Yeah, but they tolerate someone who supported, argued in favor of and tried to obfuscate the act of child rape. So there’s a lot of latitude.
Of course I’m referring to Caesario.
Yeah, but they tolerate someone who supported, argued in favor of and tried to obfuscate the act of child rape. So there’s a lot of latitude.
Of course I’m referring to Caesario.
I just want to say that I find it suspicious that he knows so much about Guin at all. It’s strange when I see a poster know so much about other posters and what they’ve posted before they got here. It’s not impossible to have been so obsessed that you looked up everything about them, but it would be a lot simpler if they knew about the person from before.
Not that I’m against once again trying to say that attacking people for their mental illness should not be allowed. Just that there may be more to this particular instance.
I do note the irony of the guy being upset about bigotry towards black people but engaging in it himself. That sort of inconsistency actually does make me think he might be being inauthentic.
“Post hoc”? Do you know what that means? What kind of outrage should we claim, pre hoc? C’mon.
Fuck yes.
Absogoddamnlutely.
Yes!
I am sure that Huey will think the only reason I’m attacking him is because I’m white and he’s not. He’s entitled to that belief. But that ain’t the case.
Moderation here needs to emphasize the idea: does putting up with this flavor of nastiness make for a better board? If it doesn’t, don’t put up with it any more. Huey’s nastiness is just one small component of the overall nastiness I keep inveighing against.
It’s a phrase that might be more prevalent in America than New Zealand. I don’t know. I consider it an idiom more than a cliche.
Cite:
Cite, emphasis added:
Related discussion: https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-390352.html
Point taken, but such a rule opens the board up to waves of trolls; I think it inadvisable.
Also and separately, I think it’s fair to inquire about a poster’s ethnic background when they imply they are of one race or another. The poster should be free not to respond however. I once asked Omg a Black Conservative what race someone walking down the street would assign him to and he declined to specify - which I thought was totally within his rights.
I don’t see these as the same issue. It is common to claim someone is not who they claim to be. There’s a purpose and meaning behind the statement. We don’t know that anyone on this board is who they claim to be, and if they post in a manner that contradicts who they claim to be, it makes sense to point that out.
There is, however, no reason to attack someone’s children or attack someone for their mental illness, just as there is no reason to attack someone for being black, female, gay, etc. There is no valid reason there: it’s just bigotry.
I get that it hurts to be told you aren’t who you actually are, but I don’t think this is about comparing how hurtful comments are. It’s about comments that serve no purpose but to use bigotry to attack others. Telling someone you suspect they aren’t actually black is at least something that can be true, while telling someone they are horrible because of their minority status is just bigotry.
I say this primarily because I’m concerned the mods may find a good reason to allow saying “you’re not black” (as in, you’re not who you say you are). So, if they agree with you, that means that they can’t ban “you’re pathetic because you are mentally ill [or black, etc.].” So I’m arguing they are different issues that people might come to different conclusions towards.
I personally will take the “it hurts really bad to be told you’re not really [race or ethnicity]” under advisement.
Just out of curiosity Hubert, how was asking rhetorically if you Hubert, or a wife beater is any kind of attack on your wife? Do you think abused wives are somehow to blame for what their abusers do? It would certainly fit in with your other horribly misogynistic, anti-women screeds.
I don’t see a grade assigned to the post(s). Maybe you’re confusing a forum rule with a grammatical error? Is the act of capitalizing a name that doesn’t require capitalization considered to be a grammatical error, or simply sour grapes?
That would make sense if Guin hadn’t told him exactly what she meant.
You could argue he was just so enraged he couldn’t see reason. But he sure seems to be able to switch from being enraged in the Pit to trying to seem reasonable and calm here in ATMB.
This comes off more as an excuse than legitimately not understanding what she meant. He had to have built up that knowledge about Guin before that post, after all.
I also note the different reactions to people having a problem with what he said in the Pit (accusing them of racism) and his reactions here in ATMB.
…what rule did you think I was proposing? I’m not proposing a rule change. I’m suggesting its time for a broader discussion on what we want the BBQ Pit to be.
A rule that prohibits “mocking someone for problems with their mental health” doesn’t stop people “pretending that they have a problem with their mental health”. Trolls are gonna troll and a rule change won’t make much of a difference.
Fascinating questions, to be sure, and more than worthy of their own thread. Best of luck!
Could you do me a favor? Because, I am neither Miss Cleo or Jean Grey, and I need your help in reading people’s minds. You claim in thispost that Guinastasia is “correct[ing] her post to indicate that she was using a cliche of a loaded question”. Could you point specifically where she is indicating that this is a “loaded question”?
