters like Beli and zero had nothing to contribute after pestering for an answer. Which as IgnE said, meant I should drop it.
Posters like uld, christians, train, and a couple others noticed they were on the wrong track with "but psychos!?" type stuff and tried (to no avail) bring the discussion somewhere productive. Tomato even posted a FAQ that as usual was completely ignored by the next person inquisitive about abolition in Minneapolis (to the degree the council is on board).
|
GH linking the post instead of just quoting the post. Actual relevant part of I explained myself pretty thoroughly
On June 07 2020 00:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
IgnE and plenty of others have told me to drop it in situations like this
Up is down, orange is blue, east is west, sacred is profane in GH land.
There's no reasonable interpretation of Igne's post or any others to have told me to drop it in situations like this. You whine about good faith, when new posters like SR18 are treating you in good faith and respect, whilst you give none in return.
|
On June 09 2020 01:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Is IgnE confused/bothered or does he get what happened there? I explained myself pretty thoroughly And posters like Beli and zero had nothing to contribute after pestering for an answer. Which as IgnE said, meant I should drop it. Posters like uld, christians, train, and a couple others noticed they were on the wrong track with "but psychos!?" type stuff and tried (to no avail) bring the discussion somewhere productive. Tomato even posted a FAQ that as usual was completely ignored by the next person inquisitive about abolition in Minneapolis (to the degree the council is on board).
Pestered you for an answer? I reposted IgnE's post 1 time. I didn't engage with you at all. So you can leave my name out of your mouth. Thank you very much.
|
Seems since you went super hard on that weird "GH is anti-gay" rant you've taken this quest of yours up a notch . But here's the quote
On June 07 2020 00:44 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 07 2020 00:03 ChristianS wrote:On June 06 2020 23:43 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On June 06 2020 04:02 IgnE wrote:On June 06 2020 02:27 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 06 2020 02:23 Sr18 wrote:On June 06 2020 02:06 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 06 2020 02:03 Sbrubbles wrote:On June 06 2020 01:11 Simberto wrote:On June 05 2020 23:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
First, law enforcement and police aren't synonymous, as we see criminal cops literally all over the country right now. I don't understand the questions because they presume a relationship between police, crime, and society that doesn't exist.
Like the "why don't you peacefully protest instead" assumes a relationship between politicians actions and the people protesting that simply doesn't exist.
Okay, i think i see where you are coming from, and also why people are really confused. If i understand you correctly, when you say "the police", you mean the organisation which is currently called police in the US, with all its structural problems on so forth. So if you say "abolish the police", you mean to get rid of this organisation, and come up with another organisation without these problems to do law enforcement (but not some of the additional stuff that police in the US tend to do, and especially not the racist and/or overly violent parts) Is that how you use that word? Meanwhile, when people you are discussing with say "police", they mean "a law enforcement agency of some sort". Which leads to lots of confusion, because a society without any law enforcement agency whatsoever sounds like a very utopian concept which doesn't really fit with reality very well. But getting rid of the currently problem-riddled US police organisations and replacing them with something else is not that absurd. This is my interpretation of GH's argument as well. It's the closest I've seen. Which is why I suggested people that want to better understand my position (and police/prison abolition generally) start with this and this so that fruitful discussion can be had. Otherwise I'm not seeing a point. Honestly, I've provided a very simple and concrete example of one of the vital roles that the police perform and have asked you how this role will be performed in the absence of a police force. Your questions regarding the definition of police are not relevant to answering my question, because it is clear that the police play a role in enforcing civil verdicts. So again, in your desired future, where the police has been abolished, who performs this function? And note that this is just an example of one of the many vital functions of a police force. We can go over the other ones next if you'd like, but I'm starting to wonder if you even have an answer to the question. Have you tried googling it? I'm just curious if you've put more effort into badgering me for that answer than actually looking for it. You've put a lot of effort into evading questions while casting aspersions about lack of effort. I mostly see good faith questions being posed to you that you don't seem to know how to answer. I don't know why this is, and I don't expect you to write a treatise, but you could at least provide a limited answer that advances the discussion rather than repeating the same statements. If people don't understand those statements, repeating them won't help. If you don't want to talk about it then stop responding to all these people. I want to see your answers but I don't want to see 3 pages of people going back and forth saying "what do you mean tho." I take your reluctance to link an easily obtainable google result to be a reluctance to endorse any of the popular google results. And if that's the case, then googling a popular result