Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

So why did I get banned

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by Tezcatlipoca View Post

    That's not at all what it means, objective in this context refers to it being uninfluenced by opinion and influenced more so by a universal fact. If someone broke into your house, stole all of your shit, then murdered you where you slept then that person would be considered scum of the earth and morally bankrupt. We can all agree that stealing and murder is bad I hope.
    What you're describing is literally nonsensical. Morality is 100% a construct of the human mind, it does not exist at all without the requisite ingredients of consciousness and biological imperatives. There's nothing universal about it.

    Moreover, the existence of right-wing people(better yet, the upsurge in popularity for right-wing thinking worldwide) is a refutation of this idea in and of itself. Even many American leftists are sympathetic to the idea of pulling one's self up by their bootstraps, and they have been very hostile towards the alt-left for a long time now. If the idea of self-determination were universally immoral it would be reviled by everyone, and yet look how much more popular people like Jordan Peterson are than any gender-fluid xi/xir professor that the alt-left rallies behind.

    Comment


      Originally posted by Helly View Post

      What you're describing is literally nonsensical. Morality is 100% a construct of the human mind, it does not exist at all without the requisite ingredients of consciousness and biological imperatives. There's nothing universal about it.

      Moreover, the existence of right-wing people(better yet, the upsurge in popularity for right-wing thinking worldwide) is a refutation of this idea in and of itself. Even many American leftists are sympathetic to the idea of pulling one's self up by their bootstraps, and they have been very hostile towards the alt-left for a long time now. If the idea of self-determination were universally immoral it would be reviled by everyone, and yet look how much more popular people like Jordan Peterson are than any gender-fluid xi/xir professor that the alt-left rallies behind.
      I'll repeat: Objective in this context means that we can all agree it's bad to curb someone's rights because "I dun like that!', that is' wrong to steal, that it's wrong to murder, etc... that's also what I mean when I say "universal" I'm no sure where you and org are getting objective = some ultimate authoritative figure decides that it's wrong. Do you need some authoritative figure to know that it's wrong to kill your mother?

      These right-wing ideas are on the rise because of fear and anxiety, nothing more nothing less. When people are scared they tend to act out. There is no "alt-left", you can kick-rocks with that term created by king orange doofus himself. I'm not talking about this whole rugged individualist thing, I'm talking more so about shit like preventing gays from adopting, curbing trans rights, and so on and so forth. Now rugged individualism in of itself is wrong and ignorant, but I don't necessarily consider it immoral. It's also contradicted by the fact that many Republicans want to intervene in peoples private lives(see gay rights again).

      Comment


        Fascists care about the poor :]
        Originally posted by Kajin_Style ;n513566
        Why should I even give a damn that some faggot is being stoned to death in another country?

        Comment


        • Tezcatlipoca
          Tezcatlipoca commented
          Editing a comment
          If that poor person looks like them then maybe.

        • DokTOR.
          DokTOR. commented
          Editing a comment
          If the country all looks the same, then what are you complaining about?

        Originally posted by Tezcatlipoca View Post

        I'll repeat: Objective in this context means that we can all agree it's bad to curb someone's rights because "I dun like that!', that is' wrong to steal, that it's wrong to murder, etc... that's also what I mean when I say "universal" I'm no sure where you and org are getting objective = some ultimate authoritative figure decides that it's wrong. Do you need some authoritative figure to know that it's wrong to kill your mother?

        These right-wing ideas are on the rise because of fear and anxiety, nothing more nothing less. When people are scared they tend to act out. There is no "alt-left", you can kick-rocks with that term created by king orange doofus himself. I'm not talking about this whole rugged individualist thing, I'm talking more so about shit like preventing gays from adopting, curbing trans rights, and so on and so forth. Now rugged individualism in of itself is wrong and ignorant, but I don't necessarily consider it immoral. It's also contradicted by the fact that many Republicans want to intervene in peoples private lives(see gay rights again).
        Except we can't all agree on it, that's what I just finished explaining. Everyone has their own set of beliefs, and my reasons for doing or not doing something wont be the same as everyone else's. Take your patricide hypothetical, I wouldn't do it because I wouldn't like to be murdered by my child either and also I love my parents, but a more apathetic and egocentric person might just not do it because it wouldn't serve their self-interest, i.e. they are financially dependant or they just don't want to deal with the aftermath, but maybe during their off-time they abuse kittens or they grow up to abuse their spouse physically or verbally. And no abuse and murder is not viewed as universally immoral, look at ISIS and their sympathizers.

