Running to teacher like a 9 year old and trying to get me banned because you don’t like my politics? Not cool, dude. And Bees, your MEEEE TOOOOO was particularly sad and obsequious. I seem to have attracted a dedicated following of haters, and that’s fine. What I do isn’t popular, and I didn’t become an organizer and activist because I wanted to be loved. Out in meatspace, I am the regular recipient of death threats, and have to watch my back around the police. The machinations of petty Internet tough guys with tin stars pinned to their chests don’t much worry me. What does annoy me is when people claim I’m “trolling” because they don’t like my views, and then snitch to authority like a creepy little stukach in an effort to prevent me from expressing those views.
Here’s the definition of trolling from the rules posting atop this very forum: “By trolling, we mean posting of inflammatory comments solely to get a rise out of people. If we feel your primary goal as a poster is to make people mad, you’ll quickly find yourself on the road to banning. On the flip side, the fact that a poster consistently makes you mad doesn’t automatically make them a troll.”
Note the part that I’ve underlined. I’ve made no effort to hide my real identity, and it’s not hard to prove that I hold my politics and beliefs dearly, and live my entire life by them. The fact that you find my beliefs repugnant doesn’t make me a troll, just smarter and more decent than you.
I am a firm believer in Adlai Stevenson’s statement, “Freedom rings where opinions clash!” Your sneaky, underhanded, cowardly attempt to shut down my ability to express a divergent viewpoint which doesn’t get much play around here tells me all I need to know about your intellectual honesty. You’d rather eliminate dissent than face the prospect of having your comfortable personal bugaboos challenged.
*
“The attempt to silence a man is the greatest honour you can bestow on him. It means that you recognize his superiority to yourself.”* --** Joseph Sobran**
Smash, if you’ll shut your annoying trap for a second, I have something important I want to ask of fellow Dopers:
Do I only get half credit for this pitting in the Official SDMB Checklist of Things You Must Do Before You’re a Full Fledged Member? Is half credit too generous?
Or can Giraffe donate me full credit since he’s been Pitted several times already?
I think you, StS, are by and large a retard with completely predictable and asinine politics. If you are a troll, you have committed the greater sin by being a boring one. But your UUencode thread referenced above was completely unexceptionable and your were wrong to cashiered for it by Giraffe.
And yes, Bees’s routine MEEEE TOOO posts are epically lame.
I think this thread will cause many heads to explode. While many people may agree with Giraffe’s sentiment (put its merit aside for a moment), it did come across as unprovoked, out of line, and in the wrong forum. His followup explanation:
does seem to add a bit of context and where-he-was-coming from-ness, but just because it wasn’t a turrets-induced random turd doesn’t mean it wasn’t inappropriate.
The head-'sploding is because I suspect that many folks would rather just agree with him, but instead find themselves on your “side” (don’t read too much into the semantics). BOOM.
Bad Giraffe!
May I point out a bit that may be at the root of things? In your OP, you said:
You seem to be equating the animosity directed at you with your actions as an organizer and activist. This is not the case. The Dope is a left-leaning board, and there is probably tremendous support and appreciation for most of your overall goals.
However, while there is a likely minority on the board that does dislike you for that, I daresay the vast majority of the enmity is based on what you do here. Chiefly, casting unsubstantiated, generalized aspersions and vitriolically lashing out at those who do not completely subscribe to your point of view. Compounding this is the appearance that after years of squaring off against lunkheads, you seem to reflexively assert a rather sophomoric philosophy, then take umbrage when people challenge your rather oversimplified platitudes.
Yes, yes, we all know, SmashtheState, Danger is your middle name. But isn’t this a little whineyass for a big bad anarchist?
BTW, in regard to your general posting history, allow me to give you some advice. When you blow your own trumpet, as you constantly do, it’s best to use your mouth rather than your asshole.
You have confused anarchism with leftism. I am not a leftist, I’m an anti-authoritarian, and I have as much contempt for Bolsheviks as I do for Republikans, maybe more. I have no great love for liberalism, which has its basis in 19th century dogmatic materialism. The reason this board tilts liberal is because of the rampant Scientism. Science is the philosophy of empiricism; it cannot, by definition, make truth claims, since truth is a metaphysical quality. Those who promote science as a means of deriving truth are followers of the religion of Scientism, not scientists.
The Gautama Buddha described enlightenment as sitting before a wall and seeing just a wall. That is science. The slavish devotion I see in these parts for materialist conformity is not. But that’s a whole other discussion, and not one I’d have in the Pit.
