EPTSo why was GH banned? - Page 8
| Forum Index > Website Feedback |
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On February 14 2019 00:03 travis wrote: Ah, so now people are more bannable if they have a stance that someone (I guess aquanim or m4ini) defines as a "conspiracy theory". That is a very stupid stance. Oh, no. You have to have a stance that the moderators define as a (particularly objectionable?) conspiracy theory. My opinion's got nothing to do with it. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12260 Posts
On February 14 2019 08:55 Plansix wrote: Not, not really. Most people just questioned why the discussion happened and why it was so painful. Talking to a smug, self satisfied version of internet Socrates fucking sucks. Especially one that is clearly enjoying the frustration he is causing. As many people have said, he was bad at convincing people of the merits of his views. He was far more likely to frustrate them so much they wouldn’t want to engage with the topic ever. And this is from a guy that mostly agreed with GH on a bunch of topics. What else would the reaction be? Obviously we're not going to consciously go "I don't like that I have to think about this because of you, so I'm going to react negatively instead!" We're way more likely to question why the discussion happens, why it's painful... Probably it's because of him. While we're experiencing pain, allow me to bring y'all back in time. Probably don't open those tabs. + Show Spoiler + Specifically to march 15, 2018, where GreenHorizons react to some story that was posted with: Abolish the police (#201271, old thread)Falling is the first to take the bait, with the question: "Abolish the police? What do you propose to replace it? Or have you gone hardcore anarcho-capitalist recently?" GH immediately answers with an article about what type of things we can replace the police with, this article here. Slaughter enters with the idea that police can't easily be replaced, we're going to need gradualism: + Show Spoiler + "I think for this to really be a replacement for Police in the current US there would need to be drastic change in other cultural areas first. Definitely could boost these programs and gradually reduce the need for as large and armed police forces as we have now." GH counters with the idea that the police isn't nearly as effective as Slaughter thinks in the area where he thinks they're necessary: + Show Spoiler + "I think people greatly overestimate the effectiveness and functionality of police regarding addressing the preponderance of the issues people think they address/should address. Obviously something like this doesn't happen overnight, but the point is we should be looking to abolish the police, not fix them." This discussion continues for a while with Wegandi. Falling then asks some practical questions of GH, about how the system described in the article would work: + Show Spoiler + "Then who is paying these community patrols? And how integrated are these community patrols with each other when one criminal bounces to the next city? Also what stops a community patrol from simply being the criminal syndicate, rather than a defence against it?" GH's answer is that while he has some ideas on how those questions should be answered, the larger point is about abolishing the police vs fixing it, not necessarily how we go about abolishing it, because there are a number of ways we can go about doing that if we accept the premise that it should be done. + Show Spoiler + I'm happy to keep answering questions, but it should be noted that my larger point isn't to lay out a comprehensive alternative plan to policing as we know it from budgeting out line items for investigations to implementing it legislatively, but that instead of accepting that what we have (or probably whatever wegandi is imagining we replace it with) a failing system and tinkering around the edges, we need to be talking about how we do a full tear-down and new construction. Knowing that my ideas aren't the only ideas, I can tell you what I think. But we should pay attention to the fact that of the suggestions outlined by the Rolling Stone article, the community patrols was the one I expressed skepticism about for the reasons mentioned in the piece and you mention there. Ryzel comes in and demands that GH has to be able to precisely map out what will replace police in order to make the statement that police should be abolished. He also asks him to clarify what he means by police, whether the FBI is involved, stuff like that. + Show Spoiler + Right, but one can't do a full tear-down and reconstruction without precise blueprints of what's going up in its place, which is what the comprehensive questions are trying to flesh out. GH correctly answers that he's not supposed to build the replacement of police by himself. He has two very good quotes in this post: "I would seriously hope folks wouldn't expect that here or from myself. That's something we build as a society, but we have to want to build it." "(The other posters) were after undermining the idea that of the two paths we should choose abolishing the police by trying to say that since we/I don't have it all figured out we/I shouldn't be working toward it rather than preserving police." So far GH has expressed a coherent position, and so far I've found what I thought I'd find: people aren't engaging with the idea of whether the police should be preserved or abolished, instead we're focusing on the consequences of abolishing the police. Dare I say, that's a way more comfortable question to ask oneself. Will there be consequences to abolishing the