|
On May 19 2021 21:38 Liquid`Drone wrote:
It is a difficult topic to cordially discuss.. My best suggestion to everyone involved is to, if they feel they are about to make an overly aggressive post, is to reread it and see if they really have to include that part. But frankly, I think getting upset here is positive. You're not supposed to be so jaded that people aruing for bombing children makes you think 'meh'.
Still - it is best to avoid ad hominems. But I'm not gonna insist that you shouldnt be upset or angry - I think you should be both. ☺
I spent an hour this morning trying to write a post without being a dick to someone and then gave up lol
|
|
|
United States41995 Posts
I wasn’t trying to trap MagicPowers. When I used the example of Dresden I was certain that he, like every good person, would recognize that it was a horrific war crime that cannot be justified. I was using it as an example of the problem with designating one side as the aggressor and then blaming any subsequent violence by the other party on the aggressor. Dresden is a good example because it took place after Allied victory was assured and served no military purpose, it was pure vengeance. My intent was to reach agreement that even if one side was the aggressor that does not absolve the other from their responsibility for atrocities if they commit atrocities.
The problem occurred when we did not agree that war crimes were bad and he went on a rambling post about how Germany wanted nuclear weapons and Japan exists and therefore there was no alternative to burning the civilian population of Dresden in a firestorm. That’s where we went off the rails. When I offered a potential alternative to the massacre of civilians (not massacring civilians) he shot that down. The man has a hardon for massacring civilians.
|
Norway28560 Posts
I stopped reading your post where you said that I was campaigning to get you banned. This is untrue, and it's the second time you mention it. Just another example of you making assumptions that aren't true and then writing a long post based off it, which, shocker, is exactly what I wrote that you keep doing in the very post you just responded to.
For the record, we had discussions about whether to ban Danglars. I said I was opposed. I was open about my opposition to that outside the moderator forum, so that's no secret. Part of my opposition to banning Danglars was that I thought it gave credence to the argument that people are banned for their political opinions rather than their posting quality, because I said that there are other posters that are worse than Danglars but whose bad posting doesn't draw as much ire because their political opinions aren't as offensive. I then singled you out as one of two posters worse than Danglars (not necessarily the only two, but yes, I mentioned you as one of the two worst posters.)
Here's the thing - that's not me campaigning to get you banned. It's me campaigning against getting Danglars banned. I have a very consistent track record in arguing against banning posters. You can ask whatever moderator apparently feeds you selective/wrongful information from private conversations if he can find even one quote of me saying 'jimmy should get banned' - I'm fairly confident no such thing exists.
Also, I was polite towards you in PMs like three years ago. This was before you started posting a literal 3 digit complete ass-posts towards GH, which I've always been open about being the primary source of me disliking you.
I also think it's kinda laughable to be accused of bullying by someone I've responded to or directed a post towards something like 5 times in the past year, all of them direct responses to you. But whatever. I have no interest in posting more about this here, but please don't consider that an invitation to take it to PM. I just don't care.
|
On May 20 2021 02:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 19 2021 23:53 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 19 2021 23:22 JimmiC wrote:On May 19 2021 23:01 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Jimmy, did I accuse you of being solidly on the side of Israel? Of course not, that would be direct. You have not directly said that to anyone. You have left it open ended. But it is clear that many people think I am and when you do that it hits me and others. You also are all about civil conversation and so on, but when Kwark starts talking about promptly fucking my mother you fall silent. Who are the people "solidly on the side of Israel"? And what is their position. I doubt very few people can accurately describe those people positions because instead of using the basic communication model (acknowledge, question, confirm) they use the question piece for attempted gotcha's and they use the confirm to assert a position on the person. There is no mutual understanding so it is people talking beside each other and mostly insulting. It is disturbing how many of you consider yourselves and how proud many of you are at how you are bullying someone online. + Show Spoiler +Well, I'll clarify once and for all. I'm more aligned with you politically than I am with any of the guys you accuse of bullying you, other than I guess myself. GH is revolutionary, I'm not. Neb kinda, too, and he's certainly less about reconciliation and getting together than I am. I'm pretty certain Kwark voted conservatory in the UK - I've voted left of Corbyn every election of my life. It very rarely happens that I read a post of yours and think 'that's a stupid political opinion'. My issues with you are 100% related to how you post, not what you think, and it's the same issue that repeats itself over and over and over, including in this very exchange we're having right now.
