The ‘in the same way’ was from the other thread…I originally requested that Karrus, who just tossed the link in to the TG thread, give examples of similar kind to what DT was doing in examples of his behavior in other threads. If I flat out call you mentally ill or delusional, then that’s an insult. If I assert that South Africans are mentally ill or delusional, knowing you are a South African, then that’s an insult. If I propose, in a thread (not directed at you), that a subset of South Africans is mentally ill or delusional because of some condition I assert to be true and I frame it as a debate then it’s not a deliberate insult, it’s a supposition. You might BE insulted by the supposition, being South African, but it’s not a direct insult of a similar kind to what I was originally asking for. It might be WRONG, but that’s what Great Debates is all about…hashing out disagreements and attempting to fight ignorance.
If we go by your standard then we could never discuss any sensitive subject, because obviously things are going to be insulting to someone, somewhere. What, you figure that when people propose there is no god and that we debate this supposition that this isn’t insulting to Theists?? You are trying to take away the basic premise that they have wrapped their lives around. Should that then be off limits because it’s insulting to them? It’s not meant to be a direct insult, merely a supposition and discussion point…like the one asserting that TGs or TSs or whatever are mentally ill or delusional (which I’ve seen Theists called before btw…by DT a couple of times in fact. I’ve seen him call Libertarians psychopaths and their philosophy that of psychopaths, in threads where he clearly knew there were Libertarians. Were you up on your high horse then too?).
Before you start getting all holy-ier than thou, think back on discussions you’ve participated in. Can you honestly tell me that you’ve never participated in one that someone in the thread wouldn’t have found insulting? Say a thread about conservatives or libertarians who’s premise wasn’t insulting to either of those groups? Did you bat an eye? Did you think that it WAS insulting? I didn’t participate in it, but the thread on the left hating free speech is along the same lines. Saying that the left hates free speech is certainly going to be insulting to lefties. In just about every thread in GD SOMEONE is bound to be insulted.
You’re conflating a lot of different things here, but I imagine you already know that. It’s ok to be squicked out by transgendered individuals, I totally understand that. But you really shouldn’t let your squick get in the way of learning.
Perfect representation of what I’m talking about. The bullshitters don’t think their bullshit is bigotry, it’s just facts! Even when their facts have been proven wrong, made up, misrepresented, etc, etc.
The quote given stands on its own quite well enough.
I think the difference between us is that you think something cannot be an insult just because it isn’t intended as one. That’s not my belief.
This is a distinction without difference.
I’m not saying we can’t have these discussions. I’m just saying when it gets pointed out that they contain insults, “No, they didn’t intend to” is not an adequate response.
You think the Board theists are particularly shy of pointing this out?
No. They are free to point out that it’s insulting. We’re then free to point to the “insulting broad groups is OK” rule and carry on. In a similar vein, I don’t think anyone’s been modded just for saying they think TGs are delusional.
There’s a strong difference in tone between saying “there is no God” and “People who believe in God are delusional” A thread asking if all theists are delusional would be just a “discussion point” to you? Try one and see…
I’ve been called the same, as an anarchist. No high horse ridden. The difference, of course, being that one thing (TG) is not like the others (religious choice, political choice) - can you guess what that difference is?
I should hope not. Or I wouldn’t be doing my job as a debater, I’d think.
Of course. And that’s OK. BUT having said, there’s a strong qualitative difference between the threads that are inherently insulting to some groups (like Libertarians, Christians, Liberals, cat de-clawers) and those that are insulting to others (like TGs, Blacks, women,handicapped) And it’s not hard to see what the difference is.
In effect, yes, you are saying that. You are saying that we cannot discuss the possibility that races might differ in average intelligence, because anyone who suggests that they might is inherently insulting members of that race. So yes, you are indeed saying that we can’t have these discussions - the only thing you would like to see is a chorus of agreement on certain topics. That’s not much of a discussion.
[QUOTE=MrDibble]
The quote given stands on its own quite well enough.
[/QUOTE]
So, in other words you aren’t interested in context. I’ll try and remember that and quote something from you in the future that without any context to what you were actually discussing and see how you like it.
It’s not my belief either, and you have misunderstood what I was saying…and in your whole post here you are either deliberately misunderstanding the context the subject is being discussed under or you simply don’t care. Basically, some discussions are going to insult some people. That’s the price of having a discussion about sensitive subjects. However, if I make an insulting remark at a group of people, say Liberals, where I say all Liberals are fluffy headed idiots and also evil, demented assholes, when I know that there are Liberals in the thread I’m engaged in debating in, well, that certainly skirts the rules (well, it would if we changed ‘Liberals’ to ‘Conservatives’ or ‘Christians’…or, your own favorite, ‘Americans’), but it would be a directed insult.