police? Yeah. Will some of those consequences be negative, or better yet, dangerous? Probably, yeah. If we can find enough negative consequences, can we avoid asking ourselves whether the police should be abolished? Absolutely. Falling comes back with the same ideas about how everything should be mapped out, and comes out in favor of reformation vs revolution: + Show Spoiler + "Well does actually matter what you are replacing it with. If you just pull down a corrupt system, with no good plan to replace, there's no guarantee that what you replace it will be anything other than chaos." "This is why reformation generally works better than revolution because you don't have to throw out what was working." GH reframes the argument in this fashion. Again, his position is coherent so far: + Show Spoiler + "I'm not thinking you're quite understanding what I'm talking about by your objections. You presumably want to reform the police, I want to abolish the police. Your camp (on this argument) has been 'working on this' for ~200 years and they suck. The choice isn't suck, or anarchy. The choice is keep trying to reform police, or work towards abolishing them instead. It's not as if I'm suggesting we just disband the police tomorrow with no idea what to do the day after. Acting as if it is makes it a lot easier to argue against, but it doesn't really provide any value or insight. " hunts then comes in to see if he gets it right (Narrator: he doesn't): + Show Spoiler + So let me see if I'm getting it right. GH wants to abolish the police, and in place have a group of volunteers to go around and uphold the law, who won't be the police? (Narrator: no, he didn't say that) Volunteers who out of the goodness of their hearts and not for a paycheck want to go around arresting criminals, investigating crimes, and will do a better job than the police and be less corrupt, for free? If not, then please explain exactly what you're proposing GH. (Narrator: he already did) Conversation devolves from there as people start misrepresenting GH's position, and he reacts angrily. And when the conversation will be remembered, people will go like this: On April 09 2018 05:02 Excludos wrote: Let's not go through this again, please. Yes, the cops in the US is shit(ly trained). No, no amount of "Abolish with nothing to put in their place" is a good idea. Reform would work, because it has proven to work in literally the entire rest of the first world. Please let's not have 30 more pages of this shit. or like was done here: On February 14 2019 06:49 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Instead when asked to clarify, he rather just chant his slogan, constantly say that the other person has the wrong view on what his position was, without ever clarifying what his postion was. This is, quite simply, not what happened. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12260 Posts
On February 14 2019 09:16 JimmiC wrote: I think you question your beliefs when some one asks you pointed well thought out questions and has well thought out responses to yours. Even more so if you respect that person. If some one just gets on the treadmill, repeats and insults you your views become cemented and you are less willing to deal with others, who might actually have real well intentioned questions or concerns with your position. This was in the context of the argument I was making there: On February 13 2019 20:54 Nebuchad wrote: The logical conclusion from my point of view is that the problem is not with ideas but with decorum. When GH thinks something is true, he requires you to also ask yourself the question of whether it's true. And that's not really convenient; if you can continue living your life without asking yourself some of those questions (even if you wouldn't necessarily reach the same conclusions he did), it's certainly easier. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On February 14 2019 09:56 Nebuchad wrote: What else would the reaction be? Obviously we're not going to consciously go "I don't like that I have to think about this because of you, so I'm going to react negatively instead!" We're way more likely to question why the discussion happens, why it's painful... Probably it's because of him. While we're experiencing pain, allow me to bring y'all back in time. Probably don't open those tabs. + Show Spoiler + Specifically to march 15, 2018, where GreenHorizons react to some story that was posted with: Abolish the police (#201271, old thread)Falling is the first to take the bait, with the question: "Abolish the police? What do you propose to replace it? Or have you gone hardcore anarcho-capitalist recently?" GH immediately answers with an article about what type of things we can replace the police with, this article here. Slaughter enters with the idea that police can't easily be replaced, we're going to need gradualism: + Show Spoiler + "I think for this to really be a replacement for Police in the current US there would need to be drastic change in other cultural areas first. Definitely could boost these programs and gradually reduce the need for as large and armed police forces as we have now." GH counters with the idea that the police isn't nearly as effective as Slaughter thinks in the area where he thinks they're necessary: + Show Spoiler + "I think people greatly overestimate the effectiveness and functionality of police regarding addressing the preponderance of the issues people think they address/should address. Obviously something like this doesn't happen overnight, but the point is we should be looking to abolish the police, not fix them." This discussion continues for a