And even if you don't think that Trump being sexist/racist/etc is an issue, you must be worried by the fact that he thinks Global Warming is a scam, that he's OK with nuclear weapons escalation, that he sees it fit to promote and negotiate business deals while preparing to become the President, that he doesn't bother to go to intelligence briefings, that he's close friends with Alex Jones, that he'll post things on twitter that are factually false (causing people to get harassment, death threats, company stocks to plummet, etc. for no good reason), etc.
grassini,
You unironically believe pizzagate? Really?
For those unaware, "pizzagate" is a conspiracy theory revolving around a supposed child sex ring at a Washington D.C. pizzeria. In leaked emails between Hillary Clinton and her staff were many references to "getting pizza". The minds at 4chan and Twitter presumed these emails were all a code and if they made certain substitutions, such as "cheese pizza" actually referring to "child pornography", a twisted picture emerged where it was apparent that Hillary Clinton's entire staff was implicated in a child prostitution ring. See this video for reference:
Link to video
I've stated the conspiracy. You make up your own mind whether American public discourse is in a healthy state.
Patashu wrote:
And even if you don't think that Trump being sexist/racist/etc is an issue, you must be worried by the fact that he thinks Global Warming is a scam, that he's OK with nuclear weapons escalation, that he sees it fit to promote and negotiate business deals while preparing to become the President, that he doesn't bother to go to intelligence briefings, that he's close friends with Alex Jones, that he'll post things on twitter that are factually false (causing people to get harassment, death threats, company stocks to plummet, etc. for no good reason), etc.
I strongly agree with this comment. We all should have reason to be concerned about Donald Trump's actions. This is not just preemptive hatred based on what we think his presidency will be like.
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4089
Location: The Netherlands
Bobo the King wrote:
Grassini entered this thread by characterizing posters as "lefty liberals". While I don't take umbrage with the phrase, he certainly meant it as an insult and it added nothing to the discussion. Since then, he posted a rage comic, a conspiratorial video, reference to an absurd conspiracy, and another comic.
I'm going to abide by my "don't feed the trolls" statement, but he is not raising the level of discourse in this thread.
You can criticize someone's discourse without calling them names. Just focus on the discourse, and ignore whatever isn't. If the discourse itself is worthless, then you can make that clear without going on about the poster.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
I don't think being a close friend with someone can be used as an evidence of an argument. For instance, Trump used to be a close friend with Clintons. It's rather ironic that the supporters of one side like to use being a friend with someone as a reason to attack the other side while ignoring the past friendship between Trumps and Clintons.
Pizzagate looks mostly like a hoax for me, but the owner of that restaurant does have some really strange (and sometimes disgusting)pictures on his Instagram account. Saying those pictures are the proof of the existence of a child sex ring is really far–fetched, but it's understandable that they look suspicious to some people. The thing I hate the most about this conspiracy is how they make it centered around Hillary when she is not really a part of the story(or connecting this to the spirit cooking thing, which is even more stupid since pedophile has nothing to do with spirit cooking), and this comes back to the point I made in the last paragraph.
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2821
Location: Northern California
Mothrayas wrote:
You can criticize someone's discourse without calling them names. Just focus on the discourse, and ignore whatever isn't. If the discourse itself is worthless, then you can make that clear without going on about the poster.
Dude, I know you're pro-Trump and all, but even you have to realize that grassini's the most aggressive personal attacker in the thread right now. Every single post he's made has been nothing but liberal-bashing provocation, and the fact that you're not even bothering to address him with this heavy-handed moderation shows your bias. If you're going to moderate this thread, do it fairly. Don't just pick on the side you disagree with.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 Currently unable to dedicate a lot of time to the site, taking care of family.
Now infrequently posting on BlueskywarmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Samsara wrote:
but even you have to realize that grassini's the most aggressive personal attacker in the thread right now
I just reviewed every post by grassini in this thread. While I find some of his words to be outrageous, I do not find him personally attacking anyone in this thread.
Samsara wrote:
If you're going to moderate this thread, do it fairly. Don't just pick on the side you disagree with.