won't help them figure out what your views are, will it? I for one think "abolish the police" is a stupid slogan to use in a popular campaign for sociological and political reasons. It might have a well-defined meaning in narrow contexts but tossing it around casually is just a way to stoke conflict and misunderstanding. Consider: you and others have already pointed out how little (suburban, educated, home-owning, white) people know about "real police work." That implies that "police" already has a flexible semantic content, and that just because people support "the police" there is no logical connection between unqualified support for the determinable content "police" and unqualified support for the determinate content "police" that you want to abolish. So people supporting the "police" (determinable) does not mean they support the "police" (determinate) and the conflation of these two has only led to (sometimes violent) misunderstandings. Look at the limited support libertarian-leaning republicans have given to reducing police budgets and limiting police mission statements recently. Anyone else waiting for a response to this or have we moved on? I’m certainly interested in one but to be fair, I’d take my time to write it, too I'm happy to pick up the discussion on abolition (which seems centered on either better understanding my personal views on it or having me lecture [mostly field the thread's curiosities like an abolition concierge] on it). But the answer to why I haven't responded is right there in his post. Show nested quote +If people don't understand those statements, repeating them won't help. If you don't want to talk about it then stop responding to all these people. To forward the discussion though, Trainrunnef was on the right track and I'd pick it up there. I suggested: Show nested quote +On June 05 2020 23:49 GreenHorizons wrote:If people want to engage in good faith on abolishing the police we should start with the roles they think police are indispensable for and how much of police activity that composes. That way when talking about how to replace that function + Show Spoiler +(could replace it with giving people cotton candy, not seriously because it wouldn't be effective [probably not much worse than what we have], but to illustrate it doesn't have to be replaced with police) we have an idea of at least the size and scope of what we're replacing based on the best available stats and figures. and because I foresaw a response like train's (which I appreciate btw and if you haven't found what you asked for in PM I'll give you a lead) I preemptively tried to clarify something I find important. Show nested quote +... it'll probably be useful to ask people if they see distinctions between a parking lot attendant, a bar bouncer, a hall monitor, a sports referee, the people behind the counter at the DMV, etc. and police? Or do people see those all as synonymous with "law enforcement" or "police"? Which led us to train's quality attempt to advance the thread in this discussion: Show nested quote +I would add 2 new items to cover the rest of their responsibilities. the items you mention like enforcing civil writs etc. can be more or less covered by the revised #4.
1. Investigate crimes that have already taken place
2. Intervene in crimes currently in progress
3. Apprehend individuals currently wanted in suspicion of a crime
4. Apprehend individuals who have violated some court mandated agreement.
5. Assist members of the community
6. Provide security at large city/state run events This is better than dealing with 20 "what about psychos?!" "but muh stuff!?" type questions, which is why I opted to simply not respond on this until other discussions were petered out and there'd be no complaining for me engaging on the topic (there will be anyway). So I mentioned I'd like Show nested quote +the roles they think police are indispensable for and how much of police activity that composes So the follow up to move this forward would be, is train's list that? If not let's get it there. The problem is that I can't impose onto you guys what it is YOU believe the police are indispensable for or how YOU believe police spend their time and resources. I also still don't know Show nested quote +if people see distinctions between a parking lot attendant, a bar bouncer, a hall monitor, a sports referee, the people behind the counter at the DMV, etc. and police? Or do people see those all as synonymous with "law enforcement" or "police"? Which will clearly be important in discussing train's (5. Assist members of the community). IgnE and plenty of others have told me to drop it in situations like this (hence not responding to the previous mentions or his comment generally). How we move forward from here is up to you guys, but I'm fine with either. I'm just saying this so people don't feel as though I don't want to discuss abolition, I've just set my terms (and demonstrated it was for good reason now with train's comment) and am fine leaving it at that.
|
And what part of that quote which you profess to be a response to Igne? All there is, is the exact same lot of effort into evading questions while casting aspersions about lack of effort that is the perfect description of your behaviour.
That you can turn around and say that's a response to Igne is laughable execpet as an example of exactly your disparaging and dismissive behaviour. Igne isn't confused, it's a case of regarding up as down.
The time was right there, the focus of the thread was on you and your ideas due to your sycophants heralding you with prophet like powers setting the thread for your posts. You had an entirely new, curious and respectful poster asking questions to you in a thoughtful, engaging and respectful way. An opportunity for you to express your thoughts. The very stimulating and enlightening political discussion you claim to be looking for.