while with Wegandi. Falling then asks some practical questions of GH, about how the system described in the article would work: + Show Spoiler + "Then who is paying these community patrols? And how integrated are these community patrols with each other when one criminal bounces to the next city? Also what stops a community patrol from simply being the criminal syndicate, rather than a defence against it?" GH's answer is that while he has some ideas on how those questions should be answered, the larger point is about abolishing the police vs fixing it, not necessarily how we go about abolishing it, because there are a number of ways we can go about doing that if we accept the premise that it should be done. + Show Spoiler + I'm happy to keep answering questions, but it should be noted that my larger point isn't to lay out a comprehensive alternative plan to policing as we know it from budgeting out line items for investigations to implementing it legislatively, but that instead of accepting that what we have (or probably whatever wegandi is imagining we replace it with) a failing system and tinkering around the edges, we need to be talking about how we do a full tear-down and new construction. Knowing that my ideas aren't the only ideas, I can tell you what I think. But we should pay attention to the fact that of the suggestions outlined by the Rolling Stone article, the community patrols was the one I expressed skepticism about for the reasons mentioned in the piece and you mention there. Ryzel comes in and demands that GH has to be able to precisely map out what will replace police in order to make the statement that police should be abolished. He also asks him to clarify what he means by police, whether the FBI is involved, stuff like that. + Show Spoiler + Right, but one can't do a full tear-down and reconstruction without precise blueprints of what's going up in its place, which is what the comprehensive questions are trying to flesh out. GH correctly answers that he's not supposed to build the replacement of police by himself. He has two very good quotes in this post: "I would seriously hope folks wouldn't expect that here or from myself. That's something we build as a society, but we have to want to build it." "(The other posters) were after undermining the idea that of the two paths we should choose abolishing the police by trying to say that since we/I don't have it all figured out we/I shouldn't be working toward it rather than preserving police." So far GH has expressed a coherent position, and so far I've found what I thought I'd find: people aren't engaging with the idea of whether the police should be preserved or abolished, instead we're focusing on the consequences of abolishing the police. Dare I say, that's a way more comfortable question to ask oneself. Will there be consequences to abolishing the police? Yeah. Will some of those consequences be negative, or better yet, dangerous? Probably, yeah. If we can find enough negative consequences, can we avoid asking ourselves whether the police should be abolished? Absolutely. Falling comes back with the same ideas about how everything should be mapped out, and comes out in favor of reformation vs revolution: + Show Spoiler + "Well does actually matter what you are replacing it with. If you just pull down a corrupt system, with no good plan to replace, there's no guarantee that what you replace it will be anything other than chaos." "This is why reformation generally works better than revolution because you don't have to throw out what was working." GH reframes the argument in this fashion. Again, his position is coherent so far: + Show Spoiler + "I'm not thinking you're quite understanding what I'm talking about by your objections. You presumably want to reform the police, I want to abolish the police. Your camp (on this argument) has been 'working on this' for ~200 years and they suck. The choice isn't suck, or anarchy. The choice is keep trying to reform police, or work towards abolishing them instead. It's not as if I'm suggesting we just disband the police tomorrow with no idea what to do the day after. Acting as if it is makes it a lot easier to argue against, but it doesn't really provide any value or insight. " hunts then comes in to see if he gets it right (Narrator: he doesn't): + Show Spoiler + So let me see if I'm getting it right. GH wants to abolish the police, and in place have a group of volunteers to go around and uphold the law, who won't be the police? (Narrator: no, he didn't say that) Volunteers who out of the goodness of their hearts and not for a paycheck want to go around arresting criminals, investigating crimes, and will do a better job than the police and be less corrupt, for free? If not, then please explain exactly what you're proposing GH. (Narrator: he already did) Conversation devolves from there as people start misrepresenting GH's position, and he reacts angrily. And when the conversation will be remembered, people will go like this: On April 09 2018 05:02 Excludos wrote: Let's not go through this again, please. Yes, the cops in the US is shit(ly trained). No, no amount of "Abolish with nothing to put in their place" is a good idea. Reform would work, because it has proven to work in literally the entire rest of the first world. Please let's not have 30 more pages of this shit. or like was done here: On February 14 2019 06:49 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Instead when asked to clarify, he rather just chant his slogan, constantly say that the other person has the wrong view on what his position was, without ever clarifying what his postion was. This is, quite simply, not what happened. This seems like the classic GH "we should burn it all down" post (other examples include the healthcare and financial sytems). People react with "hey man, that's not a good idea, what's your replacement plan?". And his response is "well, a little bit of this and a little bit of that and boom, reform!" And then people kind of end up tripping over each other to tell him why his half-baked still-raw-in-the-center idea is no bueno - sometimes more coherently than others. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12260 Posts