I think you're looking too much for an affront just because you are disagreeing with someone. As Mothrayas said, please stick to debating the various points, not attacking people, moderators or otherwise.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 12/28/2013
Posts: 396
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
Not only grassini used memes satirizing other people's opinion, he also called them paranoiac and mentioned them twice in not very friendly ways. That sounds pretty personal. I don't want to make from this thread a mess of personal attacks, but it is very unpleasant that moderation ignored him, but warned against the use of the word 'troll'.
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2821
Location: Northern California
Nach wrote:
I think you're looking too much for an affront just because you are disagreeing with someone. As Mothrayas said, please stick to debating the various points, not attacking people, moderators or otherwise.
I've said nothing but "grassini is being more aggressive than anyone else", "I think Warp is intentionally provoking me" and "I think Mothrayas' moderation may be influenced by bias." I don't understand how any of these can be construed as personal attacks, especially when compared to everything grassini has said so far. All I'm saying is that if you're going to punish me for "personal attacks", you have to punish him in turn for those actual personal attacks. I don't exactly take kindly to being called paranoid, aggressive, and a hypocrite, and I really don't take kindly to him insinuating that the candidate I supported runs a child sex trafficking ring.
But over everything else, I don't take kindly to their actions being defended and mine being moderated. Like I said, if such heavy-handed moderation is going to be used, it has to be equally applied to both parties. Otherwise you may as well just re-name this thread to "The Trump Appreciation Safe Space and Meme Zone (No Paranoid Hypocrite Liberals Allowed)" so no one else mistakes this place for having fair moderation.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 Currently unable to dedicate a lot of time to the site, taking care of family.
Now infrequently posting on BlueskywarmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Not only grassini used memes satirizing other people's opinion, he also called them paranoiac and mentioned them twice in not very friendly ways. That sounds pretty personal. I don't want to make from this thread a mess of personal attacks, but it is very unpleasant that moderation ignored him, but warned against the use of the word 'troll'.
This is what I'm really astonished by. "Troll" isn't really much of an insult, it's a characterization of certain behavior and, yes, I think grassini is trolling. I suppose the definition has shifted a little bit so that under certain definitions it means being deliberately provocative specifically without actually holding the beliefs you espouse. What's even more ridiculous is that my statement was, do not engage him because it will be a waste of time. I wasn't trying to stoke any rage.
Anyway, back on topic, I wasn't sure if I should mention Trump in the first place because I come to TASVideos in part to escape politics. It would seem that most others feel approximately the same way because I don't think there's been much mention of the election. Having said that, the election is over and there's no great point in tiptoeing around the topic since the die has been cast. I don't think TASVideos was the right place to discuss the election before it happened, but now that it's over, one of my regrets looking back was that I wasn't vocal enough. I'm liberal, damn proud of it, an unchecked Trump presidency will be bad for everyone, and I want the right wing to know that I and my kind will not just roll over because we lost one election.
that he'll post things on twitter that are factually false (causing people to get harassment, death threats, company stocks to plummet, etc. for no good reason), etc.
if you think Trump is responsible for the events,then surely Doom is responsible for shootings in schools,right?Nice way to apply the 'inspiration is responsibility' logic.does Nirvana inspires rapes too?
If you think pizzagate is a sham,it's alright,nothing is proven anyway.
the comics though do reflect the situation the left created over the world and the thread itself is even more proof of the subject,the left is suffering from a delayed reaction to the intolerance to what they consider to be "intolerable" behavior,lefites here are also stirred up from a simple frontal confrontation,surprised the thread isn't just a constant circlejerking for Lawd Gawd Clinton.I pose absolutely no threat,have no contact to your personal lifes,,haven't got into name calling,can't persecute anyone into some kind of cyberbullying BUT YOU'RE STILL CONCERNED WITH SILENCING ME.
it really is like the comic suggests.
Link to video
"What I found out is the trolls are not necessarily the bad guys they are the only ones telling the truth."
I want all good TAS inside TASvideos, it's my motto.
TAS i'm interested:
Megaman series, specially the RPGs! Where is the mmbn1 all chips TAS we deserve? Where is the Command Mission TAS?
i'm slowly moving away from TASing fighting games for speed, maybe it's time to start finding some entertainment value in TASing.