        Fear and anxiety caused by the continued encroachment of the alt-left, yes, again this proves my point. honestly though most of moral code comes from our aversion towards suffering and death, so this "criticism" falls flat already. I mean, whats your whole shtick with the left again, protecting gays and transexuals from the evil cis-scum? At the risk of sounding like a meme, that really is the only inarguable truth in this discussion: pain. you can't reason it away, you can't ignore it, that's why it's central to every discussion on morality. so the idea that right-wing ideas are in the rise out of fear, yea no shit, that's every political ideology since the dawn of man including yours.

        those ideas(homophobia and transphobia) are starting to fall on the wayside for most of the conservatives outside America, hexk even inside as well. Most gen z-ers dgaf what people do behind closed doors on their own time. the trendy thing nowadays is nationalism and being anti-establishment

        Comment


          Originally posted by Tezcatlipoca View Post

          I'll repeat: Objective in this context means that we can all agree it's bad to curb someone's rights because "I dun like that!', that is' wrong to steal, that it's wrong to murder, etc... that's also what I mean when I say "universal" I'm no sure where you and org are getting objective = some ultimate authoritative figure decides that it's wrong. Do you need some authoritative figure to know that it's wrong to kill your mother?

          These right-wing ideas are on the rise because of fear and anxiety, nothing more nothing less. When people are scared they tend to act out. There is no "alt-left", you can kick-rocks with that term created by king orange doofus himself. I'm not talking about this whole rugged individualist thing, I'm talking more so about shit like preventing gays from adopting, curbing trans rights, and so on and so forth. Now rugged individualism in of itself is wrong and ignorant, but I don't necessarily consider it immoral. It's also contradicted by the fact that many Republicans want to intervene in peoples private lives(see gay rights again).
          Not really many people go against the LGBT just because they are against forced representation. When you can get someone fired because they don't say your pronouns tend to bring a more negative viewpoint t0 your cause no matter what it is. Humans tend to think of it as freedom being taken. The second issue is the left beats it like a dead horse. They act like that is the only issue in the country. That is the main thing you hear at the forefront of the Democratic campaigns. It is not even the biggest cause that needs to be fought. Legit had a conversation about how kids in the system are fucked over. They get sold off to a group home the majority of the time for a paycheck and barely get the shit they need. By the time poor conditions are caught, they are already traumatized and often lead sad destitute lives. That is one of the many fucking things that need to be addressed. Yet the conversation is about LGBT adoption rights. Unfortunately, we live in a society that tends to only be focused on the most popular causes of the week in the media which is typically LGBT centered. Why because LGBT has a lot of pull in the media. Anyways the point is there is a lot of problems but the left just shoehorn the LGBT as their spotlight issue.
          Last edited by 40 acres; April 12th, 2019, 03:09 PM.

          Comment


            Ring wing ideals aren't immortal. The problem republicans have is they got too much church and God in their party. (Guess they forgot about seperation of chruch and state?) If you cut the religion stances they support then you'll see republicans really don't have much they actually stand for. This is why you see them be so anti-left with their debates and speeches because the topics discussed today like Climate change and universal healthcare weren't things that medieval christians dealt with in the bible. So they have no answer to draw on and rather not change or look for alternative solutions.

            On that note I should point out that racism and white nationalism is not a political stance for Republicans. If you are pro racism and white nationalism, you aren't part of the Right-wing party. You are something else entirely. Hence the creation of the "Alt-right" name and branding. So going against racism and white nationalism which are immoral things even in the eyes of religion, doesn't mean you are going against ring-wing ideals.Going against alt-right is going against extremism. Ya know that thing we had a war over in Iraq (extreme political/religions views).

            Comment


              Originally posted by DokTOR. View Post
              "Humor is subjective" - Kajin, when it suits him
              If you are the only one laughing then it is not a joke.

              Comment


              • DokTOR.
                DokTOR. commented
                Editing a comment
                If I'm laughing, then it's a joke to me, innit?

