US Politics Feedback Thread - Page 72
Forum Index > Website Feedback |
![]()
KwarK
United States42292 Posts
| ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 21 2017 01:04 Sermokala wrote: I think xdaunt forgets that Kwark is British and has the Humor and insults of a British person. He has the pettiness and attitude of a toxic asshole who makes the thread worse for everyone. That's all that really needs to be said. With regards to the specific remark, I can't say I particularly care, but you know most people would get actioned for that. It is not by virtue of being a model poster who deserves leeway that Kwark isn't part of that group, but by virtue of the fact that he gets special treatment in the same light as Testie, but with the added bonus of having a staff position. Problem is that he genuinely makes the thread worse whenever he does that and an imaginary non-public stern talking-to isn't changing that. | ||
![]()
Liquid`Drone
Norway28609 Posts
| ||
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On August 21 2017 00:25 ChristianS wrote: Jesus, I actually typed up a response to this last night and then thought "what's the point, it's just oBlade trying to make a fuss about it, and he'll probably drop it anyway." You guys are literally getting salty over a pun. That's it. That's the whole thing. It's just a word association joke, gays -> fruits, Pence -> conversion therapy -> electroshock therapy -> comatose people -> vegetables, fruits -> vegetables. What exactly is the outrage here? In other contexts the term "fruits" being used for gays might be considered a little offensive, but it's obviously not used as a pejorative here, it's just to make the joke. If it becomes clear that Kwark regularly uses the term fruits for gays in other discussions we can talk with him about how that's not the preferred term, but when we're in a discussion about the literal physical and psychological torture of gay people, it's patently absurd to get more offended by Kwark's joke than by the practice itself. If you don't give a shit about gays, maybe you think using the word "vegetable" for comatose people is a little insensitive, but let's drop the act for a minute. oBlade, xDaunt, and Danglars are banding together to try to get everyone to use the right PC labels? I don't buy it for a second. If your quest to prove the moderation is biased, latching onto petty shit like this only makes it more likely no one ever takes your quest seriously. Danglars, imo the attitude of "I think the other side is shitty so I have a right—no, obligation—to be shitty" seems to describe your posting better and better lately, and if anything ever gets you banned, that will be it. I hope that doesn't happen, because when you aren't acting like that I think you bring a lot of value to the thread. Just my opinion, obviously, so take it or leave it. I have an obligation to ride that edge until people like ChristianS stop making excuses for only one side (or admit they hold a double standard). And to channel a little StealthBlue for a moment now, you missed a spot of cum on your face. | ||
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On August 20 2017 15:03 KwarK wrote: + Show Spoiler + On August 17 2017 12:24 xDaunt wrote: So let me start by addressing why Vox Day's 14th Point ("The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children.") is not about white supremacy. And let me preface this by saying now that some of you are going to feel really retarded by the time that I'm done, because everything that I'm about to say is right in the 16 Points. Point 15 is the first big hint: Just in case there's any ambiguity here, let's look at Points 10 and 16, respectively: Here, Vox Day is clearly advocating for peaceful coexistence among peoples and advocating directly against the supremacy/imperialism of one people over another. Not exactly the typical skinhead dribble, right? So now let's talk about his reasoning for ethnostates. We see it stated right in Point 11: Now, unlike the previous points, I am willing to cut people a little bit of slack for not fully understanding the significance of what Vox Day is communicating here given the terseness of the statement and the fact that most probably have not had the opportunity to read or hear Vox Day elaborate on this point. But his argument is basically as follows: history shows that conflict -- often violent conflict -- occurs when different cultures either a) exist in close proximity to each other, or b) find themselves in a situation whether they otherwise have to compete with each other over the same resources. Stated another way, multiculturalism breeds strife that is not easily repressed and eliminated until there is some degree of convergence between the cultures because people tend to be assholes to "the other." It's just who we are and what we do. Vox Day's solution to this human condition is to keep everyone separated and allow each people the right to national self-determination. This is stated in Point 5: Accordingly, securing the future of white people is merely the logical extension of this principle. The goal, is the preservation of Western Culture, of which Vox Day writes in Point 4: For the numerous posters who struggle with reading, let me make the following abundantly clear: All of what I have said so far is what Vox Day thinks. Not necessarily what I think. Like I have said many times before, my primary disagreement with the Alt Right lies in its preoccupation with race. And this is where I deviate from Vox Day as well. Here is what he writes in the summary section of his 16 Points: While I am willing to entertain the idea that there is some genetic variation between races, I do not accept the idea that this variation is significant enough to affect the ability of members of a given race to be able to embrace, or assimilate into, a certain culture, particularly if we are to assume tabula rasa immersion into that culture (ie taking a baby from one race/culture and raising it in another race/culture). Stated another way, Vox Day thinks that race and culture are largely inseparable. I don't. Now, for practical purposes, I can see why race might be a useful proxy for culture given that every culture is the product of predominantly one race, but it doesn't change the basic point that a member of any race can, in theory, adopt any culture. So let's turn to IgnE's post: First, I mentioned that "political pluralism" is a pillar of western civilization, referring mostly to the idea that we value truly democratic and representative rule, as opposed to some form of autocratic or even single party rule. As for cultural pluralism, it really boils down to a matter of degree. While I reject outright multiculturalism, I do think that there is some room for variation within a culture. Or using IgnE's terminology, the xDaunt brand of fascism does require a certain level of cultural homogeneity within the nation. I'll just say right now that I don't know exactly where the line is as it pertains to the US. However, and per my previous posts addressing this matter, I do think it critical that everyone within the US, at a minimum, accept and embrace the most important traditions of Western culture: individual liberty, inalienable rights, political plurality, rationalism, and the rule of law. And I will be first to say that we have not done a good job of imprinting these values upon our own people (as is amply evidenced by some of the posters around here), thus this isn't even strictly an issue of insider vs outsider. We can see a nice little microcosm as to why cultural homogeneity matters just by looking at what has been going on over at Google. How was the internal reaction to Damore's memo any different than a cultural conflict? As with cultural conflicts between nations or peoples, conflicting values were the issue. And as we with so many cultural conflicts, one side is clearly working to eliminate the other. As Vox Day says, diversity + proximity = war. Note that Vox Day made that point his 14th point. I wonder whether xDaunt thinks it's coincidental, or if he accepts that it is a deliberate reference to the 14 words but is about to tell us that he's referencing them in a non Nazi way. xDaunt's argument comes down to "but everyone gets separate but equal homelands so how can that even be racist?" it's possible that xDaunt didn't know that it was a direct copy of a nazi slogan or whatever. i for sure didn't know it was a direct copy, because i don't read nazi literature very often. maybe he should be applauded for not literally white-washing the vox day points by selectively editing it? he presented it all, in context, and described it in a less aggressive and disconcerting way than vox idiot would have himself, which perhaps helps "good" people like us understand it. and he did that before presenting what he (xdaunt) thinks, which has substantial differences with the ethnotheology of vox idiot. so i don't really see the point in putting words in xdaunt's mouth when you could quite rightly, and quite effectively, attack his desire for a strong united culture, presumably built around conservative values like family, hard work, personal responsibility, and Western liberal values (most of which, i think it could be fairly said, you share with him). | ||
oBlade
United States5413 Posts
On August 21 2017 00:25 ChristianS wrote: Jesus, I actually typed up a response to this last night and then thought "what's the point, it's just oBlade trying to make a fuss about it, and he'll probably drop it anyway." You guys are literally getting salty over a pun. That's it. That's the whole thing. It's just a word association joke, gays -> fruits, Pence -> conversion therapy -> electroshock therapy -> comatose people -> vegetables, fruits -> vegetables. What exactly is the outrage here? In other contexts the term "fruits" being used for gays might be considered a little offensive, but it's obviously not used as a pejorative here, it's just to make the joke. If it becomes clear that Kwark regularly uses the term fruits for gays in other discussions we can talk with him about how that's not the preferred term, but when we're in a discussion about the literal physical and psychological torture of gay people, it's patently absurd to get more offended by Kwark's joke than by the practice itself. If you don't give a shit about gays, maybe you think using the word "vegetable" for comatose people is a little insensitive, but let's drop the act for a minute. oBlade, xDaunt, and Danglars are banding together to try to get everyone to use the right PC labels? I don't buy it for a second. If your quest to prove the moderation is biased, latching onto petty shit like this only makes it more likely no one ever takes your quest seriously. I care about garbage and hypocrisy, not about political correctness per se, although you need to mind the outlet. Kwark sets no standards for himself. The other day Wuffles was warned for saying he heard Bannon sucks his own cock, which was at least hearsay from Scaramucci, this thing about Pence and electroshock therapy is 4chan meme pollution, having no basis in fact and relying on perpetuating multiple stereotypes to make no point in the end. And it's of course rich to see the author's sudden interest in context. We have the whole rest of the internet and media to read about Putin cock holsters and so forth. | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
If that dog whistle homophobia? Who knows, but it's odd not to denounce conversion therapy after talking about changing sexual behavior. Your mileage may vary. But considering his back ground and evangelical background, it's not out of left field to see it that way. | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42292 Posts
| ||
![]()
Nixer
2774 Posts