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4089
Location: The Netherlands
grassini, you too, tone down the confrontational tone.
I know you're trying to make a point with it, but we've already had enough fixating on the opposing side's persons (from both sides) rather than proper arguments in this thread.
Pit topics against each other, not people.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
if you think Trump is responsible for the events,then surely Doom is responsible for shootings in schools,right?
It's not the same, is it? Trump knows that whoever he disses will get mobbed by his supporters, and he uses it on purpose as a weapon.
Also, no comment on the rest of my post?
Also, Milo is definitely a huge, attention seeking, transphobic asshole, so I wouldn't lend much credence to any opinion he has...
If I had to hazard a guess, I'm going to say that Trump will not be very good on the USA. He's an easily impressionable buffoon with no political experience and a VP who has openly stated his plan to model himself after Dick fucking Cheney. Like, dissent for Trump isn't solely based on the fact that he called someone on Twitter a pussy a few years ago. There are plenty of reasons to dislike Trump that have nothing to with his character (although they'd probably be a result of it, tbf).
And if you say Trump won because people wanted to "shut up dem SJWs" or whatever, I'd probably argue that it's going to be the opposite. "People are tired of being called bigots by the SJWs." Oh yeah, that'll shut them up, electing the guy they all hate with a passion. If anything, Trump's election only gave them fuel for four years, so really if you believe that Trump's election will wipe out or even moderately quash Cry Baby Libs, you'd be correct thinking the opposite. His election is also not a complete rejection of those ideals since Clinton won the popular vote.
Also, Milo is a troll who shouldn't be taken seriously. I can't even bother to be annoyed by him, he's just an insanely predictable contrarian pot stirrer, not something that should actually be given credibility. Hopefully people will stop giving him a platform.
YoungJ1997lol wrote:
Normally i would say Yes, but thennI thought "its not the same hack" so ill stick with meh.
Everyone should see how serious it is to have a president with this kind of ideology
Then perhaps the regressive left (which seems to be what the Democratic Party in the United States has pretty much devolved into) should learn their lesson, because they made Trump happen. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case.
To better understand the regressive left mindset, let me tell a little anecdote: On Facebook somebody posted a link to a (Finnish) newspaper article talking about the reasons why Trump became elected, and it was pretty much on the line that it's because the people have become tired of being constantly called racists etc. I wrote a reply to that post discussing that point in more detail, and I linked examples of what kind of hideous things the modern social justice ideology causes, such as the BBC engaging in racial discrimination (which is illegal in the UK, yet somehow they don't get punished for it), and psychological abuse of children.
A full-on social justice warrior responded to my comment. Can you guess what was the very first thing she did in that post? Did she have a rational discussion with me? Or did she perhaps strongly disagree with what I wrote? Did she maybe disbelieve or deny the veracity of those articles? Did she perhaps distance herself from that kind of extremism? Or, perhaps, did she even just outright agree with those things and support them?
No. None of that. The very first thing she wrote in her response to me was mockery.
And that's one of the key problems with the whole ideology. Social justice warriors have this strong iron-clad conviction that they have the moral high ground, and they will look down their noses to everybody who disagrees with them, and they will freely resort to mockery, insults and namecalling.
And that is, ultimately, why Trump happened. Mockery has never persuaded anybody. Insults have never persuaded anybody. Calling people names has never persuaded anybody. Why would anybody think it would? Why does the regressive left think that if they keep mocking people, insulting them, and accusing them of all kinds of heinous things, that they will become popular and win elections?
On the contrary, that's only going to drive people away, and that's exactly what happened. When people have been accused of all kinds of heinous things for years and years, when they are constantly being called racists, sexists, homophobes, nazis and "deplorables", and a candidate comes up who offers a better alternative, a candidate who actually listens to the people, who addresses their concerns and problems, rather than just looking down his nose at them and insulting them, that's who the people will choose.
I think Trump's victory is important not only because it was a slap in the face of the regressive left, but also, even more importantly, it was a slap in the face of the American press. The American press is almost farcically biased and partisan, to the most ridiculous extent. It was a harsh wakeup call to them that they do not, after all, control the people nor elect presidents.