              Originally posted by Helly View Post

              Except we can't all agree on it, that's what I just finished explaining. Everyone has their own set of beliefs, and my reasons for doing or not doing something wont be the same as everyone else's. Take your patricide hypothetical, I wouldn't do it because I wouldn't like to be murdered by my child either and also I love my parents, but a more apathetic and egocentric person might just not do it because it wouldn't serve their self-interest, i.e. they are financially dependant or they just don't want to deal with the aftermath, but maybe during their off-time they abuse kittens or they grow up to abuse their spouse physically or verbally. And no abuse and murder is not viewed as universally immoral, look at ISIS and their sympathizers.

              Fear and anxiety caused by the continued encroachment of the alt-left, yes, again this proves my point. honestly though most of moral code comes from our aversion towards suffering and death, so this "criticism" falls flat already. I mean, whats your whole shtick with the left again, protecting gays and transexuals from the evil cis-scum? At the risk of sounding like a meme, that really is the only inarguable truth in this discussion: pain. you can't reason it away, you can't ignore it, that's why it's central to every discussion on morality. so the idea that right-wing ideas are in the rise out of fear, yea no shit, that's every political ideology since the dawn of man including yours.
              Those people are called sociopaths, you know why they are considered to have a personality disorder for having disregard for their fellow man? Because most people find murder to be objectionable unless it's to murder someone else they also find objectionable. A more "egocentric" person is not the norm, and they aren't the norm for a reason. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing for a sort of absolute morality. Isis is an entire group of deplorable and also aren't representative of the norm.

              What "encroachment" are you talking about? My schtick is that Republicans, more often than not are in the business of curbing peoples rights in the name of "it goes against MY moral code", inequality for the sake of it. As for the left growing out of fear, that's horse shit and demonstrably so and no I'm not just talking from an emotional perspective. I' talking from a data perspective, there's a study pretty much showing that people tend to gravitate towards more right-wing ideas when they're afraid and insecure. Whereas people that are more secure gravitate towards leftist ideas. So miss me with this "including yours" trite.

              Originally posted by 40 acres View Post
              Not really many people go against the LGBT just because they are against forced representation. When you can get someone fired because they don't say your pronouns tend to bring a more negative viewpoint t0 your cause no matter what it is. Humans tend to think of it as freedom being taken. The second issue is the left beats it like a dead horse. They act like that is the only issue in the country. That is the main thing you hear at the forefront of the Democratic campaigns. It is not even the biggest cause that needs to be fought. Legit had a conversation about how kids in the system are fucked over. They get sold off to a group home the majority of the time for a paycheck and barely get the shit they need. By the time poor conditions are caught, they are already traumatized and often lead sad destitute lives. That is one of the many fucking things that need to be addressed. Yet the conversation is about LGBT adoption rights. Unfortunately, we live in a society that tends to only be focused on the most popular causes of the week in the media which is typically LGBT centered. Why because LGBT has a lot of pull in the media. Anyways the point is there is a lot of problems but the left just shoehorn the LGBT as their spotlight issue.
              I'm not sure what you mean about LGBT rights being at the forefront of democratic campaigns? I mean it's certainly a priority, but pretty much 99% of social democratic campaigns put universal healthcare and a living wage at the forefront of their campaigns. As for people getting fired for misgendering someone? This never happens or has happened. It sounds like you're quoting Jordan Peterson's critique on Bill C-16. Which just puts Trans people as a protected class and says nothing about literally firing someone for "misgendering them".
              Last edited by Tezcatlipoca; April 12th, 2019, 03:25 PM.

              Comment


                Helly Here is what I really want to ask though, what "right-wing ideas" do you think aren't tolerated by CID and the rest of the staff? Because you seemed to bring up this point when sympathizing with Dok for getting banned for his overuse of edgy-racist humor.