And you utterly crashed, and because SR18 didn't coddle up to you and engaged you instead shown that you think nothing less of anybody who doesn't follow you to be encourage coddling some obsequious neophytes that still seem pretty intransigent. That the forum is now McDonalds playplace because SR18 engaged with you. That watching a bunch of people like yourself pull a dog catching the car recently was fun for example (what does that even mean?) was your description with an open engaging new poster.
|
If GH doesn’t want to spend time and energy responding to stuff then he doesn’t have to. People can ask him one or a few times for his response, and it’s on him to respond or not. The only problem I see is when people keep responding to each other multiple times without advancing the conversation.
DMCD is being obnoxious as usual.
|
No, he doesn't have to reply, but he can't proclaim victory everytime another poster gives up to his and his acolytes posting frequency. He doesn't have to reply, but then he can't turn around and say that he responded when he didn't. That he is acting in good faith when he isn't. That a poster who was acting in good faith is not.
You think I'm being obnoxious by pointing out the truth? So be it. I am obnoxious. What is this?
On June 07 2020 12:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
I would enjoy you returning to the thread but also am considering just walking away myself. Kinda feels like when I realized I had outgrown the McDonalds playplace. On June 07 2020 13:36 GreenHorizons wrote:
I know posters like you, farv, neb, and others could foster a stimulating and enlightening political discussion, but you guys gave up on that to encourage coddling some obsequious neophytes that still seem pretty intransigent imo. On June 07 2020 14:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Part of the comparison to the playplace is that it was still fun for years after I had outgrown it. Watching a bunch of people like yourself pull a dog catching the car recently was fun for example.
Or as GH says you are just confused/bothered.
|
I don't know if IgnE and I had any official student becomes the master moment but I'm definitely his acolyte otherwise.
|
I think we maybe all are, whether or not we realize it. Maybe IgnE was the true 3D chess master all along
|
On June 24 2020 06:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2020 06:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2020 06:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 24 2020 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2020 05:07 farvacola wrote:On June 24 2020 05:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 24 2020 05:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2020 04:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 24 2020 04:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2020 04:53 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
No one gives a fuck how despicable Columbus was. That's not the point and that's not why we have statues of him. lmao. That is exactly the point. No one give a fuck how despicable Columbus was because of hegemonic white supremacist worldviews and that's why there are statues of him. As I said he was a criminal dipshit even in his own time. He is the first man to have crossed the atlantic. That's what we celebrate. He could eat kittens for breakfast and have thought he landed on the moon, he would still be one of the great figure of human exploration. That's not that difficult really. Who is "we"? I just realized after a quick think I am not interested in discussing further with you. Good bye  Maybe if we constructed a statue of GH you’d be able to understand him better, let’s get to work on that. Otherwise, there are plenty of others here who are still wondering why it is that a nation full of statues of Columbus and Jefferson is also full of people who have startlingly incomplete notions of what those people did. So far the "we" I've seen Biff referring to are himself, danglars, Trump, and those upstanding Philly gentlemen with bats calling the peoples Columbus insisted until death were Asian "savages" while assaulting the journalist that asked for their thoughts on Columbus cutting off the hands of Taíno people that didn't bring him enough gold "We" mean us as a society. And you understood that well enough the first time. How full of it can you be at the end? Now one more time, stop discussing my posts to strawman the shit out of them. I understand that you are more comfortable with strawmans, little spikes and disguised personal attacks than substantial explanations of those slogans you don't quite understand yourself but leave me out of it. There is no content to any of the discussion I have had with you outside cheap indignation and vague reference to thinkers you haven't read. Leave. Me. Alone. Generally if you want to be left alone you wouldn't continue to argue and add in a bunch of other nonsense about slogans and unsubstantiated accusations of me not reading the people I reference. I can leave you out of it, but I'm still going to make my points about the ridiculousness of the position you articulated when it comes up. I've told you I didn't want to continue this obnoxious joke of dialogue with you and next post you say "As Biff said [insert a fucking stupid strawman]" or even better "considering how absurd Biff position [never explain what's absurd about it, never make own position even known, if there is one]". You did that last time, you do that again, stop doing it. The day you are able to substantiate anything at all, you are free to criticize my position. But you don't substantiate shit. In fact at the moment all you do in this thread is: 1. Cheap indignation directed at people "Columbus was cutting hands!" "Biden is caging children!" "Jefferson was the worst person in history" "policemen are the scum of the earth" with exactly zero reflection, zero nuance and zero thought. 2. Spout slogans that you are totally unable to explain "Abolish the police". Fucking hell, it's been good to read an interview by Vitale to see what that was all about, considering you have been totally unable in years being asked about it to even start giving a rational answer. I won't even start with "end capitalism" and the likes. 3. Reclaim yourself from thinkers you, yes, haven't read. You say something totally baroque. Someone asks you to explain. You say "read Baldwin" or "I am a marxist" or my favourite "some people have been working on years on that". Well, if you are a marxist, I am looking forward hearing about how well historical materialism is doing and how very not obsolete at all his theory of value is. Now I've lost a lot of time going through your attacks (because I don't think we can call that a discussion, there is no content in any of your posts), and I am done. So one last time. Stop quoting me especially if it's for one of your cheap strawmans. I am not interested.
