Let me be real clear: this message board does NOT need conservatives

[GIGObuster]

@asahi

Oh I still thought a lot of their posts were/are ridiculous, but they occasionally demonstrated the capacity to discuss something on the level.

By what I have seen, I’m not impressed about the level they reached.

[thorny_locust]

@ZosterSandstorm

I expect people who are not coming into the thread to argue for a partisan position to see things like reading an accusation of antivax from the phrase “you are becoming insulted on the behalf of dishonest anti vaxxers” as the most plausible reason for those words being posted in that order, as opposed to the insistence that this means something else (what else? why use this example if so?) If GIGOBuster had to simply say what he meant, we wouldn’t be going down these paths of technical possible readings of these kinds of posts - but it’s by design

That might have made some sense if you’d addressed only this specific post (but then, if you had, I doubt GIGObuster would ever have made it).

You’re ignoring the fact that you drastically misinterpreted multiple other posts by GIGObuster that were clearly saying nothing of the sort. You’re also ignoring the fact that you claimed 20% of their posts are totally incomprehensible and all the rest are unclear; and you’re responding to my statement that that’s nonsense as if you yourself had said something else entirely.

If anybody’s producing deliberately misleading word salad here, it’s you.

[BigT]

@ZosterSandstorm

@thorny_locust

This is also utter nonsense. Do you seriously expect it to convince anybody?

I expect people who are not coming into the thread to argue for a partisan position to see things like reading an accusation of antivax from the phrase “you are becoming insulted on the behalf of dishonest anti vaxxers” as the most plausible reason for those words being posted in that order, as opposed to the insistence that this means something else (what else? why use this example if so?) If GIGOBuster had to simply say what he meant, we wouldn’t be going down these paths of technical possible readings of these kinds of posts - but it’s by design.

Okay, now I really have to ask this: Are you not a native English speaker? Because those words, in that order, do not in any way call you an anti-vaxxer. They say you are getting offended on the behalf of “dishonest anti-vaxxers.”

If someone told me “you are insulted on the behalf of thieves and con men”, they would not be calling me a con man or thief. They would be telling me that the people I am defending are con men and thieves, and that I should not be insulted on their behalf.

I would go so far as to say that it is most likely that the reason GIGO worded it what way was to avoid calling you an anti-vaxxer.

[ZosterSandstorm]

@BigT

If someone told me “you are insulted on the behalf of thieves and con men”, they would not be calling me a con man or thief.

Sure.

[thorny_locust]

They probably wouldn’t be. Your interpretation in this case is more of a stretch than BigT’s; it’s just that it’s the first such case you’ve brought up in which the language can be bent around to see how you could get there. In all the other cases, there’s no excuse at all.

[DemonTree]

@BigT

You have just lied about something I said. I never at any point “declared that harm to women [is] irrelevant in [my] calculations.” In fact, you accuse me of such, and I pointed out that was wrong. The issue is that trans women are not a threat to cisgender women, which I proved. I don’t accept the “fear of others” as an excuse to discriminate. Your argument that there is harm was and remains bigoted.

Stop lying. You haven’t come a quintilian of an iota of a percent towards proving anything of the sort. You’ve simply declared it to be true because you want it to be true, and declared anyone who disagrees with you a bigot. You’ve shown that harm to women (of any kind, not just physical harm) doesn’t matter to you by completely ignoring it in your calculations. It’s just not even a factor for you to bother considering.

And now I’m angry again, and I hate being angry. Why are you so wilfully blind?

@BigT

You have just argued that sexism, racism, etc are perfectly fine, a position I know you do not hold. You say that discriminating against innate characteristics isn’t wrong. So we can not hire women or black people, right? No that’s racism.

No I haven’t. I’ve argued that discriminating in certain cases is not wrong, when there’s a good reason for it, and that this is something we already do in the case of sex. For example in sports, we have separate categories for men and women because men have a huge natural advantage and would otherwise dominate almost every sport. And we have separate prisons for men and women because otherwise the minority of women in prison would be at very great risk of abuse.

