But insults and so forth are OK in the Pit. And instances of a Pitting backfiring on the Pitter are too numerous to require a cite. So thread hijacks, in some sense, although not quite SOP, are tolerated in the Pit.
[/QUOTE]
I would argue that pit backfiring is substantially different than what Martin did. He went into a thread about one politician and absolutley categorically made it about another politician. What he did was assholishness. Folks from both end of the spectrum have pointed this out. Mods have pointed this out. He’s sticking his fingers in his ears la-la-ing, but it doesnt’ make what he did less assholery.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
The charge of assholery is too tainted to be much of service, since most of those making the accusation are only doing so because Martin Hyde is a conservative (and a highly intelligent and articulate one).
[/QUOTE]
No, he’s not. He’s a mouthpiece who repeats talking point ad nauseum. You are an articulate conservative. Bricker is an articulate conservative. Martin is a mindless ditto-head.
As for the back-pitting comparison, wring nailed it.
Guys, you know what’s funny? All the mainstream candidates are bought and paid for by the same interests. They are all working for the same goals. It’s like saying that Hitler and Goebbels are totally different and one is a good guy while the other is bad. What a joke!
[QUOTE=Oregon sunshine]
Guys, you know what’s funny? All the mainstream candidates are bought and paid for by the same interests. They are all working for the same goals. It’s like saying that Hitler and Goebbels are totally different and one is a good guy while the other is bad. What a joke!
[/QUOTE]
You know what else is funny? How predictable you are. Link. You’re like a half-trick pony.
I’m not surprised you feel that I am repetitive. I generally offer the same information because I believe that it is a viewpoint that is often overlooked in many discussions. In fact, it is. Most people are so snowed by the media that they neglect to think about the systems in which they are embedded. Yes, it is my opinion that all mainstream candidates are pawns of corporate interests, and it really doesn’t take much digging to see the truth in that. I’m sincerely sorry that you found this so irritating that you had to insult me. Have a good day. Peace,
Oregon sunshine
[QUOTE=Oregon sunshine]
I’m not surprised you feel that I am repetitive. I generally offer the same information because I believe that it is a viewpoint that is often overlooked in many discussions. In fact, it is. Most people are so snowed by the media that they neglect to think about the systems in which they are embedded. Yes, it is my opinion that all mainstream candidates are pawns of corporate interests, and it really doesn’t take much digging to see the truth in that. I’m sincerely sorry that you found this so irritating that you had to insult me. Have a good day. Peace,
Oregon sunshine
[/QUOTE]
No, what is irritating is that you drop the opinion without ever defending it. In a thread about hijacks, I hesitate to have that discussion here. But if you are actually prepared to discuss your opinion this time, I’d love to do so in a different thread.
Okay, I’m sincerely sorry that you found this so irritating that you had to insult me. Hopefully, you’re having a nicer life than it appears.
Peace,
Oregon sunshine
[QUOTE=Oregon sunshine]
Guys, you know what’s funny? All the mainstream candidates are bought and paid for by the same interests. They are all working for the same goals. It’s like saying that Hitler and Goebbels are totally different and one is a good guy while the other is bad. What a joke!
[/QUOTE]
So what? We had two corporate-friendly candidates in 2000; it still made a whopping big difference which one we picked.
No, I didn’t say that. I am merely pointing out that the outrage over Martin Hyde hijacking an anti-McCain thread does not seem to match the outrage over an attempt to hijack an anti-Obama thread. The reasons for that can be left as an exercise to the reader.
Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]
I think the outrage is more that MH is willing to call Shayna an intellectual coward while he avoids debating and defending the subject he seemed so concerned with in her thread. That’s his prerogative of course but it sure looks pretty lame.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Besides, the assholery of bringing up someone’s personal life to make attacks because you don’t like his politics is far more assholish than a hijack. And, with some honorable exceptions, I don’t see much condemnation of it.
