Also Germany, England, the United States, Norway, and every other country you care to mention.
Hey everyone! Octopus writes by spelling words out using letters! You know who ELSE did that?
Meanwhile, you are not hypocritical because you approve of both Capitalism and slave labor?
No, I don’t think people who disdain fundamental freedoms such as freedom of expression actually are that comfortable with the Western notion of freedom of expression. Now having working toilets might be an acceptable trade off.
I don’t approve of slave labor. But nor do I pretend that I’m virtuous and generous by advocating silly policy such as minimum wage in the US and then concurrently finding every way possible to mitigate the personal costs to myself by looking for the lowest possible price on every consumer good.
Hmm, must be some other slimy type that was standing up for some orange authoritarian populist a while back.
Saving this for the 2021 Highlights Reel.
It’s amazing that you pivot from describing what I said as “how much [you] hate rape victims” to
implying that you disdain them, and think that nobody is going to notice.
No, you pompous self-righteous dillweed, I didn’t ever say you hated rape victims. But your disdain for them shines through loud and clear. Rape is their “pet topic,” and they’re “easily offended” if they don’t want to see funsie rape debates. That’s real fuckin disdain, and I don’t care how many times you were, what did you say, involved in rape counselling?
Your constant proclamations of how high-minded you are are exactly the sort of proclamations that high-minded people never have to make. You’re so wrapped up in your idea that you’re beyond reproach that you’re being a real prick.
Not that you’ll hear that, because, again, you’re convinced that you do no wrong.
I’ve respected you for years. No more.
Oh: it’s not that we don’t want to read. I read plenty of long, interesting posts here and elsewhere. I just want them to be interesting, not peak white dude douchebro self-aggrandizement.
But, obviously, that wouldn’t include the freedom to express yourself in the Pit, amIright?!
With a tendency to return to a subject after spending years stewing about it then making the same tired old arguments.
When you imply your insults to avoid moderation and so you can be super douchey and say “I never insulted you, I just implied it!”, you can’t act like it’s some great crime if someone interprets your intended insult as being slightly more severe than you had in mind.
You’re trying to draw a really thin line between “disdain” and “hate” and act like I’m being completely unreasonable by characterizing your deliberately unstated insult in that way. It is disingenuous and absurd.
None of what I said is in any way specific to rape. I do not believe that a place like GD should have restrictions on topics based on who it will offend based on their own personal trauma. Full stop.
I do not believe that the holocaust or other genocides should be off-limits, even if it’s upsetting the holocaust survivors or descendents of holocaust survivors.
I don’t think discussions of the morality of torture should be banned because there may have been victims of torture on the boards.
You can apply this same logic to thousands of issues that can relate to someone’s personal trauma. You’re acting as though I have some sort of specific antipathy for rape victims, and I think you know that’s false, and I think you’re lying by continuing to bark up that tree because it allows you to attempt to take the moral high ground.
Because without that, I’m the one who is advocating for open and honest discussion and you are the one who is advocating for censorship. You know that usually makes you the bad guy, so how do you not feel like the bad guy? By pretending that I’m acting out of some sort of evil intent, thereby giving you the moral high ground again. So you talked yourself on the idea that I must have disdain for rape victims.
None of anything I said was specific to rape victims. I do not believe that we should shut down all discussion based on who it may offend because it is an issue that relates to a personal trauma. This is a complete and consistent position, which you could understand if you weren’t so willfully motivated not to understand (and misrepresent it). Your entire premise about my motivations is completely wrong, and that is also completely clear from what I wrote.
Now, I admitted in the other thread, calling it a “pet issue” might have connotations that I was wrong about. That isn’t meant to be disparaging or to diminish it, only to indicate that it’s an issue that is important to them specifically, enough that they’re motivated to go out and try to censor discussion of it. That seems consistent with the usage of the language that I’ve experienced, but if I fucked that up, my bad. What I’m referring to is completely clear - because I make thorough posts that are comprehensive, which you dumb dumbs sneer at for being a wall of text, and then you go ahead and misrepresent me in a way that clearly is disingenuous and dishonest even though I was clear and comprehensive the position.
I would say that “easily offended” stands, more or less. Maybe, if you want to split hairs, I should say that they are not very motivated to avoid the things that offend them. It is reasonable to go to a place where you would not be reasonably expected to be exposed to potentially insensitive, hurtful, challenging, or otherwise difficult views and then they are injected to that conversation, then that’s something that they reasonably should not have expected, and therefore inappropriate.
But you should not go to a place that can have challenging discussions about sensitive issues, like GD, and then complain that the issue touches on your personal trauma and should therefore be shut down, when you have the option to simply not participate in that discussion. I would never demand that no one, anywhere, should ever be able to discuss things that were related to my traumas that I might find offensive or hurtful, and I think anyone who chooses to go to places with open discussion, seeks out material that they know may trigger their trauma, and then gets offended and tries to shut that discussion down are acting inappropriately and I don’t think “easily offended” is a wildly inaccurate description.
This attitude has a chilling effect on open discussion. It keeps people from being able to form full worldviews and understanding around difficult issues because the subjects become forbidden rather than something to explore. It also prevents people from having a chance to make a good case and steer someone to be a better person, or to have a more complete understanding. It’s bad for fighting ignorance, it’s bad for open communication and understanding, and it does not belong in GD.
If all of your “I respected you as a poster for years” stuff is true, would you consider that, given that I’m using the same philosophy and logic that I always have here, that perhaps you are the one that’s in the wrong?
You’d be wrong, I don’t think people should be censored in the pit. I think that the pit is counterproductive to forums like neutered debates and politics of the left.
Had to ruin your rant with racism? Sad!