Both the Democratic Party, and the American press, should learn from this. They should stop with their regressive leftist holier-than-thou looking-down-your-nose attitude, and start actually listening to the people. Else Trump will just be re-elected in four years. Not because most of his voters want to, but because the alternative is worse, and they are tired of being abused by the left.
(And for the record, to avoid any confusion, I do not sympathize in the least with the Republican Party. I think many of their most important policies are in direct opposition to my views, and I oppose them vehemently and find them reprehensible. It's just that the Democratic Party seems to have been invaded in recent years with an even worse cancer.)
Social justice warriors have this strong iron-clad conviction that they have the moral high ground, and they will look down their noses to everybody who disagrees with them, and they will freely resort to mockery, insults and namecalling.
And that is, ultimately, why Trump happened.
If people were that offended by mockery, insults, and name calling, they wouldn't have voted for a candidate who mocks a disabled reporter in front of a stadium of people, insults a war veteran for being captured and tortured, makes up nicknames for his political opponents, etc.
If people were that tired of social justice warrior political-correctness outrage, they wouldn't have voted for a right-wing SJW who sues Bill Maher over a joke, sues The Onion over a satire, and demands that the cast of Hamilton apologize for telling an elected official they hope he does the job that he was elected to do.
Using this as a rationale to vote for Donald Trump is so inherently hypocritical that I can't give it any more merit than it just being a convenient excuse.
Donald Trump won for a much simpler reason, and it certainly has nothing to do with his own merits(let's not forget that he has record-breaking unfavorability ratings and lost the popular vote by over two million votes). He won plainly because of the Democratic Party's and mainstream media's incompetence in thinking they could anoint an establishment insider who's a pathological liar, is in bed with Wall Street, supports disastrous trade deals like NAFTA and TPP, contradicts herself on policy stances constantly depending on whatever she deems politically expedient for her at the time, is a war hawk, has been involved in numerous scandals(a number of which are actually legitimate), has "a public policy and a private policy", etc. If the Democratic Party wanted to actually beat the most hated presidential candidate in US history, literally all they had to do was not put forward the most flawed candidate their party has ever seen.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Samsara wrote:
Nach wrote:
I think you're looking too much for an affront just because you are disagreeing with someone. As Mothrayas said, please stick to debating the various points, not attacking people, moderators or otherwise.
I've said nothing but "grassini is being more aggressive than anyone else"
I was not referring to you. Various people in the thread resorted to calling grassini names, and they should not.
Samsara wrote:
"I think Warp is intentionally provoking me" and "I think Mothrayas' moderation may be influenced by bias." I don't understand how any of these can be construed as personal attacks
I don't think those are personal attacks either. However complaining about Mothrayas' moderating when all he asked was people to not do name calling is uncalled for.
Samsara wrote:
especially when compared to everything grassini has said so far. All I'm saying is that if you're going to punish me for "personal attacks", you have to punish him in turn for those actual personal attacks.
I don't see a single post of his where he mentions so and so on TASVideos is such and such. You don't like what he's saying. I don't like what he's saying. So what? If you find yourself being attacked by what he's saying (but it cannot be personally, because he hasn't mentioned you by name in any of it), then you're intentionally deciding to place yourself within whatever ridiculous construct he's framing.
Samsara wrote:
I don't exactly take kindly to being called paranoid, aggressive, and a hypocrite
He has called *you* none of those things.
If you find remarks like "the hypocritical left..." to be personally referring to you, the problem is with you who are deciding to label yourself as whoever the "the hypocritical left" are. If you believe you are not a hypocritical person, then you cannot be part of "the hypocritical left".
Samsara wrote:
and I really don't take kindly to him insinuating that the candidate I supported runs a child sex trafficking ring.
That's a religious mindset, to find great offense in someone disliking what you like.
Instead of "not taking kindly" because you "supported", instead disprove so called trafficking ring.
Here, I'll do it for you: http://www.snopes.com/pizzagate-conspiracy/Samsara wrote:
But over everything else, I don't take kindly to their actions being defended and mine being moderated. Like I said, if such heavy-handed moderation is going to be used, it has to be equally applied to both parties.
I do not know why you find it heavy handed to ask people to be civil to one another. People should be civil to one another.