On February 14 2019 10:46 ticklishmusic wrote: This seems like the classic GH "we should burn it all down" post (other examples include the healthcare and financial sytems). People react with "hey man, that's not a good idea, what's your replacement plan?". And his response is "well, a little bit of this and a little bit of that and boom, reform!" And then people kind of end up tripping over each other to tell him why his half-baked still-raw-in-the-center idea is no bueno - sometimes more coherently than others. His answer is: I don't want to be the one creating the replacement plan by myself. There are ideas, in that article for example, and I have some myself, but that's not the point I want to bring up. If we can agree that a replacement plan is needed, we can work together as a society and create the replacement plan. That's an answer I sympathize with a lot. I have the same answer when it comes to my anticapitalism. I'm not exactly sure what we should replace capitalism with, I haven't figured out everything. I have some ideas, but I don't want to feed them to you. What we can come up with together if we accept the basis that capitalism is garbage is going to be better than the solutions I would have come up with alone. Regardless of whether or not you are satisfied with the answer, it's a coherent answer, and it's not accurately represented by the sentence: "well, a little bit of this and a little bit of that and boom, reform!" | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
And this all leaves aside his obsessive behavior, aggressive PMs, and constantly trying to rekindle old arguments. Like, you know, harassing me for an entire month about spreading propaganda because I remembered an article wrong. And me repeatedly telling him that I made a mistake and him not giving a shit to the point where the moderators had to tell him to drop it. So I understand that you liked GH's contribution to the site and his style of discussion. But I don't think you got to experience his true contribution to the site as some of us did. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13984 Posts
Tens if not hundreds of millions dead and the entire economy burned was an okay sacrifice to GH supposed solutions. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On February 14 2019 00:24 Nebuchad wrote: Aquanim is countering the notion that I brought up, that GH gets shit because he is forcing us to ask ourselves questions that we may not want to ask ourselves and he is forceful about it. He is attacking my argument that I don't get called a conspiracy theorist by saying that I'm not one and GH is, as examplified by his stance on 9/11. What I find funny (somewhat, it's not hilarious) is that in the example brought up here, GH is talking about 9/11 because while they were discussing the way the US does foreign intervention, Wolf got annoyed talking to GH, and decided that it would be easier to dismiss him, so he brought up the 9/11 conspiracy theory clearly in an attempt to say "therefore we don't have to listen to what you're saying", and then the conversation moves to 9/11 because GH can't let go of stuff, ever =) Long story short, I could use the same example provided by Aquanim against my point as an argument for my point. And what Aquanim did here is basically the same thing Wolf did there. It's meta, I love it I don't disagree with you that part of the reason GreenHorizons was disliked was that "he is forcing us to ask ourselves questions that we may not want to ask ourselves and he is forceful about it", and that a large part of what got him banned was "decorum" or some other similar concept. On February 13 2019 20:54 Nebuchad wrote: It's not, though. That's an unfair characterization, normally people wait a few years before they post something like that so that other people have forgotten the specifics but in this case I'm sure it'll go fine... The only part of m4ini's characterization that wasn't more or less to do with "decorum" is the "conspiracy theorist" part, and as we established that wasn't just m4ini being annoyed at GreenHorizons' attitude; it was at the very least a defensible point. As such, from my point of view you perhaps owe m4ini an apology, depending on how badly you disagree with "smart-alecky", "self righteous" and "self-percieved moral high horse". + Show Spoiler + I'm not truly interested in arguing the toss on those - just calling m4ini's characterization unfair based on the conspiracy theorist point as you seemed to be doing did not sit well with me. ---//--- On February 14 2019 09:56 Nebuchad wrote: So far GH has expressed a coherent position, and so far I've found what I thought I'd find: people aren't engaging with the idea of whether the police should be preserved or abolished, instead we're focusing on the consequences of abolishing the police. Dare I say, that's a way more comfortable question to ask oneself. Will there be consequences to abolishing the police? Yeah. Will some of those consequences be negative, or better yet, dangerous? Probably, yeah. If we can find