Concentration of far-right extremists on PPR
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
Readers beware. Just because someone is the lone voice in the wilderness, doesn't automatically make them right. (or perhaps the term "correct" would be better in that sentence, because it can be read both ways. ) Being able to shout the loudest/longest/rudest alone isn't enough to actually enough to qualify as genuinely correct, even if it fits the credentials for a metaphor based on wildlife. It just puts people in a position to force their views on everyone else.
So, the most shrill voices that appellate their opposition with reprehensible labels aren't necessarily genuinely correct? Never would have guessed that.
Seems to me that there is a leaning towards that idea. Best to get it out in the open rather than work on the assumption everybody "knows" something. You get pretty shrill about gays at times, and still end up being wrong.
_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]
Dox47 wrote:
Is it just me, or did the maturity level in here just drop sharply? Oh, I should have known when I saw the OP byline, high schools are out for the week...
See, I'm using the techniques of am internet troll, but it's OK, I'm not trolling because I'm doing it for a higher purpose, and he did it first...
Now if I really wanted to capture the true je ne sais quoi of a Master P original, I would have had to come up with some "clever" new terms to stigmatize my ideological opposites and sprinkle some unqualified opinions in there, but I think I've made my point.
See, I'm using the techniques of am internet troll, but it's OK, I'm not trolling because I'm doing it for a higher purpose, and he did it first...
Now if I really wanted to capture the true je ne sais quoi of a Master P original, I would have had to come up with some "clever" new terms to stigmatize my ideological opposites and sprinkle some unqualified opinions in there, but I think I've made my point.
I'm quoting myself here because seldom have I had a post so completely misunderstood. You seem to be of the opinion that it's ok to fight dirty because "conservatives" do it; I demonstrated the fallacy of that reasoning by using dirty trolling tactics and then claiming that it was OK for me to do that because I was doing it for a higher purpose (as determined by me) and because you (the liberals) started it. I'd have thought the rolling eyes would have been a giveaway; though it is interesting that you essentially debunked your own rationale for playing dirty when you responded to my post at face value.
_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.
- Rick Sanchez
Dox47 wrote:
I'm quoting myself here because seldom have I had a post so completely misunderstood. You seem to be of the opinion that it's ok to fight dirty because "conservatives" do it; I demonstrated the fallacy of that reasoning by using dirty trolling tactics and then claiming that it was OK for me to do that because I was doing it for a higher purpose (as determined by me) and because you (the liberals) started it. I'd have thought the rolling eyes would have been a giveaway; though it is interesting that you essentially debunked your own rationale for playing dirty when you responded to my post at face value.
It's pretty funny that you missed the point of the acctual "face-value debunking" - contrasting rationales you'd have for debunking such a post (and, yes, your post was satirizing my calling out of racists) and the rationales I had for using some bombast. And, no, I don't see the how just because you wrote a parody of my method of dealing with racists and bigots in the conservative movement my thesis that bombast is neccessary when dealing with the bombastic is somehow undermined.
And for the record, I think I spelled out a pretty clear argument based on consquentialist morals for why using bombast when your opponents are bombastic is justified - because, if you don't, you'll be drown out.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
Master_Pedant wrote:
Or maybe it was when people started posting gleefully when all the racism drove a poster off the site. Who knowns?
It's beginning to look a lot like bullcrap.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
Macbeth wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
Readers beware. Just because someone is the lone voice in the wilderness, doesn't automatically make them right. (or perhaps the term "correct" would be better in that sentence, because it can be read both ways. ) Being able to shout the loudest/longest/rudest alone isn't enough to actually enough to qualify as genuinely correct, even if it fits the credentials for a metaphor based on wildlife. It just puts people in a position to force their views on everyone else.
So, the most shrill voices that appellate their opposition with reprehensible labels aren't necessarily genuinely correct? Never would have guessed that.
Seems to me that there is a leaning towards that idea. Best to get it out in the open rather than work on the assumption everybody "knows" something. You get pretty shrill about gays at times, and still end up being wrong.