Samsara wrote:
Otherwise you may as well just re-name this thread to "The Trump Appreciation Safe Space and Meme Zone (No Paranoid Hypocrite Liberals Allowed)" so no one else mistakes this place for having fair moderation.
Please do not confuse not moderating ridiculous non-personal remarks with unfair moderation.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2821
Location: Northern California
Nach wrote:
I was not referring to you. Various people in the thread resorted to calling grassini names, and they should not.
You were quoting me and directly addressing that quote when you said that. It's a wee bit difficult for me not to assume that you were not referring to me.
That's not even the issue at hand, though.
Nach wrote:
I don't think those are personal attacks either. However complaining about Mothrayas' moderating when all he asked was people to not do name calling is uncalled for.
He asked me specifically to not do any name calling, despite me using a single inoffensive term while other people were more off-base with their remarks. That kind of biased behavior is precisely what's uncalled for. I don't mind being moderated, I know damn well what I do wrong and I'm willing to accept the consequences, but I do mind if I'm the only one being moderated in a situation where I'm not the only one who is in the wrong. This is not the first time this has happened in my time on this site. In fact, I would go as far as to say the number of times it's happened is approaching double digits by now.
Mothrayas has been far more impartial since my statements and the statements of others, so I have nothing to complain about anymore. I think his moderation is absolutely fine, now. Yours, on the other hand...
Nach wrote:
I don't see a single post of his where he mentions so and so on TASVideos is such and such. You don't like what he's saying. I don't like what he's saying. So what? If you find yourself being attacked by what he's saying (but it cannot be personally, because he hasn't mentioned you by name in any of it), then you're intentionally deciding to place yourself within whatever ridiculous construct he's framing.
Nach wrote:
He has called *you* none of those things.
If you find remarks like "the hypocritical left..." to be personally referring to you, the problem is with you who are deciding to label yourself as whoever the "the hypocritical left" are. If you believe you are not a hypocritical person, then you cannot be part of "the hypocritical left".
Okay, let's try this on for size: I think the administration of this site is awful.
Oh, no, you can't be offended by that statement, because I didn't call YOU awful. I just called the administration of this site awful. If you're offended, then you're intentionally placing yourself in that group, and you're in the wrong for doing so, because what I just said wasn't a personal attack according to you. Pay no mind to the fact that you are explicitly a part of this group, and pay no mind to the fact that my statement is just a sweeping generalization of the entire site administration, which is guaranteed to include you. It's still not a personal attack against you, so you shouldn't be offended by it.
Do you see where I'm coming from, now? Is there really any difference between attacking someone personally and attacking a group that said person belongs to? No, there isn't. By your logic, someone could come in here and say "White people deserve to die" and no one is allowed to be offended by it because it's not a personal attack. It only targets well over half of our demographic, it's nothing personal! The fact that his comments are targeting the entire "lefty liberal" population means that I would have to change the entirety of my political ideals in order to not classify myself as part of the demographic he's insulting.
Nach wrote:
That's a religious mindset, to find great offense in someone disliking what you like.
Instead of "not taking kindly" because you "supported", instead disprove so called trafficking ring.
Here, I'll do it for you: http://www.snopes.com/pizzagate-conspiracy/
So it took all of 10 seconds to Google that link, one of the many times Pizzagate has been completely disproven, et cetera, et cetera. Why is it wrong for me or anyone else to think it's a completely futile effort to argue with someone who still vehemently believes it? The only reason I think anyone would even continue to mention it after all this time is either provocation or utter idiocy, and I'm choosing to take the high road by assuming it's provocation. This should be picked up by the moderation staff and dealt with accordingly.
Moth said it himself earlier: grassini's statements are "confrontational" and more or less directed at people as opposed to ideas. If you want this thread to be about topics VS topics, then you need to stop EVERYONE trying to attack ANYONE, regardless of who they are or whether or not they're participating in the thread.
And it's not about him "disliking what I like". He's intentionally spreading and defending misinformation. If someone had come in here and fabricated a story that Trump raped and murdered a child or something just as ridiculous, I would be just as appalled and offended by that spreading of misinformation. It doesn't matter who it's targeting or whether or not I agree with the targeted person. Ridiculous statements like that should not be tolerated, especially ones that are so easily disproven.