                Comment


                  Originally posted by Helly View Post

                  That's not always the goal of humour. Bruno's audience is himself most of the time. As a provocateur (like his fellow fag Milo Yiannopoulos) the sole intent of his humour is to evoke a reaction, and then give people grief about it. We're in that "give people grief" stage of his antic right now. I personally don't find much humour in that type of pointless drama, but then again I'm also not gay which seems to be a prerequisite for liking thst type of drama in the first place, come at me bruno gay
                  You didn't even call him a comedian! That alone says plenty! Also if the only way they make people laugh is to make fun of someone getting offended then that is just bullying tactics 2.0. It is more of a cry for attention than any actual joke.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by Tezcatlipoca View Post
                    Those people are called sociopaths, you know why they are considered to have a personality disorder for having disregard for their fellow man? Because most people find murder to be objectionable unless it's to murder someone else they also find objectionable. A more "egocentric" person is not the norm, and they aren't the norm for a reason. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing for a sort of absolute morality. Isis is an entire group of deplorable and also aren't representative of the norm.
                    Sociopathy isn't a black and white disorder. Otherwise ordinary people can have sociopathic tendencies. Remember the sweet old lady that got caught petting a cat and then dumping it into a trash bin on camera? Everyone who knew her, they were all flabbergasted. I think even the lady herself was shocked by her own actions.

                    If you aren't talking about an absolute truth, maybe avoid terms like "universal" and "objective", because so far I've demonstrated multiple times that what can be considered morally acceptable is highly contingent upon an individual's mindset.


                    What "encroachment" are you talking about?
                    I dunno, the constant language policing? ffs we're in s thread right now talking about a pretty tame joke that Doc made.


                    My schtick is that Republicans, more often than not are in the business of curbing peoples rights in the name of "it goes against MY moral code", inequality for the sake of it. As for the left growing out of fear, that's horse shit and demonstrably so and no I'm not just talking from an emotional perspective. I' talking from a data perspective, there's a study pretty much showing that people tend to gravitate towards more right-wing ideas when they're afraid and insecure. Whereas people that are more secure gravitate towards leftist ideas. So miss me with this "including yours" trite.
                    I'll need to see that study, but even from your summary it doesn't seem to fit into your argument at all. Financially secure people aren't free from fear and anxiety even if it's only self-imposed, and how many times were alt-left pundits screaming about the so-called "second coming of Hitler" in regards to Trump? What is the internet personality Franchesca Ramsey about, except telling everyone how evil white people are and how they're coming to get you? What is #MeToo, #ListenAndBelieve, what was Gamergate and the subsequent flood of SJWs all about, if not to whine and complain about the many ills of minority groups in the west, both justly and not? Politics is all about the human condition and trying to improve it, you literally cannot escape that at all, it's the absolute singularity that holds everything together and at odds at the same time.

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by Kajin_Style View Post

                      You didn't even call him a comedian! That alone says plenty! Also if the only way they make people laugh is to make fun of someone getting offended then that is just bullying tactics 2.0. It is more of a cry for attention than any actual joke.
                      They aren't mutually exclusive. Also, I tend to reserve that label for professionals.

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by Tezcatlipoca View Post
                        Helly Here is what I really want to ask though, what "right-wing ideas" do you think aren't tolerated by CID and the rest of the staff? Because you seemed to bring up this point when sympathizing with Dok for getting banned for his overuse of edgy-racist humor.
                        Anything that's concerned with a non-PC take on race and ethnicity, i.e. IQ research, in-group biases, deterioration of social trust, demographic displacement, etc.

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by Helly View Post

                          Sociopathy isn't a black and white disorder. Otherwise ordinary people can have sociopathic tendencies. Remember the sweet old lady that got caught petting a cat and then dumping it into a trash bin on camera? Everyone who knew her, they were all flabbergasted. I think even the lady herself was shocked by her own actions.

                          If you aren't talking about an absolute truth, maybe avoid terms like "universal" and "objective", because so far I've demonstrated multiple times that what can be considered morally acceptable is highly contingent upon an individual's mindset.
                          You seem to misunderstand what I said, I'm saying sociopathy is considered a disorder in the first place because it pretty much means you're anti-social and don't give a shit about the wellbeing of your fellow man.

                          Objective simply means everyone, even the people who partake in said immoral acts, can usually agree that it's wrong to engage in them.



                          I dunno, the constant language policing? ffs we're in s thread right now talking about a pretty tame joke that Doc made.
                          Doc didn't just make any joke, he made a racial joke and he continued to do so. Look up the pyramid of hate and stochastic terrorism, and how the normalization of these kinds of "jokes" lead to shit like the new zealand shooter. One edgy joke here or there can be funny, but if you entire schtick revolves around shitting on minorities it can lead to pretty fucked up shit.



