I rather suspect that you’d be the one shocked if you understood how you were being perceived and judged here, namely, as a clueless asshole. I’ve been occasionally peeking into that ATMB thread you started and the cluelessness that you put on display there is so embarrassing for you that it’s actually a humourous form of dark entertainment.
You apparently cannot understand the basic principle of this community to “attack the post, not the poster”. The meaning can be expanded as follows: attack the argument being made in any way you want, but outside the Pit do not attack the character, honesty, or intelligence of the poster, and do not impugn motives to them. The post that Martin_Hyde made that you cited in your defense, for which he also got a warning, was relatively mild but a personal attack nevertheless. Your own post, however – the one you complained about in the OP – was far worse and way, way over the line in that respect. But you can’t seem to understand this, either because you’re a naturally obnoxious asshole, or because you’re just intransigent, or perhaps both.
You made a claim about what I said, not what I think. Either cite for that claim, or retract and apologize for it. Do that, and I’ll consider telling you what I think about Rittenhouse. But until you stop lying about me, which includes retracting and apologizing for your prior lies, I’m not going to play your little game.
I’m pretty sure I know how I’m percieved. That perception won’t change the fact that those on the left fundamentally misunderstand the nature of an attack - whether that’s the idea that a simple observation in a post is an attack, or legally carrying a weapon is an attack, or asking someone why they’re in a private place is an attack. It all ties in amazingly well, and pretty much proves my point.
The mods here can redefine words as much as they like for the purposes of running their forum, and can ultimately kick me out if they want. But those redefinitions won’t work in the real world.
I’m not retracting a claim that you said something that you yourself have quoted in this thread. You have said that Rittenhouse is a murderer. You have said Zimmerman is a murderer. Either you believe those things and are delusional, or you don’t and were lying. That you refuse to state what you believe either way now just shows that you know you are caught and either reply would destroy your credibility. Either I am not lying, or you are lying and I simply repeated your untruth.
So I can and will admit I was wrong about you if you’ll say they are not murderers - but I can’t and won’t say that I lied as you previously did say that. If you’ve changed your mind that would be good, but you’re not the sort to do that.
Oh, and that you think that things like truth, law, morality and basic rights are a game says a lot about you. It’s unfortunate you don’t take those things seriously, but I try to.
Then prove me wrong and say they’re not. You’re the one turning this into a game by refusing to say what you think.
You realise every time you call me a liar but refuse to correct me when I ask you show that you’re wrong? What you don’t say tells everybody as much as what you do say, and you know that you either have to admit you did lie or admit I didn’t - or just keep on with your silly posts that say nothing.
So, if I am a liar, prove me wrong by saying that you know that Rittenhouse and Zimmerman are not murderers - or admit that I told the truth and say that you believe they are. It’s really easy.
But if you say neither, I and everyone else will know that I’m the one telling the truth, because I’m the only one who shows the slightest concern for it or attempts to find out what it is.
From what I understand, Steophan assumes that iiandyiiii thinks that those people are murderers, and is trying to get iiandyiiii to explicitly say he thinks they aren’t, which iiandyiiii will not entertain until Steophan retracts the claims he has made. Claims which he hasn’t backed up with direct quotes.
Steophan says that iiandyiiii has provided the quotes himself in this thread, but when asked to show where, he won’t. To which anyone reading will obviously say, you are clearly lying. If those quotes really are here it would be the easiest thing to produce them.
It’s a bit frustrating for me. Steophan can at times seem reasonable and seems like someone you can debate; he seems intelligent and can concede a point now and then. Those are good qualities for a discussion board. But then he digs down and refuses a basic social compact you’ll find in many online discussion areas, where you don’t make negative ad hominem remarks in threads where civil discussion is expected. (Another site I’ve been at for many years as an administrator, Wikipedia, has the exact same rule called “no personal attacks” and it’s almost word-for-word what it is here, and I’ve enforced that rule many times there.) He also is fond of making accusations of people and then being evasive when asked to provide a quote for his claims.
My expectation is that he won’t be long for this discussion board, something for which he doesn’t seem to care about much.
If you want civil discussion about my deep thoughts, stop lying about me. You claimed I said Rittenhouse and Zimmerman are murderers. I did not. You refuse to provide a cite for your claims. Your claims about me are lies.
Stop lying about me. Retract your prior lies about me. Do that, and then maybe we can talk about something else.
My thoughts are very similar. I don’t know why he’s so married to these false and uncited claims about things I’ve said, both refusing to back them up and refusing to retract them. It’s weird.
I can’t retract anything when you won’t actually confirm or deny it. I mean, you said it earlier and quoted it here, but now refuse to stand by it for some reason.
If you think Zimmerman and Rittenhouse are murderers, I am correct, and so was not lying.
If you think they are not murderers, you were either lying earlier or you’ve changed you mind, in which case I can hardly be accused of lying simply by going by what you said.
I will say this - I retract nothing. In doing so, I retract all the lies I have ever told about you, as there are none. So, I have now done precisely what you asked, to the literal best of my ability or anyone elses, so now answer the question. Do you believe they are murderers?
The claims are cited, you yourself provided your own words in this thread. I’ve asked you repeatedly to clarify what you actually think - you may have been lying when you said they were murderers, or you may have changed your mind, but until you do so there’s not much I can do. You could simply answer the question and move on, but you are weirdly married to the idea that I’ve lied about you by accurately reporting your own words.
Nope. I know a bunch of loudmouths will say that, and that anyone who cares to look will see that he’s said that, and see through his pathetic attempts to deflect and refuse to state his position.
I’m not stupid. I know this is a hostile place to certain worldviews, but I also know it’s one that still for the most part tries to respect facts and honesty, and frowns on deflection and deception. He pretends that by refusing to explicitly repeat his views that it means I can’t say he holds them, and he refuses to prove I’m wrong by rejecting the views I ascribe to him. He shows contempt for truth and honesty to go with the contempt for law, morality and basic rights I called him out on, which lead to him reviving this thread.
All because he dislikes that a white man acted in self defence.