My beliefs ARE simple. I don’t need a thousand exceptions and rationalizations for why this or that is okay even though it contadicts the principles involved. I believe that freedom is better than not having freedom, and that freedom is only attained by granting each person sovereignty over themselves. I believe that all human beings are born free and equal – though not the same – and that humanity’s institutions exist for the explicit purpose of not only removing this freedom and equality, but conditioning people to believe that freedom and equality are bad things. My philosophy is not sophomoric, it’s elementary. A child could – and does – understand my philosophy.
As to whether my approach is overly confrontational… well, that’s a matter of taste, I suppose. I’ve always been a fan of the dialectic. I suspect the reason you find me “vitriolic” is because you don’t see much difference between, say, socialist democrats and anarchists. You see me angrily attacking what you believe is practically my own belief and come to the conclusion that I’m just argumentative or trolling, when in fact I’ve been presented with a view I find morally abhorrent.
You’ll pardon me I’m sure if I say it looks to me like you don’t want me to be free at all. You want to take away…what?..my books, music, friends, happiness?
You lie awake nights furious that I might die before you can take away all my goodies and make me live the way you think I should? How is that a love of freedom?
You’re just another anarcho-loon, mad at the world because it doesn’t fit with your bizarro notion of justice and equality. People like you rarely accomplish anything (short of some crackpot act of violence, that is) because 99.99 percent of the population thinks you’re nuts.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a poster here claim that science can reveal “truth” (whatever that is). In fact, it seems to be a board cliche that posters are only too eager to jump into a thread and inform everybody that science cannot do that.
No it isn’t. It’s oh-so-terribly-fashionable Buddhist bullshit.
Well, I certainly think Giraffe was out of line, and off topic for the thread.
I also am somewhat curious about what happens when panhandlers go on strike, as they’re unionized and all. Further, how do you handle scab beggars?
Further, why are your in any way surprised by police harassment or death threats? Suck it down. It’s part of your chosen lifestyle. When I worked in AIDS treatment, I got bomb threats all the time. So what?
Finally, can you tell me what it means to see ‘just a wall’?
One day, I looked at a wall and saw a helpful note in yellow spray paint informing me that Mary Jenkins took it up the ass. I guess that would be applied science?
For what it’s worth, I have little doubt that StS is sincere in his beliefs. I haven’t thought he’s a troll, which implies a degree of insincerity; I do think his views are missing the point most often, but for earnest reasons. In short, banning him defeats the purpose of having such a message board. Or should we like to restrict the ability to post here to those who a.) believe what they promulgate, and b.) only promulgate that which everyone would find agreeable.
I think he’s largely a dipshit who’s deluded himself and take many occasions to be a martyr. But he does so genuinely. If for no other reason than to serve as a reminder that such people exist and need to be dealt with, I think we should keep him around. After all, every village needs one and it’s much nicer for all concerned when we have an obvious one to point to.
“A man who relies on re-hashed aperçus of dubious quality in place of cogent argument is not one to be taken seriously.” – Me, just now
ETA: not that Giraffe wasn’t out of order. But then he has eaten toilet food.
There is also an “anarchopedia” page on our very own SmashTheState. (His name is featured prominently in the Industrial Worker article he linked to above, and this anarchopedia article is the first google hit when searching his name.) A comparison of the quotes section in the anarchopedia article against what we’ve seen here should resolve any doubts whether these two, Mr. Nellis and Smash, are one and the same.
But the Gautama Giraffe described enlightenment as reading your posts and seeing just a troll. That’s not science, but it’s true anyway.
Yes, they are - they consist of “ME ME ME!! LOOK AT ME! LOOK HOW RADICAL AND COOL I AM!!!”
We did look at you, and we saw another of those poseurs screaming for attention from the authorities to replace the father figure who abandoned or ignored him in childhood. You’re not alone, but you’re also not very interesting.
Except to mock - to “fleer and scorn at your solemnities”, as Shakespeare almost wrote.
Assuming for the moment that you really are Andrew Nellis, then this shows that you are a troll IRL as well as here on the SDMB. Witness -
You are looking for attention by misbehavior there; you are looking for attention by misbehavior here. The difference is that here we can entertain ourselves by poking and laughing at you.
You can’t imagine how much satisfaction this gives me.
Because your philosophy is a failure. It always was and it always will be. You have no power, except to be a mild annoyance and a source of amusement for the undoubtedly brief span of your tenure here amid your betters.
And when I am lying on my deathbed, holding in my hand the hand of the woman I love and surrounded by the family that I have raised and supported all my life, I will smile. Confident in my eternal salvation, and with the moral satisfaction of having been right all along.