Can users please stop demanding from GH to leave them alone while at the same time engaging him time and again to have the last word.
It's patronising and silly.
|
On June 24 2020 06:46 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2020 06:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 24 2020 06:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2020 06:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 24 2020 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2020 05:07 farvacola wrote:On June 24 2020 05:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 24 2020 05:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2020 04:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 24 2020 04:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
lmao. That is exactly the point. No one give a fuck how despicable Columbus was because of hegemonic white supremacist worldviews and that's why there are statues of him. As I said he was a criminal dipshit even in his own time. He is the first man to have crossed the atlantic. That's what we celebrate. He could eat kittens for breakfast and have thought he landed on the moon, he would still be one of the great figure of human exploration. That's not that difficult really. Who is "we"? I just realized after a quick think I am not interested in discussing further with you. Good bye Maybe if we constructed a statue of GH you’d be able to understand him better, let’s get to work on that. Otherwise, there are plenty of others here who are still wondering why it is that a nation full of statues of Columbus and Jefferson is also full of people who have startlingly incomplete notions of what those people did. So far the "we" I've seen Biff referring to are himself, danglars, Trump, and those upstanding Philly gentlemen with bats calling the peoples Columbus insisted until death were Asian "savages" while assaulting the journalist that asked for their thoughts on Columbus cutting off the hands of Taíno people that didn't bring him enough gold "We" mean us as a society. And you understood that well enough the first time. How full of it can you be at the end? Now one more time, stop discussing my posts to strawman the shit out of them. I understand that you are more comfortable with strawmans, little spikes and disguised personal attacks than substantial explanations of those slogans you don't quite understand yourself but leave me out of it. There is no content to any of the discussion I have had with you outside cheap indignation and vague reference to thinkers you haven't read. Leave. Me. Alone. Generally if you want to be left alone you wouldn't continue to argue and add in a bunch of other nonsense about slogans and unsubstantiated accusations of me not reading the people I reference. I can leave you out of it, but I'm still going to make my points about the ridiculousness of the position you articulated when it comes up. I've told you I didn't want to continue this obnoxious joke of dialogue with you and next post you say "As Biff said [insert a fucking stupid strawman]" or even better "considering how absurd Biff position [never explain what's absurd about it, never make own position even known, if there is one]". You did that last time, you do that again, stop doing it. The day you are able to substantiate anything at all, you are free to criticize my position. But you don't substantiate shit. In fact at the moment all you do in this thread is: 1. Cheap indignation directed at people "Columbus was cutting hands!" "Biden is caging children!" "Jefferson was the worst person in history" "policemen are the scum of the earth" with exactly zero reflection, zero nuance and zero thought. 2. Spout slogans that you are totally unable to explain "Abolish the police". Fucking hell, it's been good to read an interview by Vitale to see what that was all about, considering you have been totally unable in years being asked about it to even start giving a rational answer. I won't even start with "end capitalism" and the likes. 3. Reclaim yourself from thinkers you, yes, haven't read. You say something totally baroque. Someone asks you to explain. You say "read Baldwin" or "I am a marxist" or my favourite "some people have been working on years on that". Well, if you are a marxist, I am looking forward hearing about how well historical materialism is doing and how very not obsolete at all his theory of value is. Now I've lost a lot of time going through your attacks (because I don't think we can call that a discussion, there is no content in any of your posts), and I am done. So one last time. Stop quoting me especially if it's for one of your cheap strawmans. I am not interested. Can users please stop demanding from GH to leave them alone while at the same time engaging him time and again to have the last word. It's patronising and silly.
I concur, but would generalize. Keeping the thread in a readable state requires that folks have the grace to bow out without trying for the last word, regardless of the poster in question.
|
Or spoil your response and continue your discussion with other posters? It seems like a lot, but you get to air your thoughts. It's all becoming quite...tense in there.
