Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[hector13]

The problem with age old arguments is they lack context, of which you are being ignorant, intentionally or otherwise.

Insulting other users is unlikely to engender discussion, too. Ironic given your positions, don’t you think?

[MaximumZero]

Too much ?   

I admit i am not subtle, but overall I am just pushing using age old arguments and projecting their behaviors on their opponents.

I am as subtle as a brick to the face, and even I can acknowledge when it's not warranted. Grow the fuck up.

[Il Palazzo]

Cancel jipehog!

[Rolan7]

Eh there's nothing "age old" about it.  It's just taking a lazy caricature of "teh liberals", swapping some words around, and regurgitating it to "own" them for supposed hypocrisy.  All it does is reveal a cartoonishly superficial worldview.

I will say that what happened to Lindsay Ellis and what ISN'T happening to Michael Knowles and every other right-winger sobbing about cancel-culture does make me pessimistic about society.  The thing about the marketplace of ideas is that money is paramount in a marketplace (and these ideas STILL lose... until they don't, and they only need to win once to burn down the marketplace).

[jipehog]

The problem with age old arguments is they lack context

What were my argument and how do they lack context?

[bloop_bleep]

I find it troubling that there’s a tendency for people the world over to hyperbolize efforts to discourage certain behaviors as also being an effort to kill those that practice such behaviors.

Often opponents of an idea really are just opposed to the idea and don’t want to eliminate people. Is this the core of radicalization, where people stretch a philosophical threat into an existential one?

The problem (in one direction) is when it's an immutable aspect of one's self. E.g., legally banning "black ideology" has the definite implication of somehow destroying black people's identity.

In the context of what we are talking, that like saying that vigilantism is good because it dealt with insert example that affected you personally.

Yes. Yes it is. The authorities are doing jack shit so it's the only way unfortunately. It is too late to solve anything diplomatically in America or Russia.

I am glad. Engaging with people can take a lot of time, its much better to have certainty in the superiority of your beliefs and conviction these should be impressed onto others. Better 100 innocent persons should suffer witch hunts online than that one guilty person that annoy us should go free. And did you see the storming of the Capitol, how the hell these sneaky bastards managed to get ahead of us! Look at Putin, now here is person who understand how to solve things.

There may be a misunderstanding of what each means by "vigilantism." Summarily killing small fry political opponents is not really productive or justifiable. Civil disobedience or self-defense often is very productive.

There is a definite problem if every person is 100% convicted in their beliefs and is willing to go to any lengths whatsoever to achieve them. Then you get something like the Cultural Revolution. The antidote is diligence with ideas and lenience with people.

[hector13]

The problem with age old arguments is they lack context

What were my argument and how do they lack context?

In the context of what we are talking, that like saying that vigilantism is good because it dealt with insert example that affected you personally.

Yes. Yes it is. The authorities are doing jack shit so it's the only way unfortunately. It is too late to solve anything diplomatically in America or Russia.

I am glad. Engaging with people can take a lot of time, its much better to have certainty in the superiority of your beliefs and conviction these should be impressed onto others. Better 100 innocent persons should suffer witch hunts online than that one guilty person that annoy us should go free. And did you see the storming of the Capitol, how the hell these sneaky bastards managed to get ahead of us! Look at Putin, now here is person who understand how to solve things.

You are arguing for civil discourse here, in an uncivil way.

You ignore that in America and Russia the state(s in America) are legislating that LGBTQ people are basically not allowed to exist and that if parents allow their kids to actually identify and make progress toward physically manifesting a trans identity, the kids will be taken away and the parents arrested for child abuse.

In what capacity can someone from an LGBTQ group open discussion with a group that thinks they don’t/shouldn’t exist and expect any sort of respect?

[MrRoboto75]

Hey what's the deal with youtubers, instead of the usual TV censor beep, find the most obnoxious jarring sound imaginable and then swear like 8 times so you hear the censor sound that's louder than the rest of the video over n over again.

[Frumple]

Presumably someone or another claimed that encouraged engagement? I'unno, I don't think I've encountered that behavior yet, heh.

... if you're asking why they're bothering to censor at all, something about yt's monetization changed fairly recently, with the wrong sort of vulgarity getting videos demonetized, so. There's your answer there.

[bloop_bleep]

Hey what's the deal with youtubers, instead of the usual TV censor beep, find the most obnoxious jarring sound imaginable and then swear like 8 times so you hear the censor sound that's louder than the rest of the video over n over again.

I heard that the beeps are detected which leads to the video being penalized for swearing (even if under censor).

[Grim Portent]

I know RTGame recently started using 'Youtube' as his censor sound for when he swears after the recent policy change (which has since been walked back) resulted in a lot of his older content being demonetised, essentially as a slightly spiteful joke. Presumably other Youtubers have gone through similar experiences.

[McTraveller]

Am I?

Was Descartes correct?

EDIT: This may be ethanol-provoked.

[pisskop]

Am I?

Was Descartes correct?

EDIT: This may be ethanol-provoked.

And what if he was?  cmon, while youre still on this

[Great Order]

Am I?

Was Descartes correct?

EDIT: This may be ethanol-provoked.

No, you're not. Turns out you never existed, you're just a collective hallucination by the rest of humanity.

[TD1]

Or collective humanity is a hallucination by you.

We're still working it out.