You make assumptions about what other people think and then you write long posts based on those assumptions and even if confronted on those assumptions being wrong, you double down, insisting that your assumption was the right one even if you get corrected. Further, you're completely incapable of letting stuff go. I'm an English teacher and I don't want to wrongly use literally, but I think literally every time you've directed a post towards GH in the past.. year? longer?, it's been some kind of stupid, misplaced stab where you want him to criticize China or Venezuela instead of the US. This is why I think it's absolutely laughable to see you complain about Kwark taking your posts out of context and targeting you with 'gotcha' posts, because from my perspective, you are the single poster on the forum most guilty of doing just that. At least out of the 1000 or so posters whose posting habits I have any impression of, anyway. (I actually just checked. In the USPol megathread, you've mentioned Maduro 162 times and Venezuela 255 times and an actual majority of these are attempts at needling GH.) + Show Spoiler +It has made me not want to discuss with you - and this generally makes me avoid responding to you. It's also generally not very interesting to discuss with you, because in terms of political opinion, I hardly ever find myself disagreeing in any meaningful way.
This is direct feedback that I give to you because you in the very post I am responding to are essentially accusing me of being indirect in my communication. But no, I can also confirm that when I wrote 'amusingly even the guys solidly on the side of Israel don't support the settlements', then I did not even remotely have you in mind. I knew it was a lot (too many imo) but damn.
I realize now this count doesn't include this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
Norway28560 Posts
You're wrong about every assumption you just made about me, again.
Here is the first PM I ever sent you. I think it was the first time we really communicated. It was a warning I sent you on may 8th 2019. Everything in here is entirely genuine:
'I've noticed over several posts that you throw in some veiled insults towards GH, where he does not do the same towards you. Your arguments are fine, but it would be highly preferable if you managed to write the same posts with the same content without including lines like 'Not a hard question for anyone but a conspiracy theory nut trying to keep together the threads of his myth.', or 'It is very Crazy how much influence you think the US has over other countries.', or 'you are even more clueless than I am' or 'That is low, even for you.'. Or writing stuff like 'I'm not trying to have a civil conversation I'm trying to end a non civil one, but without you twisting anything.'
If you don't like arguing with GH, don't argue with him. Nobody forces your hand writing replies to him. But he's most certainly being civil in his posts - more so than you are- , and if you disregard the tension, then both of you are contributing with good posts and valued insight.
Just as a tip, sometimes the best thing you can do when having a heated argument, is to wait a couple minutes before hitting post, read through your post again, and reevaluate whether you really had to include the most inflammatory part of it. I like you, but your posts would be better without the veiled or obvious insults mentioned in the first paragraph.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation,
Liquid`Drone
We then exchanged a couple posts that were entirely cordial and there were no problems. I sent this as a fairly long warning specifically because of what I wrote in my last paragraph - that I like(d) you, but that your posts would be better without the veiled or obvious insults. Two years have passed since then, you have not at all stopped with those insults, and I've stopped liking you. But I was entirely honest when I wrote you that PM. People can compare this warning with the average warning that is sent, and see whether I spent more or less effort on it, and draw their own conclusions.
I also don't think I've banned a single poster outside of spammers/pbus for more than a decade, probably close to 15 years. Maybe I'm forgetting one or two posters. But I'm just not that kind of guy. I've consistently, since TL was formed, been the moderator most likely to argue against banning people. Seriously - most heated arguments that have taken place in the moderator forums - for almost two decades by now - has been me arguing against banning someone that other moderators wanted to ban. Again, I'm not interested in this discussion, but when you make public assumptions about me that are blatantly false, I feel compelled to reply.
|
|
|
Norway28560 Posts
You accused me of being dishonest. What about that PM is dishonest? I liked you back then. I've stopped liking you since. This exchange we're having right now should make it easy to understand why - you're making assumptions about me that are untrue and accusing me of being dishonest. Why would I like someone who behaves in that manner?
To back up my point further - this is part of a post I made in this thread back in january 2020: 'I like jimmy as a poster when he's not arguing with GH - and have told him as much (in a private message, to be fair).' You really think this was just me keeping up the charade for an 8 month period so I'd look better now? I've also never argued for banning you - this is another untrue thing you keep repeating.
|
Norway28560 Posts
My most heated argument in the uspol thread ever has been with Kwark. I'm pretty certain I've called him out for being impolite, too - I most certainly have in more private sections of the forums. (You know, just like how the first time I called you out for needling GH, I did so in a polite PM.). I've also given him credit for being incredibly smart and knowledgeable - there's no conflict in my mind between giving him credit and critique at the same time. Again, you're making assumptions about me that are wrong. I'm really not interested in this discussion, I think right now what would be best for you is to step off the computer and spend an hour calming down, but I will keep correcting you as long as you keep posting wrongful assumptions about me.
|
|
|
On May 19 2021 22:55 Acrofales wrote:
When you're having a terrible discussion, just stop having it. If you are having a terrible discussoin with, of all posters, Drone, you should probably just rethink posting all together.