On August 21 2017 01:23 Liquid`Drone wrote: The pence vegetable fruit joke would be fine coming from anyone. Aside from that, I think it would be highly positive if posters overall would make a more concentrated effort to consistently argue in good faith rather than focus on tangential points that let them 'win the argument'. It's especially negative when people just won't let a tangential point go - but this does to some degree go both ways. (You don't lose face through stating some effect of 'this was badly phrased by me, I didn't mean it like that' - not that the absence of such a post necessitates spending 10 posts pushing for it. ) I have to echo this. Please guys, come on. You can do better than this. Shortly put; grow the fuck up. | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 21 2017 01:23 Liquid`Drone wrote: The pence vegetable fruit joke would be fine coming from anyone. I don't doubt you mean this in all sincerity coming from yourself specifically. But I think experience has shown that there is a tendency for a double standard, in that you can usually get away with a lot worse if you're on the right side of being favored in popular opinion. And there is also variance in moderation styles, to the point that some seem to ban almost based on personal feelings above all else. The result is that some are moderated harder than others and certain folk can get away with pretty much anything. On August 21 2017 01:23 Liquid`Drone wrote: Aside from that, I think it would be highly positive if posters overall would make a more concentrated effort to consistently argue in good faith rather than focus on tangential points that let them 'win the argument'. It's especially negative when people just won't let a tangential point go - but this does to some degree go both ways. (You don't lose face through stating some effect of 'this was badly phrased by me, I didn't mean it like that' - not that the absence of such a post necessitates spending 10 posts pushing for it. ) Yes. | ||
oBlade
United States5413 Posts
On August 21 2017 02:13 KwarK wrote: Electroshock therapy was a component of aversion conditioning therapy which is a component of gay conversion therapy. It's no longer medically approved because the APA declassified homosexuality as a mental illness, but all that means is that gay conversion therapy is no longer a medical procedure, not that it doesn't happen. Aversion conditioning (hurting the gay person whenever they have gay impulses) is still actually a thing that is done in America to this day. There are still gay conversion camps that gay kids are forced to. There is absolutely a basis in fact for that. You are correct, gay conversion exists and people force it on kids, this is a Bob Woodward scale scoop to rival your earlier revelation that Trump uses Twitter. The vice president does not and has never supported electroshock therapy which was the premise of your contributions to the thread. | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42292 Posts
On August 21 2017 02:25 oBlade wrote: You are correct, gay conversion exists and people force it on kids, this is a Bob Woodward scale scoop to rival your earlier revelation that Trump uses Twitter. The vice president does not and has never supported electroshock therapy which was the premise of your contributions to the thread. Pence supported gay conversion therapy. A component of gay conversion therapy is hurting gay people to create an aversion to gay impulses. Is your argument just that technically he didn't expand upon how he wanted the gays to be converted? Because otherwise I don't know how you're getting from supporting gay conversion therapy to opposing aversion therapy. It'd be great if Pence had just come out and said "I don't support gay conversion therapy", that'd clear all this up, but that's not the world we live in. | ||
![]()
Liquid`Drone
Norway28609 Posts
| ||
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
On August 21 2017 01:41 Danglars wrote: I have an obligation to ride that edge until people like ChristianS stop making excuses for only one side (or admit they hold a double standard). And to channel a little StealthBlue for a moment now, you missed a spot of cum on your face. It sure seems to me that this crusade only ends one way. At some point you'll deliberately say some shitty stuff and it will shit up the thread, and some mod will go back through and think: Is this post shitty? Yes, by the poster's own admission. Is it responsible for shitting up the thread? Yes, definitely. Is he likely to learn his lesson without being actioned? No, in fact he's publicly said he's gonna keep escalating his shitposts to prove a point. Then you'll be in Disneyland and we'll never hear the end of zlefin's cooing. What if instead you took a more positive, lead-by-example attitude? Call out shitposts in the thread if you want, or bring them up here, but in your own posting, why not try to post in a way that improves the quality of discussion rather than degrades it? On August 21 2017 01:23 Liquid`Drone wrote: The pence vegetable fruit joke would be fine coming from anyone. Aside from that, I think it would be highly positive if posters overall would make a more concentrated effort to consistently argue in good faith rather than focus on tangential points that let them 'win the argument'. It's especially negative when people just won't let a tangential point go - but this does to some degree go both ways. (You don't lose face through stating some effect of 'this was badly phrased by me, I didn't mean it like that' - not that the absence of such a post necessitates spending 10 posts pushing for it. ) I think this is sometimes a fair criticism of Kwark's posting. He'll keep hammering a particular point that he feels isn't being addressed fully, and even if I think he's right, if the point isn't that central I might wish he'd just drop it. Even worse when he's wrong or only narrowly right, but people aren't adequately explaining that so he keeps pushing and pushing. I've never read one of these posts and thought "I think this is actionable" but I've definitely thought "I think I could explain why this is dumb and he should drop this but if I try I might just prolong it indefinitely." | ||