enough negative consequences, can we avoid asking ourselves whether the police should be abolished? Absolutely.] A point you are neglecting is that this cuts both ways. GreenHorizons wasn't comfortable focusing on the question of "what happens when you actually abolish the police" either. By your logic doesn't that mean everybody else should be given credit for "forcing [him] to ask [himself] those questions"? edit: In other words, everybody has questions they don't want to ask themselves, and many people in the forum (not just GreenHorizons) push others into re-examining those questions. GreenHorizons is distinct in two ways: (a) the kind of questions he pushed people into, which happen to be similar to yours making them easier for you to identify, and (b) his manner when he did the pushing. | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3188 Posts
Of course, GH might have expected that response when he opened with such a bombastic tone. A slogan like “abolish the police” is inflammatory, somewhat intentionally so, whether or not that was GH’s intention in this specific instance. Of course it made people recoil in shock, then fumble around for the nearest blunt object to hit it with. That happened a lot when GH opined. Then, at least sometimes, he would mock the feebler attacks of the offended masses, the masses would get even more offended, and the discussion would go to shit. GH wasn’t the only one with this pattern; anyone opinionated with a viewpoint sufficiently far from the center-left consensus of the thread would tend toward a similar pattern, sometimes intentionally, but usually not. Here’s the thing. I’ve thought quite a bit about this, and I think I disagree with GH’s “abolish the police” position. But I’ve never discussed it with him. I was kinda scared to, to be honest. Because I wasn’t prepared for the bombastic, adversarial type of discussion like the one Nebuchad quoted. I wasn’t confident I had researched the facts well enough, or interpreted them well enough, to be certain I was right. “You know what, GH? You’re wrong, and I’m gonna tell you why...” wasn’t a discussion I felt capable of, and it seemed like the only one I would get if I brought it up. That would probably be my biggest criticism of his posting, really - that the default mode was combative, and acrimony was always within arm’s reach. I wish people would be a bit more careful to avoid lazy caricatures of him now that he can’t defend himself. I had my issues with his “abolish the police” crusade, both the position itself and how he argued it, but it was definitely not just an empty slogan, repeated ad nauseum without any details or clarification. You could maybe say that for LL’s “electability” crusade, but I don’t remember a single position GH took that fit that bill. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On February 14 2019 13:16 ChristianS wrote: I wish people would be a bit more careful to avoid lazy caricatures of him now that he can’t defend himself. I had my issues with his “abolish the police” crusade, both the position itself and how he argued it, but it was definitely not just an empty slogan, repeated ad nauseum without any details or clarification. You could maybe say that for LL’s “electability” crusade, but I don’t remember a single position GH took that fit that bill. I do agree with you that GreenHorizons' initial discussion of the 'abolish the police' concept isn't quite as vacuous as some people have implied, although I do think "what are the consequences of 'abolishing' the police?" is a fundamental part of that discussion which GH did not do enough to engage with to earn my intellectual respect. That being said, I do think GreenHorizons did use the slogan or similar words as smug throw-away lines at later points in the thread... + Show Spoiler + ... so in my opinion, if the "abolish the police" slogan has been cheapened and made vacuous of detail and clarification in people's minds, GH bears some responsibility for that himself. edit: Also, to be fair to the people involved in the original conversation, when somebody lays out their initial opinion in a three-word trolly reply, "starting from the position that it is bullshit" isn't wholly unreasonable (even if they elaborate later). | ||
|
WolfintheSheep
Canada14127 Posts
On February 14 2019 09:56 Nebuchad wrote: What else would the reaction be? Obviously we're not going to consciously go "I don't like that I have to think about this because of you, so I'm going to react negatively instead!" We're way more likely to question why the discussion happens, why it's painful... Probably it's because of him. While we're experiencing pain, allow me to bring y'all back in time. Probably don't open those tabs. + Show Spoiler + Specifically to march 15, 2018, where GreenHorizons react to some story that was posted with: Abolish the police (#201271, old thread)Falling is the first to take the bait, with the question: "Abolish the police? What do you propose to replace it? Or have you gone hardcore anarcho-capitalist recently?" GH immediately answers with an article about what type of things we can replace the police with, this article here. Slaughter enters with the idea that police can't easily be replaced, we're going to need gradualism: + Show Spoiler + "I think for this to really be a replacement for Police in the current US there would need to be drastic change in other cultural areas first. Definitely could boost these programs and gradually reduce the need for as large and armed police forces as we have now." GH counters with the idea that the police isn't nearly as effective as Slaughter thinks in