Is it okay to purposely hire women or black people? Maybe in some circumstances, as affirmative action. (I’m not a big fan, but in some cases I think it’s justified.)

@BigT

You have indicated in this very post that you think that I’m sexist, and that this is wrong. But, then, if discrimination is okay, then that accusation makes no sense.

See above that I don’t think discrimination is okay in general. I don’t know if you’re sexist - probably unconsciously.

@BigT

But here’s the thing: women’s spaces are not discrimination because agreement was achieved on both sides. Both men and women decided it was better to stay separate.

That’s news to me. When were we consulted?

@BigT

Because there’s no reason whatsover for a woman to think she’s more at threat from a man in the restroom/lockerroom than a woman. Women can be predators, too, but often get written off. And, of course, men can pray on other men.

…we really do live in different worlds. @BigT, when I’m afraid to walk alone at night, or ride my bike along the isolated canal path, it’s not because I’m afraid of women. Not once has that been something I’m worried about. My own partner couldn’t understand why we had to go home the long way round to walk a female friend home after an evening out at the pub. Men just don’t seem to get it. You don’t have to live your whole fucking life thinking about this stuff. Go look up some statistics on what percentage of sexual and violent crimes are committed by men and then tell me there’s ‘no reason whatsover’ to think men are more of a threat.

[BigT]

@ZosterSandstorm

@BigT

If someone told me “you are insulted on the behalf of thieves and con men”, they would not be calling me a con man or thief.

Sure.

It really doesn’t. Not without further context.

Can I conclude then that you are in fact a native English speaker? Because, if you weren’t, a lot of your conclusion jumping in many threads would make a lot more sense.

[octopus]

I know it’s the pit and all but with regards to Gigo’s english I think it’s fine. Is it, perhaps, unclear on occasion? I’m sure it is. But I’m guilty of that myself.

[GIGObuster]

[Looks around to check if the end of times is coming…]

[DemonTree]

@thorny_locust

I’m curious. What did you think I was going to talk about?

What we were talking about before. Tolerating other people’s viewpoints, or not, in various cases.

@thorny_locust

And, as GIGObuster just said, it wasn’t off topic for the thread. It was only off topic for your specific post.

I thought it was off topic and reported it as such, and got the ‘we agree there is a problem’ response. (I hope it’s okay to say that here.) I don’t see how it could be on topic when as far as I know we have no anti-vaxxers on the boards.

@thorny_locust

I don’t think either a refusal to engage further with you, or a desire not to possibly spend most of one’s day or month working up an answer to a complicated subject, necessarily requires bad faith.

What was this about exactly? I got lost.

[asahi]

This is absolute bullshit; you’re just using the fact that he’s not a native speaker to discredit him.

[DemonTree]

@ZosterSandstorm

If a thread isn’t going the way that the leftist clique wants, you can be sure GibberishSpewer will show up to bury it in several consecutive posts of garbage so that either people get too frustrated to continue or someone snaps at him and provides a pretext for a mod to close the discussion.

Why don’t you just put him on Ignore if he bothers you that much?

[thorny_locust]

@DemonTree

@thorny_locust

I don’t think either a refusal to engage further with you, or a desire not to possibly spend most of one’s day or month working up an answer to a complicated subject, necessarily requires bad faith.

What was this about exactly? I got lost.

That part wasn’t addressed to you; it’s to iiandyiiii, and the post it’s replying to is quoted in the thread in which I said that.

Not surprising if you got a bit lost in that long post, though.

[GIGObuster]

@DemonTree

I thought it was off topic and reported it as such, and got the ‘we agree there is a problem’ response. (I hope it’s okay to say that here.)

Seems to me that it is ok because that is a standard reply (one time when I worked in an IT call center, we called them “the canned answers”, there were the quick cut-and-paste replies in our IT menus), I get those like you too when I send a flag to the mods, sometimes they explain later why they don’t react as much as one would want to.