No, it’s not…it’s the key difference. Again, I can’t tell if you are being deliberately obtuse, you simply don’t care and just want to argue, or you really don’t get it. Since I know you to be a pretty intelligent person I’m leaning towards the first.
In case you really don’t get it, it’s the difference between discussing something that might insult someone and directing an insult that is intentionally meant to be an insult by insulting, directly, a group that your opponents happen to belong too. Which, if you had read the discussion in context instead of taking it as it stands (a single statement that was part of a broader discussion) you’d have gotten…assuming you didn’t get it, which I find incredibly hard to believe.
I don’t know or care if they intended to insult. My guess is that folks who attempt to claim that blacks have lower IQs (and that this is meaningful to discussions of intelligence among ‘races’) or folks who claim that TGs are demented probably don’t think about whether it’s insulting or not because they think they are superior, and simply want to ‘prove’ their point, but it’s neither here nor there. Unless there is a discussion going on where someone, who knows that a black or a transgender is involved an trots out ‘well, blacks all have lower IQs so are obviously less intelligent than whites’ or ‘TGs are demented and mentally ill’ as a supposed rebuttal during said discussion it’s not the same thing as starting a thread to ask the question.
Tell you what…go back to the original thread and take a look at the examples people were giving for DT. Now, substitute ‘blacks’ or ‘trans-genders’ for whatever group he was disparaging. Do it in the context of the discussion where he tossed out his little bombs. Then come back here and tell me truthfully if you still don’t get it, still don’t see the distinction.
:smack: Ok, maybe you really don’t get it. No, I don’t think they are shy about pointing it out. YET THE FUCKING THREADS CONTINUE AND PERSIST BECAUSE WHILE IT MIGHT BE INSULTING TO THE BOARD THEISTS IT’S STILL A VALID DISCUSSION. And they SHOULD, too, because it IS a valid discussion, even if it’s insulting to people who associate themselves with theism.
Sure. And it’s the horseshit that DT has used to skate the rules for years now…a decade really. He just jumps into a discussion and flames a group of people (who happen to be the ones he’s butting heads against in a discussion)…but, you know, we is stupid and don’t get that when he flames said group in the worst possible terms that he REALLY means us. Sure we don’t.
Sure. Which is why the thread on transgenders was allowed to stay in GD for pages and pages. It’s always all about the tone.
But overall, yeah…starting a thread in GD saying, resolved, there is no God would simply be a discussion point. It would be a discussion point that would insult some theists, for sure, but it’s not directed at anyone in particular and is a valid discussion. Now, if I’m in a thread having a heated debate with several theists and I haul off and say ‘people who believe in God are delusional’, I’d rightfully be modded for it…well, unless I’m DT, in which case (at least before) I’d get a pass. Just attacking a group after all…nothing to do with those theists I’m arguing with. No sir.
Which gore is oxing you? Oh, I’m sure what you MEAN is that it’s about choice verse innate predilection, but the reality is whether or not you care about the subject enough to be offended when someone on the other side tosses out disparaging remarks…and how it’s done.
Not hard for me to see the difference either…it’s all about gores and oxes. Whether someone has choice about what’s under discussion (i.e. you are born hispanic or black, born gay, etc, or you choose to be a liberal or a theist) is beside the point.
And, in the context of THIS discussion, whether you are deliberately flaming a group that you know some of the people you are heatedly debating happen to be in so as to skirt the board rules, or whether you are having a discussion that might insult some people who join the discussion in order to prove you are an idiot. Since you acknowledge that some discussions are going to insult some people, and since this board is about fighting ignorance, the latter is allowed…at least to a certain extent and depending on how the ‘debate’ is framed. The trouble some people have is that the poster spawning all of this horseshit has systematically used the rules on group insults to get away with directed insults at posters he knows are participating in a thread to skirt the direct insults in GD rule…and, for some reason, doesn’t trigger the don’t be an asshole rule either, even though some of his comments clearly rise to that level.
I am kind of a heretic on the subject - I don’t think DT is doing it to get around the rules against flaming other posters in GD. He just honestly thinks like this, that Christians and pro-lifers are evil monsters, and that women are really out to lure him into having sex so they can trap him with accusations of rape. That’s why he generally responds to modding with protests that these are his honest opinions.
But that is one of the more unsettling parts about his schtick - not merely that there is a Doper who is squirrel-foody enough to say such things, but that there are other Dopers who present as rational, who will say that they agree with him.
It’s kind of creepy to think about. I am a member in good standing of a message board where at least some of the members admire crazy hate speech, and agree with it on some level.