Nach wrote:
I do not know why you find it heavy handed to ask people to be civil to one another. People should be civil to one another.
Because you're not asking EVERYONE to be civil. If you were asking EVERYONE to be civil, I would not be complaining, but literally your only responses in this thread so far have been toward me, despite you saying the contrary earlier. The heavy-handed part of it is that in your opinion, out of everyone in this thread, I am apparently the only one who is acting out of line. I am the one who has received the brunt of the warnings so far when all I had done is implied that someone may be trying to get a rise out of me.
You saw it as a much better use of your time to systematically deconstruct and combat my posts defending myself as opposed to, oh I don't know, telling grassini to tone down on his aggressive remarks and provocations, which you yourself admitted several times were "ridiculous" and "outrageous", yet at no point did you ever make a move to tell him to cut it out. By doing this, you're telling him his behavior is perfectly acceptable, which is basically ensuring that the thread is going to keep spiraling further and further downward, deeper and deeper into the personal attacks you're apparently working so hard to prevent.
Nach wrote:
Please do not confuse not moderating ridiculous non-personal remarks with unfair moderation.
Please moderate those ridiculous remarks and prove that it is fair moderation, then. I should not feel like the moderation staff is personally targeting and attacking me.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 Currently unable to dedicate a lot of time to the site, taking care of family.
Now infrequently posting on BlueskywarmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
If people were that offended by mockery, insults, and name calling, they wouldn't have voted for a candidate who mocks a disabled reporter in front of a stadium of people, insults a war veteran for being captured and tortured, makes up nicknames for his political opponents, etc.
Not offended by mockery and insults in general, but offended at mockery and insults directed at them. If a politician has a potty mouth, that might be acceptable in the eyes of the public, but if that potty mouth is directed at the listeners, his potential voters, accusing them of all kinds of heinous things, that is where it's going wrong.
I didn't say that was the only reason Trump happened, but it's part of it. People have grown tired of all the regressive leftist antics and wanted an alternative. That alternative might not be the best possible, but they wanted something different.
I do really hope that the democrats learn their lesson. Personally I would prefer a better president of the US than Trump, because the US has so much influence all over the world. But as it is, I do think Trump was overall the better choice because of that slap-in-the-face thing I was talking before. (And I doubt he'll start a WW3. He might act like a buffoon, but so have many presidents before him. Who knows, maybe he prevented WW3 from happening, by being elected.)
As for him being racist and sexist... The regressive left has hammered so much onto that narrative that it actually makes me dubious. Whenever they pound onto something so fervently, it makes me think that they are just trying to make a lie true via repetition. It's that crying wolf thing.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Samsara wrote:
Oh, no, you can't be offended by that statement, because I didn't call YOU awful. I just called the administration of this site awful. If you're offended, then you're intentionally placing yourself in that group, and you're in the wrong for doing so, because what I just said wasn't a personal attack according to you. Pay no mind to the fact that you are explicitly a part of this group, and pay no mind to the fact that my statement is just a sweeping generalization of the entire site administration, which is guaranteed to include you. It's still not a personal attack against you, so you shouldn't be offended by it.
Agreed. I am not offended if you say the administration is awful. I think our administration can be better too.
Samsara wrote:
Do you see where I'm coming from, now? Is there really any difference between attacking someone personally and attacking a group that said person belongs to? No, there isn't.
If the group is an option, there certainly is a difference.
Samsara wrote:
By your logic, someone could come in here and say "White people deserve to die" and no one is allowed to be offended by it because it's not a personal attack.
Unlike other things, the color of a person's skin is what they're born with, they cannot change it. (Okay they can, but if someone dislikes the color of their own skin, they have to go to extreme measures to change it.)
Samsara wrote:
The fact that his comments are targeting the entire "lefty liberal" population means that I would have to change the entirety of my political ideals in order to not classify myself as part of the demographic he's insulting.
I have no idea what "lefty liberal" means. Is it something many common people classify themselves as? If not, but you are looking to classify yourself as "lefty liberal", then you're asking to be the one who is insulted. Otherwise, he's just insulting some group outside of TASVideos.