[/quote]
I agree that was completely fucked up and I didn’t participate in it. It was pretty nasty and exemplifies a dynamic that I don’t like about this board. That goes to the “two wrongs don’t make a right” point of the thread. Martin Hyde hijacked Shayna’s thread because he has a personal problem with her. Maybe if people just didn’t do that, even in the Pit, this would be a less obnoxious place at times.
You can violate the rules without getting a warning. The hijack caused the thread to be closed. You might consider that an ideological victory; it comes off as assholish ad hominem. Just like the harpooning of Martin Hyde in this thread-- although that was closer to on topic than Hyde’s digression in Shayna’s thread, which was literally completely unrelated and purely personally motivated.
Then why do they close hijacked threads? If it’s totally OK to do it?
Can you link the thread in question, so I can tell if it’s remotely similar? I have no idea which thread you mean. Merely mentioning Obama in a McCain thread or vice versa is not the same as what Martin Hyde did, which was ruin the thread for everyone. I wonder if you’d be in a Pit thread if the roles were reversed and the hijacker were an Obama support ruining one of your threads.
[QUOTE=Oregon sunshine]
Okay, I’m sincerely sorry that you found this so irritating that you had to insult me. Hopefully, you’re having a nicer life than it appears.
Peace,
Oregon sunshine
[/QUOTE]
Oregon Sunshine, I hope you’ll choose not to respond to this post, and instead will consider why you’re being so passive aggressive, and whether it’s intellectually or ethically honest to behave in such a manner, and whether such passive aggressive posting really furthers your goals in life either for yourself or for the world at large.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Besides, the assholery of bringing up someone’s personal life to make attacks because you don’t like his politics is far more assholish than a hijack.
[/QUOTE]
You’re aware that this whole thing started when a thread about John McCain’s stand on aid to fund contraceptives in Africa became about which church Barack Obama attends, right?
[QUOTE=Robot Arm]
You’re aware that this whole thing started when a thread about John McCain’s stand on aid to fund contraceptives in Africa became about which church Barack Obama attends, right?
[/QUOTE]
Nitpick: Actually, the thread was about McCain’s apparent confusion WRT his stand on aid to fund contraceptives in Africa.
[QUOTE=Rubystreak]
You can violate the rules without getting a warning.
[/quote]
Too metaphysical for me.
I guess there we will have to disagree. I would say exactly the opposite - attacks on Martin Hyde’s personal life are the parts that are completely unrelated and personally motivated. And more assholish than hijacking a political thread about one politician to be about another.
And then came the personal attacks, which were much more assholish than a hijack, as I mentioned.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
I would say exactly the opposite - attacks on Martin Hyde’s personal life are the parts that are completely unrelated and personally motivated. And more assholish than hijacking a political thread about one politician to be about another. And then came the personal attacks, which were much more assholish than a hijack, as I mentioned.
[/QUOTE]
I might have missed it, but I didn’t see any “attacks” on his personal life. What I did see were past posts of his being resurrected for reasons that I’m not convinced are related to the discussion at hand. While I don’t find them warranted here, I would happily post them myself, along with links to studies of homophobia, in any thread in which he is in any way negative towards homosexuals. Our posting history is available, and I think it’s a perfectly valid tool to use in a debate, but in this particular case I don’t see the connection.
The fact that it didn’t have any connection, and was done, not to further a debate but merely to try to hurt Martin Hyde to the extent one can on a message board, made it worse than his hijack. It was an ad hominem as well as an instance of the genetic fallacy, as well as a personal attack, and it had nothing to do with the debate, such as it was.
Thus it was, in my view, much worse than an attempt to hijack the discussion of one politician’s alleged shortcomings to a discussion of his opponent’s alleged shortcomings.
IOW, ‘you are a repressed faggot’ suits a discussion of either McCain or Obama even less than it does a discussion of homophobia.
I suspect we are not disagreeing. And FWIW I believe the mods agree that once something is posted, it never goes away. And some ass holes will always bring it up if they think they can get a rise out of you.