Asshole, if that’s insults, then all your shit about “easily offended” was also insults, so you don’t have a leg to stand on. I was criticizing your incredibly shitty attitude, and that’s always been allowed. Don’t get precious on me.
This is more sophistry that’s fooling nobody but yourself (which is the main audience, so success!) The whole fuckin thread was about rape. Your “BUT I’M NOT TALKING ABOUT RAPE” is idiotic. If you decided to come in and talk about other issues and be shitty toward unnamed imaginary people objecting to other unnamed imaginary issues instead of talking about real people and real issues, that’s on you. The rest of us were talking about reality and gave you the benefit of the doubt that you were participating in the goddamned conversation.
“I fucked that up, my bad” is what you need to say, not buried in a dozen paragraphs talking about how great you are and how dare anyone question you, and definitely not buried in a conditional clause at the end of a self-justifying sentence.
“I fucked that up, my bad.”
Just fuckin say that and do better.
You are dishonest. Deliberately dishonest.
The only reason that you implied rather than outright stated your insults was so that you could play this cute little “I didn’t actually do anything that can be moderated, teehee!” bullshit game, but then you try to act like I did something beyond the pale when I explicitly stated the insult that you clearly intended.
Fuck you. You’re trying to use my willingness to examine everything I said and clarify on that issue as some sort of weakness, as some sort of admission of defeat. “Oh, he clarified his position, he didn’t just double down and say the same thing over and over again! That’s weakness! He loses!”
That’s the sort of way a fucking Trump supporter thinks.
I don’t actually believe that I was wrong to say it like I did. You’re so fucking hung up on two words instead of 2 paragraphs that explain what I actually meant that you are, again, willfully misrepresenting my position. I am not admitting that I was somehow wrong and reversing everything I said, I’m just saying what my intent was in using the term “pet issue”, but since it’s apparently, from googling, it’s a fairly rare term with an ambiguous definition, I made sure I spelled out exactly what I meant. You are dishonestly harping on using that phrase out of context with the rest of my explanation, by your own interpretation that is clearly out of line with what I said, in order to wield your misunderstanding as a weapon. And now when I said “okay, if I didn’t use the right word, here’s what I clearly meant” as a weapon to try to say “ohhhh I see! you’re admitting fault! you fucked up! you were wrong!”
Your behavior is incredibly douchey, dishonest, and anti-intellectual.
This is just fucking stupid.
I am against the censorship of topics in a forum dedicated to open discussion based on the idea that they can offend people based on their personal traumas. This is a universal and consistent point of view. The issue that brought this up just happened to be a thread about rape. But it could’ve easily been a thread about torture, about genocide, about murder, about pedophilia, about oppression or bigotry, or a hundred other things.
Random person 1: “Here’s a hypothetical situation in which I think genocide might be justifiable”
Random person 2: “Wow, that’s very offensive to me as a holocaust survivor, this topic should be banned”
SenorBeef: “I don’t think that any topics should be off-limits in Great Debates, there is merit in having places to discuss subjects even if they are sensitive and troubling. If this is something that bothers you, you should avoid the topic or the forum rather than ask that it be shut down”
LHOD: “Wow, SenorBeef hates holocaust survivors”
Random person 1: “Here’s a hypothetical situation in which I think torture could be justified”
Random person 2: “Someone I knew underwent torture under an authoritarian regime and this is very hurtful to me, this topic should be banned”
SenorBeef: “I don’t think that any topics should be off-limits in Great Debates, there is merit in having places to discuss subjects even if they are sensitive and troubling. If this is something that bothers you, you should avoid the topic or the forum rather than ask that it be shut down”
LHOD: “Wow, SenorBeef clearly has antipathy for victims of torture”
I am against banning topics from discussion based on people being offended because it relates to their personal trauma. I don’t know how such an easy, consistent, understandable statement is completely lost to you, except that, again, you are very motivated to try to take the high ground by lying about me somehow having antipathy for rape survivors because I don’t feel like ANY TOPIC, including rape, should be off-limits. To try to turn that into “senorbeef hates rape victims!” is pathetic and a lie, and you know it.
And just to add, if that really is what you are doing, holy shit, way to show disdain to sexual violence survivors. They’re trying to have a conversation about a specific thing that’s awful, and you’re like, “Naw, let’s change the topic to this general high-minded thing I want to talk about instead!” Fuck that, man.
You are ridiculous.
Absolutely. You don’t give a shit what people are talking about, or why. The thread could’ve just as easily been about anything, what the fuck does it matter to you? You have your hobbyhorse, and goddamned if you weren’t gonna ride it through the thread. But no, you have full respect for rape victims!
Pull the other one. You won’t even take a breath long enough to realize how disdainful you’re being.
Those things are all true. You have demonstrated dishonesty over and over again. First with the “teehee I didn’t actually insult you, I can’t be moderated thing. Oh wait, you took what I said to be an insult?! Well that’s on you!” bullshit.
Then you responded with “I used this phrase as I understand it, but since you’re harping on it so much and ignoring the several paragraphs of explanation about what it actually means, maybe I used the wrong words” with, more or less, “HAHHAHAHAA SO YOU ADMIT BEING WRONG!!! I GUESS YOU LOSE!!!”
Seizing on doing anything but doubling down as some sort of loss is exactly how a Trump supporter would think.
Maybe all of that “you think you’re right so you can’t even introspect to see if you’re wrong” stuff you’re saying I’m doing is actually projected, too, because you obviously are unwilling to stop saying things that are clearly not true about my motives and my words.
That said, I think you’ve shown yourself to be who you are, so feel free to have the last ten thousand words.
Can you really, honestly not comprehend the idea that someone feels as though there should be places where uncomfortable topics can be discussed but at the same time does not disdain victims of trauma? Is that really beyond your understanding?