EPTUS Politics Feedback Thread - Page 317
| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States13828 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10366 Posts
On June 23 2023 05:05 Sermokala wrote: Naw I shouldn't expect any better nvm. It is my fault that i don't find teaching children in schools sex acts funny. You're here arguing that I should be actioned for making a joke about teaching children sex acts in a thread where people were literally defending teaching children sex acts. Is it safe to assume that your main objection is that I was only joking about doing that instead of actually doing that? You're basically proving that the post served a purpose. Despite what people say outwardly they do find it inherently objectionable to teach children sex acts. So objectionable that even joking about it caused you to run to the feedback thread to argue for my banning. That says a lot. At least Kwark had the sense to stay consistent in that thread and acknowledge that if you're going to argue for teaching oral sex and anal sex you shouldn't be against teaching oral-anal sex. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13828 Posts
On June 23 2023 06:04 BlackJack wrote: You're here arguing that I should be actioned for making a joke about teaching children sex acts in a thread where people were literally defending teaching children sex acts. Is it safe to assume that your main objection is that I was only joking about doing that instead of actually doing that? You're basically proving that the post served a purpose. Despite what people say outwardly they do find it inherently objectionable to teach children sex acts. So objectionable that even joking about it caused you to run to the feedback thread to argue for my banning. That says a lot. At least Kwark had the sense to stay consistent in that thread and acknowledge that if you're going to argue for teaching oral sex and anal sex you shouldn't be against teaching oral-anal sex. See his response to this. I know I shouldn't expect better from any kind of even handed moderation of him now thanks for enlightening me of this. | ||
|
Mikau
Netherlands1446 Posts
On June 23 2023 06:04 BlackJack wrote: You're here arguing that I should be actioned for making a joke about teaching children sex acts in a thread where people were literally defending teaching children sex acts. Is it safe to assume that your main objection is that I was only joking about doing that instead of actually doing that? You're basically proving that the post served a purpose. Despite what people say outwardly they do find it inherently objectionable to teach children sex acts. So objectionable that even joking about it caused you to run to the feedback thread to argue for my banning. That says a lot. At least Kwark had the sense to stay consistent in that thread and acknowledge that if you're going to argue for teaching oral sex and anal sex you shouldn't be against teaching oral-anal sex. Literally nobody is arguing for your banning. We are arguing for moderation to be impartial and to apply to all of us equally. Considering none of the people that have a problem with you have been banned (though many have been warned) that de facto means people are arguing to get you banned. You've just been getting a lot of leeway with Drone specifically (something he has literally admitted to multiple times in the past), and that kind of preferential treatment really does need to stop if there's any hope of some kind of productive discussion at any point in the future involving both you and the people that have a problem with the way you post on occassion. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28621 Posts
What I have done, is I've tried to work as a BJ-interpreter for other people because he, through some fault of his own but also through the fault of others, has been misinterpreted more than most other posters. I've done this with several other posters in the past, for example with GH and Danglars - two other posters who deviated from the norm, and where some posters would often infer points they were not making.. with danglars this was more often justified as he was ideologically consistent, but BJ is more pragmatic and he will often have opinions that borrow arguments from both sides. All of this really has been hashed through on multiple occasions. | ||
Falling
Canada11340 Posts
If I might add, I wonder if the amount of irritation that exists is due to just how long people have been arguing with each other over the years. Because some claims made in the thread seem incredibly coloured interpretation and not based in what I observe. As an example, very often, Jimmy, you have often accused BlackJack have trying to 'own the libs'. It's an accusation that's come up quite a few times in the last few months. However, unless I really squint, I have a hard time seeing what you are seeing. I really do not see this as Drone being more biased than a reddit mod. Rather, people have been in the political trenches for so long that I think a bunch of you have gotten pretty grouchy with each other. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42416 Posts
For example this one On May 25 2023 21:27 BlackJack wrote: Don’t worry, I’ve been told this Twitter site won’t exist soon anyway due to Musk laying off 2/3 of the staff. The only reason it’s still online is for the same reason a Jet with no fuel can stay in the air for a little while. It should be offline any day now. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17952 Posts
On June 28 2023 02:08 KwarK wrote: I disagree. BJ’s posts frequently strawmen that he saw somewhere on the internet and reposted here out of context to “own the libs” with no regard for the factual accuracy of what he is repeating or the relevance to any discussion at hand. And while you may not be able to see it Falling I don’t believe that you are any more impartial on the matter than I would be. For example this one I don't know the context there, but I see nothing wrong with that post. I also don't know how taking potshots at Twitter is remotely related to pwning libs. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42416 Posts
On June 28 2023 03:17 Acrofales wrote: I don't know the context there, but I see nothing wrong with that post. I also don't know how taking potshots at Twitter is remotely related to pwning libs. He wasn’t taking potshots at Twitter, he was defending Twitter against an imaginary straw man where we all think Twitter is about to go offline. It’s standard culture war stuff. The right wing thought process here goes 1. Musk is alt right these days 2. Therefore all libs are automatically triggered by his existence 3. Therefore triggered libs (which is all of them) insisted Twitter would fail within weeks of his takeover because they hate him 4. But it isn’t offline yet 5. Therefore libs are dumb Obviously you and I know that no part of that makes any sense at all but that doesn’t prevent it from being the right wing thought process. Twitter is still online therefore libs are dumb. The context was Desantis failing a presidential campaign launch hosted on Twitter. So it was essentially irrelevant except for the word Twitter but BJ saw the word Twitter and felt the need to remind us that because Twitter wasn’t yet offline anyone left of centre had somehow been proven wrong. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10366 Posts