![]()
KwarK
United States42292 Posts
Resources should be directed toward those institutions which provide assistance to those seeking to change their sexual behavior. I read that as support of gay conversion therapy. This would be much easier if Pence would just tell us where he stands on the issue though. | ||
![]()
Liquid`Drone
Norway28609 Posts
Mr. Pence had not addressed speculation about his support for conversion therapy until last weekend, when Mr. Lotter told The Times it was “patently false” that Mr. Pence “supported or advocated” the practice. Mr. Lotter said the vice president-elect had been calling for federal funds to “be directed to groups that promoted safe sexual practices” during his 2000 congressional campaign, and he said it was a “mischaracterization” to see the statement as a reference to conversion therapy. Maybe he did support it in 2000. A lot of people have changed views on homosexuality since then. Maybe he didn't actually change views personally, but did because anti-gay has become a losing political stance. But this statement is from last year. I still think the joke is totally fine - and I laughed out loud at it. Jokes don't need to be grounded in absolute truth to be funny. But this is one of those examples of assuming the worst about political opponents and not letting go. It's incredibly hard to get a healthy political discussion going in a climate where posters choose the interpretation that paints their co-debaters in the worst possible light. | ||
oBlade
United States5413 Posts
On August 21 2017 02:33 Liquid`Drone wrote: No he is arguing that Pence did not support gay conversion therapy. From looking at both politifact and snopes, it seems like this issue is 'not conclusive', because it's certainly possible to interpret his words from 2000 as advocating that gays should be abstinent, not that they should be tortured into being disgusted by homosexuality. I'm sorry drone but I just tried to be completely clear: On August 21 2017 02:25 oBlade wrote: The vice president does not and has never supported electroshock therapy which was the premise of your contributions to the thread. I would grant for the sake of argument that he liked conversion therapy at some point or even now, although I don't think he's ever talked about it one way or the other, but nobody does electroshock therapy as far as I can tell, nobody did electroshock therapy at the time in question, during his campaign, so he couldn't have been allegedly supporting something that was already concluded in the past, were we just in such a rush to take the stance against putting electricity into children as to not realize this? This was not so light-hearted according to the last page, the intent was putting this forward to show how fucked up Republican leaders are, yet to take the record here and extrapolate support for putting voltage through people, it's a bad taste fabrication and in that context people who fall for and repeat it are doing themselves a disservice. | ||
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 21 2017 02:49 Liquid`Drone wrote: It's incredibly hard to get a healthy political discussion going in a climate where posters choose the interpretation that paints their co-debaters in the worst possible light. It is, and that goes double for the fact that we live in a pretty hostile political climate in general. But I hope you realize "we all need to be nicer to each other" is not really a solution, simply because there are genuine bad-faith actors afoot. If nothing is done about them, what kind of discussion can you really hope for? | ||
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On August 21 2017 02:33 Liquid`Drone wrote: No he is arguing that Pence did not support gay conversion therapy. From looking at both politifact and snopes, it seems like this issue is 'not conclusive', because it's certainly possible to interpret his words from 2000 as advocating that gays should be abstinent, not that they should be tortured into being disgusted by homosexuality. The argument that most gay rights advocates lean on is that Pence has never been clear about his stance on conversation therapy. It would be an easy issue to clear up over the 17 years since then. And it is a repugnant practice that is medical unsound. I don't have a clear answer on how to discuss possible dog whistle politics. But they should be discussed. | ||
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
On August 21 2017 01:46 oBlade wrote: I care about garbage and hypocrisy, not about political correctness per se, although you need to mind the outlet. Kwark sets no standards for himself. The other day Wuffles was warned for saying he heard Bannon sucks his own cock, which was at least hearsay from Scaramucci, this thing about Pence and electroshock therapy is 4chan meme pollution, having no basis in fact and relying on perpetuating multiple stereotypes to make no point in the end. And it's of course rich to see the author's sudden interest in context. We have the whole rest of the internet and media to read about Putin cock holsters and so forth. It's literally just a pun. What does any of this discussion of Pence's true position on conversion therapy matter? If we find that actually Pence doesn't support conversion therapy and it's just a popular misconception, does that transform the joke into something actionable? If I make a joke about Dan Quayle misspelling potato, do I get banned because it turns out the card they gave him was wrong? oBlade even admits he doesn't care about the joke itself, and is just trying to prove something about the moderation staff. So even the accuser in this case doesn't think the post is actionable. What's the issue here? | ||
| ||