I would like to say that the variety of posters, topics, and depths of discussions has generally been decent.
|
On June 24 2020 06:46 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2020 06:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 24 2020 06:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2020 06:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 24 2020 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2020 05:07 farvacola wrote:On June 24 2020 05:06 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 24 2020 05:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 24 2020 04:58 Biff The Understudy wrote:On June 24 2020 04:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
lmao. That is exactly the point. No one give a fuck how despicable Columbus was because of hegemonic white supremacist worldviews and that's why there are statues of him. As I said he was a criminal dipshit even in his own time. He is the first man to have crossed the atlantic. That's what we celebrate. He could eat kittens for breakfast and have thought he landed on the moon, he would still be one of the great figure of human exploration. That's not that difficult really. Who is "we"? I just realized after a quick think I am not interested in discussing further with you. Good bye Maybe if we constructed a statue of GH you’d be able to understand him better, let’s get to work on that. Otherwise, there are plenty of others here who are still wondering why it is that a nation full of statues of Columbus and Jefferson is also full of people who have startlingly incomplete notions of what those people did. So far the "we" I've seen Biff referring to are himself, danglars, Trump, and those upstanding Philly gentlemen with bats calling the peoples Columbus insisted until death were Asian "savages" while assaulting the journalist that asked for their thoughts on Columbus cutting off the hands of Taíno people that didn't bring him enough gold "We" mean us as a society. And you understood that well enough the first time. How full of it can you be at the end? Now one more time, stop discussing my posts to strawman the shit out of them. I understand that you are more comfortable with strawmans, little spikes and disguised personal attacks than substantial explanations of those slogans you don't quite understand yourself but leave me out of it. There is no content to any of the discussion I have had with you outside cheap indignation and vague reference to thinkers you haven't read. Leave. Me. Alone. Generally if you want to be left alone you wouldn't continue to argue and add in a bunch of other nonsense about slogans and unsubstantiated accusations of me not reading the people I reference. I can leave you out of it, but I'm still going to make my points about the ridiculousness of the position you articulated when it comes up. I've told you I didn't want to continue this obnoxious joke of dialogue with you and next post you say "As Biff said [insert a fucking stupid strawman]" or even better "considering how absurd Biff position [never explain what's absurd about it, never make own position even known, if there is one]". You did that last time, you do that again, stop doing it. The day you are able to substantiate anything at all, you are free to criticize my position. But you don't substantiate shit. In fact at the moment all you do in this thread is: 1. Cheap indignation directed at people "Columbus was cutting hands!" "Biden is caging children!" "Jefferson was the worst person in history" "policemen are the scum of the earth" with exactly zero reflection, zero nuance and zero thought. 2. Spout slogans that you are totally unable to explain "Abolish the police". Fucking hell, it's been good to read an interview by Vitale to see what that was all about, considering you have been totally unable in years being asked about it to even start giving a rational answer. I won't even start with "end capitalism" and the likes. 3. Reclaim yourself from thinkers you, yes, haven't read. You say something totally baroque. Someone asks you to explain. You say "read Baldwin" or "I am a marxist" or my favourite "some people have been working on years on that". Well, if you are a marxist, I am looking forward hearing about how well historical materialism is doing and how very not obsolete at all his theory of value is. Now I've lost a lot of time going through your attacks (because I don't think we can call that a discussion, there is no content in any of your posts), and I am done. So one last time. Stop quoting me especially if it's for one of your cheap strawmans. I am not interested. Can users please stop demanding from GH to leave them alone while at the same time engaging him time and again to have the last word. It's patronising and silly.
My problem is not to be engaged by GH. I have no problem per se discussing with him whatsoever - and yes I have engaged him many times (how could I not, he makes up for half the thread). My problem is that he quotes me either to strawman the shit out of me with his signature fake indignation mashed up with his condescending tone - or to say I am saying absurd things without ever explaining why. Like that kind of bullshit:
Pretty sure LL, Simberto, and myself all come at it from different political bends with different prescriptions, what we all recognized is the blatant absurdity of what Biff is suggesting.
... and that straight after having tried to get to know what was so absurd unsuccessfully for hours, I told him I was kind of done with a discussion going nowhere. Twice.
The day he engages me with an idea or an argument, I won't ask him to leave me alone. And I'm perfectly fine if someone has arguments to oppose me to support that my position is absurd (I started this conversation by saying that I think him among others don't seem to understand why governments back up banks - but I explained why). He doesn't even try. And I think that makes the way he discusses is simply unacceptable.
So it's a matter of content, not personal dislike.
|
I just want to apologize for the neophyte comment before, I forgot how bad it was when things got political outside of the the politics thread.
"Have you guys heard about the presumption of innocence?! Doesn't matter, I'm going to repeat it in chorus with other shitposters until we've distracted and drowned out any productive discussion".
I'm thankful for you guys on your worst days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