You claim that Guinastasia inthis postis correcting her use of a rhetorical device. Pretend that I am a kindergartner and explain to me where exactly in thispostdid she point out that this was a rhetorical device? Please show in that post where she is “demonstrating the loaded fallacy question”.
Could you do me another favor? Because I am neither Chrono from *Chrono Trigger or Cable from X-men, can you please point out whether the above posts are written before or after the offending post? From my vantage point, the post quoted by the OP is #769. The posts implying that she is using a fallacy is #776 and #881. Explain to me, real slow-like, how I am supposed to back in time and realize that she meant to use a rhetorical device rather than an insult given the fact that she provided the clarification after *I had responded to her post?
Are you kidding me? Is this a joke? The question isn’t just an attack on my wife, it’s an attack on our marriage and my integrity.
Aaaaand, with this, I’m done. This is the shit I’m talking about and the reason I don’t even bother posting out of the Pit. Debating and discussion is pointless. It really doesn’t matter what the fuck I say because everyone has their mind made up. How the hell you gonna tell me that I didn’t see it as an insult? Are you Jean Grey or some shit? How the hell you gonna tell me what I feel? Where I come from, we don’t go around asking shit like “When is the last time you beat your wife”. Shit, I live in the whitest State, went to the whitest college, and have nearly all white colleagues at work and rhetorical questions about wife beating never came up. It is infuriating that every fucking time I write something, I’m taken as a liar, a schemer, and a hustler. And, ask yourself: why would I lie about something so stupid? I’m pretty simply in regards to how I interact with people in the Pit. With the exception of one poster (paranoid android or something like that), I don’t come after people unless they come after me. Period. I use Sunny Daze as an example because Sunny Daze started an entire thread about terrible I am, but I never, *ever *insulted or attacked her because (drumroll) she never insulted me or my wife.
…Its common for black people, people of colour, indigenous people to be called fake online. I’m pretty sure that it isn’t just me and Huey. We have different histories, we have different life experiences, so we often speak in a manner that contradicts **your **life experiences so you think we are making it all up.
Yeah there is a reason to attack someone for their mental illness or their children: its to hurt them. People say hurtful things all the time in the pit. It makes sense that people will respond by saying hurtful things as well. I think we all agree that Huey’s calibration is off. But there isn’t any great mystery as to why he said what he did.
I’ve only ever said one thing in the pit that I’ve regretted. I had figured out someone’s pressure point and I went after it. My post was relatively innocuous to the casual reader, but I knew that it hurt. I apologized a day later. That person didn’t see my apology and about a year later exploded at me in the pit in a manner I had never seen before from them. It was hurtful. But I deserved it.
Well I don’t think you get it at all to be honest.
“Telling someone they aren’t actually black” is also a useful way to attack a person of colour while hiding behind the cloak of “just asking questions.”
I think your fears are unwarranted. I’m not proposing a ban. The mods are extremely conservative on changing the rules here. But I don’t think they are different issues at all.
You keep saying it’s an attack on your wife, even though she pointed out, after the initial post but before these posts you are making now, that page using that very example. Twice. Maybe your didn’t recognize that rhetorical device at the time, but you say you do now- and yet, you keep calling it an attack on your wife (why, is she the type of woman who gets beat? If you see it as an attack on YOU that makes sense. But I don’t understand how it attacks your wife.)
No, she attempted to clarify hereand here after I had already made mypost attacking her mental illness. I am not psychic nor can I move back and forth through time.
Are those before or after your posts IN THIS THREAD calling it an attack on your wife?
The point is, now you say you recognize as a rhetorical device, while simultaneously still saying it is an attack.
It’s self evident. It’s a common expression. Like, super common. It is the example of the loaded question fallacy. Maybe you didn’t know it then, but hey, now you do, right?
So…it’s all a mistake, right? You were unfamiliar with the cliche (and MfM, an idiom can be a cliche) about “Have you stopped beating your wife”, right? and you responded by attacking her mental illness and mocking her singlehood, because you thought she was calling you an abuser, right?
On another messageboard, I got a reputation for saying “cite, motherfucker?” I’m not sure I ever said exactly that, but the shoe basically fit.
Imagine you saw me ask someone, “Cite, motherfucker?” and the person started GOING THE FUCK OFF because they thought I was literally accusing them of having raped their mom.
What would you think they should do once someone explained that “motherfucker” was an idiom, not to be taken literally?
That’s lovely and all, but people shouldn’t need to explain insults when the target of a pitting. I could quote a few mods who’ve posted at me but this isn’t the Pit.
And dude, I already linked both of those posts IN THIS THREAD.
It’s not an attack on the wife to imply that the husband is abusive. Unless you believe that it’s her fault in some way, or that being a victim is insulting, somehow.