On June 28 2023 04:50 KwarK wrote: He wasn’t taking potshots at Twitter, he was defending Twitter against an imaginary straw man where we all think Twitter is about to go offline. It’s standard culture war stuff. The right wing thought process here goes 1. Musk is alt right these days 2. Therefore all libs are automatically triggered by his existence 3. Therefore triggered libs (which is all of them) insisted Twitter would fail within weeks of his takeover because they hate him 4. But it isn’t offline yet 5. Therefore libs are dumb Obviously you and I know that no part of that makes any sense at all but that doesn’t prevent it from being the right wing thought process. Twitter is still online therefore libs are dumb. The context was Desantis failing a presidential campaign launch hosted on Twitter. So it was essentially irrelevant except for the word Twitter but BJ saw the word Twitter and felt the need to remind us that because Twitter wasn’t yet offline anyone left of centre had somehow been proven wrong. Actually the context in 2 of the 4 posts preceding mine was talking about the functionality and stability of twitter and how this was a bad sign for Elon Musk and his platform. The disdain for Elon obviously reaches irrationality considering I've seen him repeatedly compared to Elizabeth Holmes on this forum. That's somebody whose company had a box that did literally nothing being compared to somebody whose companies build the quickest production cars on the planet and rockets that land vertically. Is the irrational hatred a liberal thing? I'd say that's a good guess since it only popped up after Elon shifted into a sort of alt-right memelord, prior to that he was basically beloved by the left for saving the planet with his EV cars. Anyway I already apologized for taking a potshot at the people that thought Twitter was going to go dark and were sending out their "final tweets": On May 26 2023 12:26 BlackJack wrote: Anyway I apologize. I forgot forum rules stipulate we can only mock the random fringe hot takes if they belong to the Qanon followers on 4chan or the horse paste eaters in the fly-over states, etc | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10366 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10366 Posts
On July 02 2020 03:07 JimmiC wrote: I'm also not saying that GH should be banned, I just wish he and others would stop acting like he is the victim. He is number 1 by a HUGE amount on creating drama in the pol thread. He is the annoying little brother in the back of the sedan who pokes, prods, annoys and so on till the big brother punches him then cries and Dad/Mom ground the big brother. On November 08 2022 10:58 JimmiC wrote: BJ is TLs annoying little brother pissing people off then running to mommy and daddy when they hit back. If he wanted stop tgis he could have 50 pages ago, he loves it. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10366 Posts
I'd imagine that this should violate some forum rule but either mods aren't wise to this or they don't care. The irony being that you're here complaining that I made a joke that wasn't funny or that I use sarcasm while you're over there calling people trolls and you have the nerve to complain about uneven moderation. Here's a better deal: stop replying to my posts and I'll stop replying to yours. If you think I'm here to "pwn the libs" by triggering them with my hot takes because I crave the attention then it doesn't take a lot to realize you'd be giving me exactly what I want by responding to every post I make with antagonistic posts to bait me into the long flamewars that you love. I respond to maybe 5% of your posts and you respond to 90% of mine. We can check the receipts on that if you want. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
BlackJack
United States10366 Posts
On June 29 2023 08:16 JimmiC wrote: Is it your position that people who actively try to upset people should be actioned? Because if so we agree I'd be happy to support that rule if it was applied equally to you and me (preferably everyone). Next, I do not say it to people who disagree with me, that is not how it is used and would not make any sense. Plenty of people disagree with me on all sorts of things. It is used when people are trying to show how dumb anyone not far right is, which is your thing. You can try to signal me out but lots of people said it and Kwark was able to find a post in no time as an example. As mentioned I'm completely willing to stop, if you stop with the sarcasm which you use to try to trigger people or show your superiority or however it makes you warm and fuzzy to describe. It is clear you do not use it positively. I'm going to keep responding to whatever posts I choose to. I've tried that before but the issue is you just send passive aggressive messages "to others" but with messages to me. I prefer being direct and forthright, I get it is not you or your benefactors thing but such is life. There was a long stretch where I just quit the covid thread, I can find the time if you would like, it didn't stop you from fighting, you just switched your targets. How about you stop being an asshole to people and I'll stop being an asshole to you. Or you keep being an asshole and people will keep being assholes to you, but you stop crying like you are some kind of victim of anything other than your own actions. And let's look at a post of yours from a week ago... On June 23 2023 07:49 JimmiC wrote: Too defend BlackJack here it is likely not so much that he is purposefully misrepresenting her. It is more likely that the meme's and other places he gets his information from are misrepresenting her. The pwn the libs crowd is not going to click or share something about a doctor saying something reasonable. [x] Sarcasm [x] Passive-aggressive [x] Post directed at another but about me [x] Even threw a "pwn the libs" in there You can't even use the weird metaphor where the mods are your mommy/daddy and say I was a dick to you first because literally nobody was talking to you in that conversation therefore nobody was being a dick to you. Of course I ignored your post as I typically do. When I made a similarly passive-aggressive post as yours a couple weeks ago I got immediately warned by Drone. This must be the biased moderation you are talking about  On June 29 2023 08:16 JimmiC wrote: but you stop crying like you are some kind of victim of anything other than your own actions. The cherry on the hypocrisy sundae. You're the one crying in the feedback thread about the unfair moderation. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
| ||