I agree. I don’t think he is oh-so-clever in skirting the rules. For some reason the mods in GD have a soft spot for him. Even that “big meanie”, Jonathan Chance, sings his praises while giving him warnings. We know you can be such an intelligent poster, with so much to add to this MB, please stop posting like a blithering idiot.
Don’t worry, I don’t think anyone really thinks of you as a “member of good standing”, mostly because you admire crazy hate speech, and have been known to make racist, sexist remarks yourself.
[QUOTE=Shodan;16851452He just honestly thinks like this, that Christians and pro-lifers are evil monsters, and that women are really out to lure him into having sex so they can trap him with accusations of rape. [/QUOTE]
Except those seem to be mischaracterisation of what** Der Trihs** actually says. You may be able to find something to back up the way he speaks of Christians, but most times I see him post he specifically says “Good Christians” and defines that term as those who follow all of the injunctions in the bible. I won’t weigh in on the correctness of his thought but I do think that this differs from your claim that he says “all Christians are evil monsters”.
With regards to the taping sexual encounters, that was prefaced specifically by the hypothetical that men treat all women as potential liars who will trap a man with false accusations of rape. It was meant to highlight the attitude that women should treat all men as potential rapists. He specifically said that given that hypothetical it would be a rational action for a man to tape his sexual encounters to protect himself from such an accusation. He at no time that I saw stated that this was a good and proper thing to do nor did he advocate that anyone do it outside the bounds of the hypothetical.
I’ll give you the pro-lifers as I can’t be arsed to go back through what he has said regarding that but given how I perceive you to be off base on the other accusations I would not be surprised if it turns out that his view is more nuanced than you give credit for.
I think your dislike for his opinions in general may have coloured your remembrances of the incidents.
This is the more troubling aspect. Not DT himself but the fact that a non zero number of other posters seems to value his contributions. It’s baffling.
There are a non zero amount of seriously crazy lefties on this board (although a pretty small number), and a great deal more supposedly moderate ones who nonetheless support any attack on the right, no matter how ludicrous.
Such as the one on Shodan a few posts ago. He has his faults, like anyone, but he’s not a sexist, racist admirer of hate speech.
Plenty of people here seem to think that Der Trihs is a bit extreme, but basically has what they think are sensible views. He doesn’t, he’s a frothing lunatic much of the time (even on subjects I agree with, such as religion, it’s embarrassing to have him arguing alongside him), only really comparable to people like Starving Artist.
I’ll note on that one he does say ‘most’. However I think that is because there are gun rights advocates on the left and his hate is only for those he perceives to be on the right. But ‘cheerfully take a trip back in time and shoot the internees themselves’? Really? In Der Trihs’es mind that is how people who disagree with him work. They are all evil and would kill at the drop of a hat.
Abortion is a complex issue. Oh, no, wait. It isn’t. Anyone who disagrees with abortion wants women to suffer. They don’t care about the baby or fetus at all. The whole abortion debate is really about hating women.
There are more (and worse) examples but I really don’t feel like crawling through more posts.
I still don’t understand why he hasn’t been banned. It is clear he doesn’t really give a damn about the rules and isn’t going to change his behavior.
Does anyone here think this makes a shit ounce of sense?
If a racist posted in a polite, rational fashion, I’d still hate what he has to say. I’d prefer it to a rude, vulgar, nasty, slur-using racist, but I’d still hate it.
Do you even have a point? Is this kind of false equivalence meaningful to you somehow? If it’s okay for your brother to be a vegetarian, is it also okay for Hitler to be a vegetarian?
This is exactly the kind of game Der Trihs doesn’t play. And, no, it’s not okay when you play it.
What did I do…school you guys in some long forgotten (by me) thread and you’ve never gotten over it?
In point of fact I don’t believe I’ve ever made it a practice to play gotcha word games or distort what my opponents have said in an effort to make it look like something else. This is something I’m rather proud of as it sets me apart and above most of my opponents who engage in that kind of behavior almost nonstop.
Further, you’ve never heard me claim that liberals are evil and that they deliberately seek to hurt, maim and kill people…such as DT does when it comes to anyone to the right of Stalin. Nor have you ever heard me state that I’d like to kill even one person, much less such vast numbers as are to be found in the U.S. military…such as DT has.
No, I’m afraid that when it comes to calling people names, lying about what they’ve said and various other forms of message board chicanery, I’m much more sinned against than sinning.
Besides, for a variety of reasons I’ve finally grown disenchanted with this place and have hardly been posting at all for a couple of years now. It’s interesting to see how long some people hold grudges.