Sage advice that shouldn't go unheeded imo
|
United States41995 Posts
On May 20 2021 03:16 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2021 02:46 KwarK wrote:
I wasn’t trying to trap MagicPowers. When I used the example of Dresden I was certain that he, like every good person, would recognize that it was a horrific war crime that cannot be justified. I was using it as an example of the problem with designating one side as the aggressor and then blaming any subsequent violence by the other party on the aggressor. Dresden is a good example because it took place after Allied victory was assured and served no military purpose, it was pure vengeance. My intent was to reach agreement that even if one side was the aggressor that does not absolve the other from their responsibility for atrocities if they commit atrocities.
The problem occurred when we did not agree that war crimes were bad and he went on a rambling post about how Germany wanted nuclear weapons and Japan exists and therefore there was no alternative to burning the civilian population of Dresden in a firestorm. That’s where we went off the rails. When I offered a potential alternative to the massacre of civilians (not massacring civilians) he shot that down. The man has a hardon for massacring civilians. Your pettiness is really striking. In the post above you still can't help yourself from taking another passive aggressive shot at the guy. You could have left the bolded part out, but then you would miss the chance to point out what a bad person he is. You kwark are the bad person, you enjoy making people feel bad and you make it your mission to make people you don't like feel bad. You are the definition of a bully. You show no remorse because you never think you do anything wrong, and you really push the envelope because you have the hammer and no one can report and most are too afraid to point it out because they know there won't be any consequences for you and that they will be on your shit list and you will jump in on them every chance you get from now until the end of time. I don't feel bad, just embarrassed for you and sad for all the people you put down over and over if any of them had to feel that way so you could get your kicks. I also feel disappointed in all the people that embolden you to continue. + Show Spoiler +Sig bet is still open, and if you really think I won't accept the results I'm happy to pick a independent person to decide, but lets be serious you know you were wrong because I'm sure you've looked it up since, you just can't admit it and now (even currently) are just scouring my posts for anything you can assume to be wrong so you can insult me.
You obviously won’t accept the results if you haven’t so far.
On May 13 2021 07:11 JimmiC wrote:
Is the Iron dome part of the support the US should remove? Are you fine with the consequences of that?
You asserted that anyone who proposed leveraging US support for Israel wanted to strip the Iron Dome from over the heads of Israeli civilians and would therefore be to blame for any subsequent deaths.
There are a lot of problems with that argument like how Israel would have had to choose settlements over US support and so they would be to blame for their own choice to refuse the conditional support (as US support isn’t something they’re entitled to) but the main one is the idea that if US support disappeared the Iron Dome would too. It seemed like you thought it was something the US provided that could be taken away.
Of course it is not. It is an Israeli defence project that could not simply be turned off by the United States. While Israel did receive funding for operations of the Iron Dome as I mentioned at the time with sources + Show Spoiler + On May 13 2021 10:04 KwarK wrote:
In the July 2020 appropriations (H.R. 7617) there was $73m for the Iron Dome. That's peanuts to Israel. The suggestion that anyone calling for an end to military aid to Israel is planning to strip the Iron Dome from the Israeli civilians is absurd.
I don’t need to look up the sources before accepting a sig bet, I had already checked the source (note my citation of the 2020 appropriations) before you offered the sig bet.
I don’t know whether you genuinely believed that the Iron Dome was some sort of literal dome the United States put over Israel or if you were just lying to try to win an internet argument. I also don’t care. You claimed that the withdrawal of US support would, and I quote, “remove” the Iron Dome. I disagreed because, as is apparent to everyone but you, it’s not something the US is projecting over Israel. That was the end of it. You lied (or didn’t know the truth) in order to accuse people suggesting the US leverage their foreign aid for policy concessions of trying to kill Israeli civilians. I called you out on the lie. That’s it. It’s not an argument, the Dome is factually not America’s to remove. Your weird obsession with me and your insistence on following me from topic to topic challenging me to sig bets needs to stop. Fuck off.
|
|
|
United States41995 Posts
On May 20 2021 04:02 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2021 03:50 KwarK wrote:On May 20 2021 03:16 JimmiC wrote:On May 20 2021 02:46 KwarK wrote:
I wasn’t trying to trap MagicPowers. When I used the example of Dresden I was certain that he, like every good person, would recognize that it was a horrific war crime that cannot be justified. I was using it as an example of the problem with designating one side as the aggressor and then blaming any subsequent violence by the other party on the aggressor. Dresden is a good example because it took place after Allied victory was assured and served no military purpose, it was pure vengeance. My intent was to reach agreement that even if one side was the aggressor that does not absolve the other from their responsibility for atrocities if they commit atrocities.