What have I really said about them? That they abduct symbols and terms? That if they want to be tolerated, fine, but don't try to justify it using the Bible in order to force acceptance of it from others. Now, is that being shrill?
Master_Pedant wrote:
Dox47 wrote:
Is it just me, or did the maturity level in here just drop sharply?'
Probably when posters started using terms like "Aboreal Africans" or "NAACP = Nigerians Against All Caucasian People".
IMHO, when you decided not to take these comments to the mods, but rather rebut them yourself, you relenquished any right to complain about them.
If you successfully debunked the arguments, then congratulations, you won that particular argument.
Quote:
Or maybe it was when people started posting gleefully when all the racism drove a poster off the site. Who knowns?
I read that thread from the post you linked to the end and saw nothing like what you describe.
Anyone who wants to take a break from WP and/or PPR is allowed to. I took a rather longish one myself once.
_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton
Master_Pedant wrote:
A few of the more disgusting comments I have read here include the one-liner "aboreal Africans" and "NAACP=Nigerians Against All Caucasian People". This has occured while many complain about discrimination against WASPs on Wrong Planet, which is pretty laughable.
The racist rants on here have left me genuinely speechless. I don't even know where to start to argue against such a blatently ignorant and hateful stance against fellow human beings. I find these comments revolting, but if I don't have anything nice to say, I tend to not say anything.
Ancalagon wrote:
IMHO, when you decided not to take these comments to the mods, but rather rebut them yourself, you relenquished any right to complain about them.
If you successfully debunked the arguments, then congratulations, you won that particular argument.
If you successfully debunked the arguments, then congratulations, you won that particular argument.
That doesn't make any sense at all. "You can only criticize something if you want it outlawed" may make sense some authoritarian, but it doesn't make sense to me. There's a lot of crap in this world that people criticize without desiring outlawed and I think hate speech should be on that list (albeit, I do think exceptions for places like public schools makes sense).
Ancalagon wrote:
Or maybe it was when people started posting gleefully when all the racism drove a poster off the site. Who knowns?
I read that thread from the post you linked to the end and saw nothing like what you describe.
Anyone who wants to take a break from WP and/or PPR is allowed to. I took a rather longish one myself once.[/quote]
I think it's a pretty straightforward abductive inference. He swore and said he wouldn't mind his count being deleted, which indicates that he's taking a PRETTY BLOODY LONG VACATION. Racist screeds have got under his skin quite a few times. And Dox47 seems to be quite gleeful over this situation.
iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius
Master_Pedant wrote:
Ancalagon wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
Or maybe it was when people started posting gleefully when all the racism drove a poster off the site. Who knowns?
I read that thread from the post you linked to the end and saw nothing like what you describe.
Anyone who wants to take a break from WP and/or PPR is allowed to. I took a rather longish one myself once.
I think it's a pretty straightforward abductive inference. He swore and said he wouldn't mind his count being deleted, which indicates that he's taking a PRETTY BLOODY LONG VACATION. Racist screeds have got under his skin quite a few times. And Dox47 seems to be quite gleeful over this situation.
Really Dox47 is gleeful? No, I'd say he's not gleeful but rather slightly suspicious of a political stunt in action. Here are his actual words from the link that you attached to your post. Where in Dox47's words do you see "gleefulness"?
Dox47 wrote:
Crimsonfield wrote:
Racist, socialist and terrorist are overused words because they're politically useful and instigate fear or shame, just like words like heretic and witch were during the inquisitions in the middle ages. "Obama's a socialist! Very socialist. You wanna vote for him? You shouldn't vote for him! You don't want Hitler to come back do you? He's also a terrorist..."
This is pretty close to how I would have put it, but as BigK seems to have taken his bat and ball and gone home, I haven't felt the need to further clarify. Personally, I'm a bit suspicious of this particular rage-quit, he was unhappy that the discussions regarding the running of PPR were not going his way, and making a big dramatic exit like that would on the surface seem to support his assertion that our "offensive discussions" discourage minorities from posting. Hopefully his motives are equally transparent to the mod team. We'll have to see if he stays gone, my bet is two weeks.