the area where he thinks they're necessary: + Show Spoiler + "I think people greatly overestimate the effectiveness and functionality of police regarding addressing the preponderance of the issues people think they address/should address. Obviously something like this doesn't happen overnight, but the point is we should be looking to abolish the police, not fix them." This discussion continues for a while with Wegandi. Falling then asks some practical questions of GH, about how the system described in the article would work: + Show Spoiler + "Then who is paying these community patrols? And how integrated are these community patrols with each other when one criminal bounces to the next city? Also what stops a community patrol from simply being the criminal syndicate, rather than a defence against it?" GH's answer is that while he has some ideas on how those questions should be answered, the larger point is about abolishing the police vs fixing it, not necessarily how we go about abolishing it, because there are a number of ways we can go about doing that if we accept the premise that it should be done. + Show Spoiler + I'm happy to keep answering questions, but it should be noted that my larger point isn't to lay out a comprehensive alternative plan to policing as we know it from budgeting out line items for investigations to implementing it legislatively, but that instead of accepting that what we have (or probably whatever wegandi is imagining we replace it with) a failing system and tinkering around the edges, we need to be talking about how we do a full tear-down and new construction. Knowing that my ideas aren't the only ideas, I can tell you what I think. But we should pay attention to the fact that of the suggestions outlined by the Rolling Stone article, the community patrols was the one I expressed skepticism about for the reasons mentioned in the piece and you mention there. Ryzel comes in and demands that GH has to be able to precisely map out what will replace police in order to make the statement that police should be abolished. He also asks him to clarify what he means by police, whether the FBI is involved, stuff like that. + Show Spoiler + Right, but one can't do a full tear-down and reconstruction without precise blueprints of what's going up in its place, which is what the comprehensive questions are trying to flesh out. GH correctly answers that he's not supposed to build the replacement of police by himself. He has two very good quotes in this post: "I would seriously hope folks wouldn't expect that here or from myself. That's something we build as a society, but we have to want to build it." "(The other posters) were after undermining the idea that of the two paths we should choose abolishing the police by trying to say that since we/I don't have it all figured out we/I shouldn't be working toward it rather than preserving police." So far GH has expressed a coherent position, and so far I've found what I thought I'd find: people aren't engaging with the idea of whether the police should be preserved or abolished, instead we're focusing on the consequences of abolishing the police. Dare I say, that's a way more comfortable question to ask oneself. Will there be consequences to abolishing the police? Yeah. Will some of those consequences be negative, or better yet, dangerous? Probably, yeah. If we can find enough negative consequences, can we avoid asking ourselves whether the police should be abolished? Absolutely. Falling comes back with the same ideas about how everything should be mapped out, and comes out in favor of reformation vs revolution: + Show Spoiler + "Well does actually matter what you are replacing it with. If you just pull down a corrupt system, with no good plan to replace, there's no guarantee that what you replace it will be anything other than chaos." "This is why reformation generally works better than revolution because you don't have to throw out what was working." GH reframes the argument in this fashion. Again, his position is coherent so far: + Show Spoiler + "I'm not thinking you're quite understanding what I'm talking about by your objections. You presumably want to reform the police, I want to abolish the police. Your camp (on this argument) has been 'working on this' for ~200 years and they suck. The choice isn't suck, or anarchy. The choice is keep trying to reform police, or work towards abolishing them instead. It's not as if I'm suggesting we just disband the police tomorrow with no idea what to do the day after. Acting as if it is makes it a lot easier to argue against, but it doesn't really provide any value or insight. " hunts then comes in to see if he gets it right (Narrator: he doesn't): + Show Spoiler + So let me see if I'm getting it right. GH wants to abolish the police, and in place have a group of volunteers to go around and uphold the law, who won't be the police? (Narrator: no, he didn't say that) Volunteers who out of the goodness of their hearts and not for a paycheck want to go around arresting criminals, investigating crimes, and will do a better job than the police and be less corrupt, for free? If not, then please explain exactly what you're proposing GH. (Narrator: he already did) Conversation devolves from there as people start misrepresenting GH's position, and he reacts angrily. And when the conversation will be remembered, people will go like this: On April 09 2018 05:02 Excludos wrote: Let's not go through this again, please. Yes, the cops in the US is shit(ly trained). No, no amount of "Abolish with nothing to put in their place" is a good idea. Reform would work, because it has proven