Samsara wrote:
So it took all of 10 seconds to Google that link, one of the many times Pizzagate has been completely disproven, et cetera, et cetera. Why is it wrong for me or anyone else to think it's a completely futile effort to argue with someone who still vehemently believes it? The only reason I think anyone would even continue to mention it after all this time is either provocation or utter idiocy, and I'm choosing to take the high road by assuming it's provocation. This should be picked up by the moderation staff and dealt with accordingly.
Another option is that grassini mentioned it for satire. Or maybe Pizzagate is an example from him of how easy it is to get people to believe something completely untrue, which has happened a lot in this past election cycle.
Samsara wrote:
And it's not about him "disliking what I like". He's intentionally spreading and defending misinformation. If someone had come in here and fabricated a story that Trump raped and murdered a child or something just as ridiculous, I would be just as appalled and offended by that spreading of misinformation. It doesn't matter who it's targeting or whether or not I agree with the targeted person. Ridiculous statements like that should not be tolerated, especially ones that are so easily disproven.
Except that's exactly what has been going on, and yet you were not outraged by it.
I hear all these people clamoring that Trump is XYZ and against ABC based on little to no evidence. As just one example, Trump is the madman who got up in front of the entire Republican convention, and said those who dislike LGBTQ are un-American and equated those against LGBTQ with being terrorists (video). Quite frankly, if anyone else would've done that at the Republican convention, they probably would've been forced off stage. Somehow, he got a standing ovation.
Point is, there's very little evidence for most of the positions ascribed to him. What little evidence there is though is usually taken way out of context. Granted there's plenty wrong with him, but honestly, I'm finding the majority of it wildly exaggerated.
Samsara wrote:
You saw it as a much better use of your time to systematically deconstruct and combat my posts defending myself as opposed to, oh I don't know, telling grassini to tone down on his aggressive remarks and provocations, which you yourself admitted several times were "ridiculous" and "outrageous", yet at no point did you ever make a move to tell him to cut it out. By doing this, you're telling him his behavior is perfectly acceptable, which is basically ensuring that the thread is going to keep spiraling further and further downward, deeper and deeper into the personal attacks you're apparently working so hard to prevent.
Yes, since I like sticking up for Mothrayas, who has been a huge force for bettering the site. Many of the recent good things on the site are thanks to him, and I don't think he should be called out on asking for civility.
For grassini on the other hand, I don't think something "ridiculous" and "outrageous" warrants a comment. People are free to post "ridiculous" and "outrageous" things which are not intended to harm or insult our members. I would expect our intelligent members to be able to ignore and brush off "ridiculous" and "outrageous" for what it is.
Samsara wrote:
Please moderate those ridiculous remarks and prove that it is fair moderation, then.
Such things require no moderation. Feel free to post about aliens abducting Santa Claus or Hitler secretly being anointed by George Bush, I doubt anyone honestly cares.
Samsara wrote:
I should not feel like the moderation staff is personally targeting and attacking me.
I'm sorry you feel that way. Please do not feel that way.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 12/28/2013
Posts: 396
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
Nach wrote:
I have no idea what "lefty liberal" means. Is it something many common people classify themselves as? If not, but you are looking to classify yourself as "lefty liberal", then you're asking to be the one who is insulted. Otherwise, he's just insulting some group outside of TASVideos.
If you evaluate what grassini said with a bit of common sense, you will see used the term ''lefty liberals'' as a characteristic of the people he was answering to. He immediately mentioned them again in ''I pity you guys'', making clear he was not referring to some group outside of TASVideos.
Are people seriously doubting that Trump is sexist, racist and all other kinds of discriminating? If he isn't all that, then who is? If people refuse to acknowledge those traits even if they are so obviously slapped in their faces, my only explanation is that they actually applaud Trump for saying all the things they don't dare to say themselves. It's great that you can finally make racist jokes outside of 4chan again, isn't it?
Current project: Gex 3 any%
Paused: Gex 64 any%
There are no N64 emulators. Just SM64 emulators with hacky support for all the other games.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
BrunoVisnadi wrote:
Nach wrote:
I have no idea what "lefty liberal" means. Is it something many common people classify themselves as? If not, but you are looking to classify yourself as "lefty liberal", then you're asking to be the one who is insulted. Otherwise, he's just insulting some group outside of TASVideos.