"Looks like he took his ball and went home" is pretty gleeful.
Master_Pedant wrote:
"Looks like he took his ball and went home" is pretty gleeful.
Thats a metaphor for quiting, usually in a way that doesn't allow for the activity(like a game that requires equipment) to continue he was pointing out that because he left they couldn't really argue against his points.(in my opinion they didn't really need to he quit trying to use that to validate his point,thats invalidation enough in my book)
Master_Pedant wrote:
Ancalagon wrote:
IMHO, when you decided not to take these comments to the mods, but rather rebut them yourself, you relenquished any right to complain about them.
If you successfully debunked the arguments, then congratulations, you won that particular argument.
If you successfully debunked the arguments, then congratulations, you won that particular argument.
That doesn't make any sense at all. "You can only criticize something if you want it outlawed" may make sense some authoritarian, but it doesn't make sense to me. There's a lot of crap in this world that people criticize without desiring outlawed and I think hate speech should be on that list (albeit, I do think exceptions for places like public schools makes sense).
That isn't what I said. I'm objecting to your having your cake and eating it too. If you think that racists should be allowed to post their screeds, subject only to debunking, and that you would like to be a part of that debunking, then I wish you luck in your debunking. But I don't think you should simultaneously complain that they are posting screeds when you are saying that they should be allowed to do so.
Either fight them on the field of verbal combat as if they were honorable opponents, or else declare them to be dishonorable opponents.
Quote:
Ancalagon wrote:
I read that thread from the post you linked to the end and saw nothing like what you describe.
Anyone who wants to take a break from WP and/or PPR is allowed to. I took a rather longish one myself once.
Anyone who wants to take a break from WP and/or PPR is allowed to. I took a rather longish one myself once.
I think it's a pretty straightforward abductive inference. He swore and said he wouldn't mind his count being deleted, which indicates that he's taking a PRETTY BLOODY LONG VACATION. Racist screeds have got under his skin quite a few times. And Dox47 seems to be quite gleeful over this situation.
I think dox made an abductive inference of his own in guessing that the departure was a debating tactic. I'm withholding judgement due to a lack of evidence, personally.
I did not see any glee anywhere.
_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton
ikorack wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
"Looks like he took his ball and went home" is pretty gleeful.
Thats a metaphor for quiting, usually in a way that doesn't allow for the activity(like a game that requires equipment) to continue he was pointing out that because he left they couldn't really argue against his points.(in my opinion they didn't really need to he quit trying to use that to validate his point,thats invalidation enough in my book)
I sensed a pretty clear undertone of "serves you right!" in his reporting of how BigK left thanks to the saturation of racists on WP.
Master_Pedant wrote:
I sensed a pretty clear undertone of "serves you right!" in his reporting of how BigK left thanks to the saturation of racists on WP.
You may have "sensed" an "undertone", but I didn't. Really, if you have a problem with something that Dox said, maybe you should take it up with him.
_________________
"A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." --G. K. Chesterton
Ancalagon wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
Ancalagon wrote:
IMHO, when you decided not to take these comments to the mods, but rather rebut them yourself, you relenquished any right to complain about them.
If you successfully debunked the arguments, then congratulations, you won that particular argument.
If you successfully debunked the arguments, then congratulations, you won that particular argument.
That doesn't make any sense at all. "You can only criticize something if you want it outlawed" may make sense some authoritarian, but it doesn't make sense to me. There's a lot of crap in this world that people criticize without desiring outlawed and I think hate speech should be on that list (albeit, I do think exceptions for places like public schools makes sense).
That isn't what I said. I'm objecting to your having your cake and eating it too. If you think that racists should be allowed to post their screeds, subject only to debunking, and that you would like to be a part of that debunking, then I wish you luck in your debunking. But I don't think you should simultaneously complain that they are posting screeds when you are saying that they should be allowed to do so.
Either fight them on the field of verbal combat as if they were honorable opponents, or else declare them to be dishonorable opponents.
They are dishonourable combatants who I will fight by debunking (when they make factual claims) AND moral condemnation.