to work in literally the entire rest of the first world. Please let's not have 30 more pages of this shit. or like was done here: On February 14 2019 06:49 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Instead when asked to clarify, he rather just chant his slogan, constantly say that the other person has the wrong view on what his position was, without ever clarifying what his postion was. This is, quite simply, not what happened. I'd recommend continuing on to page 10069 (and I suppose 10068), which is about the only time GH ever committed to any concrete discussion on the topic. And unsurprisingly, he says "Realistically you could call what I'm advocating police reform too" and "You can call it reform (and technically it pretty much is)". And I'm not just cherry-picking a couple sentences, those are the ones he emphasized himself after getting pissy that people weren't reading him properly. So yeah, really he was just really, really bad at communicating his point. There were plenty of topics I would've liked to discuss properly with him, such as his claims that: - South Korea is a US vassal state - North Korea is better than the US (or less worse, what have you) - Lenin was better than Hillary and Trump But that's about as far as he ever got on any topic he liked to bring up, and political memes aren't really thought provoking. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9674 Posts
The discussion has gone well past the question of whether or not he should have been banned at this point surely. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12260 Posts
On February 14 2019 11:54 Aquanim wrote: I don't disagree with you that part of the reason GreenHorizons was disliked was that "he is forcing us to ask ourselves questions that we may not want to ask ourselves and he is forceful about it", and that a large part of what got him banned was "decorum" or some other similar concept. The only part of m4ini's characterization that wasn't more or less to do with "decorum" is the "conspiracy theorist" part, and as we established that wasn't just m4ini being annoyed at GreenHorizons' attitude; it was at the very least a defensible point. As such, from my point of view you perhaps owe m4ini an apology, depending on how badly you disagree with "smart-alecky", "self righteous" and "self-percieved moral high horse". + Show Spoiler + I'm not truly interested in arguing the toss on those - just calling m4ini's characterization unfair based on the conspiracy theorist point as you seemed to be doing did not sit well with me. You must know some pretty special flat earthers if it's at the same time correct that GH is forcing us to ask ourselves questions that we don't want to ask and fair to characterize him as one. ---//--- On February 14 2019 11:54 Aquanim wrote: A point you are neglecting is that this cuts both ways. GreenHorizons wasn't comfortable focusing on the question of "what happens when you actually abolish the police" either. By your logic doesn't that mean everybody else should be given credit for "forcing [him] to ask [himself] those questions"? edit: In other words, everybody has questions they don't want to ask themselves, and many people in the forum (not just GreenHorizons) push others into re-examining those questions. GreenHorizons is distinct in two ways: (a) the kind of questions he pushed people into, which happen to be similar to yours making them easier for you to identify, and (b) his manner when he did the pushing. The reason why GH isn't focusing on the question of the consequences isn't because he isn't comfortable doing that (unless you're arguing it is and he lied about why he didn't want to do that, in which case, I'm not sure how you know that). As such they aren't quite equivalent. I'm not even in a logic or credit or not so far, I don't know how you would calculate who gets credit or not. You can account for P6's vision of GH and he gets less credit, you can account for Christian's vision and he gets more. It's not really something I know how to parse. On February 14 2019 22:23 Dangermousecatdog wrote: "Abolish the police" is the best example due to sheer frequency. As can be seen from examples, he never actually had a position on what this meant other than that it's not him that defines what this means. In which case it is meaningless. And so he can go shit on people how xyz isn't his position. Well shit, GH, why don't you tell us? And then he'll go back to literally writing "abolish the police" slogannering starting the whole cycle again. See this is an example of an objectively terrible post that will never cause people to reconsider Dmcd in the same way a terrible (or perceived terrible) post by GH will be remembered. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18048 Posts
On February 14 2019 22:58 Plansix wrote: I think it is safe to say we all had different experiences with GH, each of which is equally valid and true. How ridiculously postmodernist of you. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
The dreaded postmodernists that are destroying culture. Though how you ever obtain any understanding of another culture without accepting the subjectivity and value of different human experiences is beyond me. But then again, much of the internet Discourse around postmodernism is uninformed bullshit. I value people’s experiences, even if they don’t mirror my own. They don’t diminish my experiences, but I can respect that people hold different views of someone than I do. But that is unlikely to change my feeling in how that person treated me over the years. | ||
|
Starlightsun
United States1405 Posts
| ||
| ||