[MrDibble]

@DemonTree

Stop lying.

Why don’t you stop first, Little Miss “3 trans in that gender thread”…

[Sam_Stone]

I don’t have time right now to answer all the comments and mentions directed at me, but this might be a good time to say:

1. I think everyone in this thread is capable and willing to have decent, fact-based discussions on certain subjects. I certainly have had entertaining and informative discussions even with people here like iiandyii and MrDibble, even though they tend to be my chief antagonists. I don’t hold it against them, and have said many times fhat if we met in real life I’d be happg to buy them a beer and I’ll bet we would get along fine - so long as we avoided talking politics.

2. I’ve never had any trouble understanding Gigobuster’s English, and I wouldn’t have guessed that English was a second language for him. Rather, I think the problem in general, and not just with Gogobuster, is that we often talk past each other or refuse to put in the effort to really understand what a person is saying when there is an easier ‘gotcha’ to be had. And I think a lot of people do this on the board and elsewhere. Sometimes it’s intentional, and sometimes it’s just different patterns of thought conflicting.

3. Related to #2, we make a lot of ‘category’ errors because we start with different priors that the other side doesn’t understand. A category error is one in which we assume a motivation not in evidence based in our prior understanding or context which the other person doesn’t share.

This I think this is especially bad for young progressives, who are now going through a series of nearly monocultural institutions and coming out the other side with one point of view and without ever having to confront other points of view that disgree with them. They graduate college absolutely sure they are right, while only having heard one side of the argument or only hearing the other siee in the context of a critical ‘debunking’ of the weakest of points the opposition holds.

This is why it’s critical to maintain conservative voices. The SDMB gives you something you may never have heard before if you don’t read serious right-wing literature - an unfiltered opportunity to hear what people on the right actually think. But the temptation is always there to read what they have to say in the most uncharitable way, or to scan what they say looking for ‘gotchas’, or to ignore their strongest arguments in favor of their weakest.

Unfortunately, that seems to be increasingly standard as even the people on the right here eventually succumb to the same kind of ‘win at all costs’ attitude which replaces thoughtfulness with partisanship and honest opinions with sophistry.

If you start reading someone’s post with the intention of destroying it before you’ve even read what was said, your mind is closed, If you ignore most of what someone says because you found a juicy little logic error in a side point or other easy attack and focused on that instead of truly trying to understand and resppnd to what they mean in a charitable way, you are acting as a partisan, not a debate participant.

I think this happens on all sides. I think it’s happening in this thread.

[drad_dog]

@Sam_Stone

an unfiltered opportunity to hear what people on the right actually think.

That Social justice is the end of the world?

There have been a lot of right wingers here. Did they add insight?

They just use “woke”, “SJW” etc. as ad hominems to end discussion, so no issue is ever, ever really addressed by righties here. Ever. They think this is asserting dominance. They aren’t doing shit.

[drad_dog]

@Sam_Stone

monocultural institutions

What is a monocultural institution?

The Senate? Not yet but it seems that way sometimes. The Republican party? Getting warm.

[asahi]

And Gigobuster gets shit for not communicating clearly?! Sorry, Sam generally communicates clearly - not trying to insult him. As was said earlier, most of us have dopey posts that aren’t clear once in a while. Has nothing to do with English proficiency. I’ve never had a problem understanding Gigo’s posts.

[drad_dog]

@Sam_Stone

This I think this is especially bad for young progressives, who are now going through a series of nearly monocultural institutions and coming out the other side with one point of view and without ever having to confront other points of view that disgree with them. They graduate college absolutely sure they are right, while only having heard one side of the argument or only hearing the other siee in the context of a critical ‘debunking’ of the weakest of points the opposition holds.

This totalizing speech about higher education is so generalized as to take leave of all common sense.

I get it. Education is a threat to fascism.

It’s really wild how rebuplicans know what is happening on all college campuses, and they know that everyone is all the same and lives in a propaganda based reality. Sweet Jesus.