If you evaluate what grassini said with a bit of common sense, you will see used the term ''lefty liberals'' as a characteristic of the people he was answering to.
Who is he answering to? He did not quote anyone, he did not mention anyone by name, he just threw it out there.
BrunoVisnadi wrote:
He immediately mentioned them again in ''I pity you guys'', making clear he was not referring to some group outside of TASVideos.
Perhaps it's not some group outside of TASVideos, but it's up to the reader to determine if they are being specified or not, since the specification is anything but clear.
From IRC:
<Niamek> Lefty liberals, isn't those guys who are liberal, but more on the left that regular liberals? LIke left is liberalism and right is communism?
<BrunoVisnadi> It doesn't matter that much what lefty liberal means, grassini was clearly calling other people in the forum of that
Being that he's posting here, it's likely he's referring to 1+ people. But you have to buy into his claim and believe it's about you to be insulted in the first place, since he could just as easily be referring to someone else who posted in this thread who is more extreme in whatever viewpoint you're going with than you are.
Personally, I stick with refusing to be defined, and let unspecified remarks always mean the "other" guy. Unless he specifically calls out a member or members of our site in an insulting manner, I cannot condone just terminating him. If people want to espouse a view which is extremist and exaggerated, as long as not directed at anyone in particular. so be it.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
This is the first time I see a triple offtopic. First, this is an offtopic forum section. Second, this was split from the singularity thread. Third, this isn't international politics either anymore, it's attitudes discussion.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
I have no idea what "lefty liberal" means. Is it something many common people classify themselves as? If not, but you are looking to classify yourself as "lefty liberal", then you're asking to be the one who is insulted. Otherwise, he's just insulting some group outside of TASVideos.
If you evaluate what grassini said with a bit of common sense, you will see used the term ''lefty liberals'' as a characteristic of the people he was answering to.
Who is he answering to? He did not quote anyone, he did not mention anyone by name, he just threw it out there.
BrunoVisnadi wrote:
He immediately mentioned them again in ''I pity you guys'', making clear he was not referring to some group outside of TASVideos.
Perhaps it's not some group outside of TASVideos, but it's up to the reader to determine if they are being specified or not, since the specification is anything but clear.
From IRC:
<Niamek> Lefty liberals, isn't those guys who are liberal, but more on the left that regular liberals? LIke left is liberalism and right is communism?
<BrunoVisnadi> It doesn't matter that much what lefty liberal means, grassini was clearly calling other people in the forum of that
Being that he's posting here, it's likely he's referring to 1+ people. But you have to buy into his claim and believe it's about you to be insulted in the first place, since he could just as easily be referring to someone else who posted in this thread who is more extreme in whatever viewpoint you're going with than you are.
Personally, I stick with refusing to be defined, and let unspecified remarks always mean the "other" guy. Unless he specifically calls out a member or members of our site in an insulting manner, I cannot condone just terminating him. If people want to espouse a view which is extremist and exaggerated, as long as not directed at anyone in particular. so be it.
Good grief, Nach, your posts in this thread have been horrendously tone deaf. No one wants grassini "terminated" and, unless I'm sorely mistaken, we are all trying to ignore him. He posted another inflammatory comment and Mothrayas, recognizing that a little more attention was needed, called him out directly and pretty much everyone was satisfied. You, on the other hand, have bent over backwards to say, "Well, maybe he wasn't really insulting members of our community..."
Just bow out of the thread. You're not contributing anything and the rest of us are ready to move on. If things get bad again to the point where an admin needs to step in, I trust that you will act appropriately.
Joined: 12/28/2013
Posts: 396
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
Nach, I think you are pushing it with these arguments to conclude grassini wasn't attacking personally anyone. He did attack people. However, I never suggested, neither did Samsara or Bobo the King, that grassini should be 'terminated'. In my honest opinion, he shouldn't even be warned by the moderation as he was now. This discussion would work just fine without moderation intervention. The point is there was moderation intervention, so it would be good if it was equal on both sides.