The problem occurred when we did not agree that war crimes were bad and he went on a rambling post about how Germany wanted nuclear weapons and Japan exists and therefore there was no alternative to burning the civilian population of Dresden in a firestorm. That’s where we went off the rails. When I offered a potential alternative to the massacre of civilians (not massacring civilians) he shot that down. The man has a hardon for massacring civilians. Your pettiness is really striking. In the post above you still can't help yourself from taking another passive aggressive shot at the guy. You could have left the bolded part out, but then you would miss the chance to point out what a bad person he is. You kwark are the bad person, you enjoy making people feel bad and you make it your mission to make people you don't like feel bad. You are the definition of a bully. You show no remorse because you never think you do anything wrong, and you really push the envelope because you have the hammer and no one can report and most are too afraid to point it out because they know there won't be any consequences for you and that they will be on your shit list and you will jump in on them every chance you get from now until the end of time. I don't feel bad, just embarrassed for you and sad for all the people you put down over and over if any of them had to feel that way so you could get your kicks. I also feel disappointed in all the people that embolden you to continue. + Show Spoiler +Sig bet is still open, and if you really think I won't accept the results I'm happy to pick a independent person to decide, but lets be serious you know you were wrong because I'm sure you've looked it up since, you just can't admit it and now (even currently) are just scouring my posts for anything you can assume to be wrong so you can insult me. You obviously won’t accept the results if you haven’t so far. On May 13 2021 07:11 JimmiC wrote:
Is the Iron dome part of the support the US should remove? Are you fine with the consequences of that? You asserted that anyone who proposed leveraging US support for Israel wanted to strip the Iron Dome from over the heads of Israeli civilians and would therefore be to blame for any subsequent deaths. There are a lot of problems with that argument like how Israel would have had to choose settlements over US support and so they would be to blame for their own choice to refuse the conditional support (as US support isn’t something they’re entitled to) but the main one is the idea that if US support disappeared the Iron Dome would too. It seemed like you thought it was something the US provided that could be taken away. Of course it is not. It is an Israeli defence project that could not simply be turned off by the United States. While Israel did receive funding for operations of the Iron Dome as I mentioned at the time with sources + Show Spoiler + On May 13 2021 10:04 KwarK wrote:
In the July 2020 appropriations (H.R. 7617) there was $73m for the Iron Dome. That's peanuts to Israel. The suggestion that anyone calling for an end to military aid to Israel is planning to strip the Iron Dome from the Israeli civilians is absurd. it is absolutely false for you to assert that the US could somehow be responsible for the removal of the Iron Dome. I don’t need to look up the sources before accepting a sig bet, I had already checked the source (note my citation of the 2020 appropriations) before you offered the sig bet. I don’t know whether you genuinely believed that the Iron Dome was some sort of literal dome the United States put over Israel or if you were just lying to try to win an internet argument. I also don’t care. You claimed that the withdrawal of US support would, and I quote, “remove” the Iron Dome. I disagreed because, as is apparent to everyone but you, it’s not something the US is projecting over Israel. That was the end of it. You lied (or didn’t know the truth) in order to accuse people suggesting the US leverage their foreign aid for policy concessions of trying to kill Israeli civilians. I called you out on the lie. That’s it. It’s not an argument, the Dome is factually not America’s to remove. Your weird obsession with me and your insistence on following me from topic to topic challenging me to sig bets needs to stop. Fuck off. There have been no results to accept. How does ChrsitianS as the person who picks who wins the sig bet sound? (if he declines we can pick someone else) Here it is so we are clear. I bet that the US spent far more than 70 million USD in 2020 military aid to Isreal on operation of their missile defense system the Iron dome. I clearly am including the missiles as they are clearly part of the operation. I define far more as at least 3x. I did not think of any that, of course, I thought what I said and later clarified. You took my question way to literally and thought the worst of me as usual. I went on to say it was the funding which is also pretty clear from the context you all left out. it would be like me quoting you on this Show nested quote +No, it was built by Israel and is not part of the US support. You should establish the factual foundations of your arguments before you make them.
and not your later clarifying comment. But even in trying to emulate you to you I can't bring myself to being that level of a jerk. I'm not looking to rehash the whole discussion. We are the end point. I say the US support goes much more than the 73 million you stated and continue to state, you state it does not. Take the sig bet, I'm sure you can think of something really awful to make me put there!
Is it still your opinion that the Iron Dome would be removed if US aid was discontinued? If yes, you’re wrong. If no, why the fuck are you still arguing about this?
|
|
|
United States41995 Posts
On May 20 2021 04:10 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2021 04:06 KwarK wrote:
Is it still your opinion that the Iron Dome would be removed if US aid was discontinued? I was never arguing that.
On May 13 2021 07:11 JimmiC wrote:
Is the Iron dome part of the support the US should remove?
|
I think sig bets are mostly dumb and want no part of this one FWIW
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