                          I'll need to see that study, but even from your summary it doesn't seem to fit into your argument at all. Financially secure people aren't free from fear and anxiety even if it's only self-imposed, and how many times were alt-left pundits screaming about the so-called "second coming of Hitler" in regards to Trump? What is the internet personality Franchesca Ramsey about, except telling everyone how evil white people are and how they're coming to get you? What is #MeToo, #ListenAndBelieve, what was Gamergate and the subsequent flood of SJWs all about, if not to whine and complain about the many ills of minority groups in the west, both justly and not? Politics is all about the human condition and trying to improve it, you literally cannot escape that at all, it's the absolute singularity that holds everything together and at odds at the same time.
                          https://royalsocietypublishing.org/d...011.0268#aff-1 this is the study. I'm not talking about financially secure people, I'm talking about social security. I'm assuming by "alt-left" you're referring to SJWs? Blue haired college kids that hardly represent the entirety of the left, and I see more fear mongering about immigrants with dog whistles to borderline white nationalism in mainstream news than I do "the second coming of Hitler." Although, with these kinds of ideas becoming more prominent I wouldn't blame them for thinking such. Especially if you want to get into "internet personalities" as the internet(youtube in particular) is crawling with far-right cults of personality.

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by Helly View Post

                            Anything that's concerned with a non-PC take on race and ethnicity, i.e. IQ research, in-group biases, deterioration of social trust, demographic displacement, etc.
                            So you aren't just talking about milquetoast conservatism, you're complaining about not legitimizing borderline nazi-ideals like racialism and "demographic displacement". Although If you want to have a discussion on these, I'm more than happy to oblige and I'd urge Cid and Phob not to interject with their ban-hammer.
                            Last edited by Tezcatlipoca; April 12th, 2019, 04:14 PM.

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by Tezcatlipoca View Post
                              I'm not sure what you mean about LGBT rights being at the forefront of democratic campaigns? I mean it's certainly a priority, but pretty much 99% of social democratic campaigns put universal healthcare and a living wage at the forefront of their campaigns. As for people getting fired for misgendering someone? This never happens or has happened. It sounds like you're quoting Jordan Peterson's critique on Bill C-16. Which just puts Trans people as a protected class and says nothing about literally firing someone for "misgendering them".
                              Not this go around they dialed it back. Last few campaigns have been centered around it. When they introduced that bill where the military had to pay for trans operations that shit was one of the things the republican used as ammo during trump shit. Hence why that was one of the main things Trump made sure he got rid of. As for misgendering shit, they put out those stories of people getting fired all the time. I never even read the original bill. I see a lot of trans trying to get that off. Granted this all media based incidents not representing the whole. But that is typically what the majority look at. High publicized incidents to use each other to get their points off. LGBT rights are a popular issue so they run with it both sides. To me it is a circle jerk.

                              Comment


                                DokTOR.

                                As I stated earlier, I have decided to refrain from writing walls of text with which I justify entirely reasonable actions; I no longer have the time or the inclination to do as much. We could carry out this conversation until you inevitably concede or start arguing in circles, as you and everyone else who has ever filed a complaint against me has done. Alternatively, we could agree that the rules are there to be followed, and understand that the staff's general announcement explaining we will no longer be overly lenient should be heeded.

                                I would just like to briefly address your complaint that your post did not warrant a ban. Firstly, if you genuinely cannot see why that post is inappropriate, then maybe you need to reexamine your life and ask yourself why you are the way you are. Secondly, it was not that the post itself was particularly egregious for you; rather, it was your long history with the offense and shameless violation of the rule that earned you the ban.

                                In order to ameliorate confusion and standardize moderation, we will be posting a complete overhaul of the site rules -- comprised of one simplified ruleset and one detailed ruleset accompanied by common punishments -- soon™.


                                RussianCoffeeAddict

                                Well, then, perhaps it's time to start acting like a relatively normal human being.

                                This is to everyone, by the way. We will be more stringent going forward.

                                Comment


                                  Originally posted by P408370R View Post
                                  Well, then, perhaps it's time to start acting like a relatively normal human being.

                                  Comment


                                    Originally posted by Tezcatlipoca View Post
                                    You seem to misunderstand what I said, I'm saying sociopathy is considered a disorder in the first place because it pretty much means you're anti-social and don't give a shit about the wellbeing of your fellow man.

                                    Objective simply means everyone, even the people who partake in said immoral acts, can usually agree that it's wrong to engage in them.
                                    And I'm telling you that sociopathic tendencies are more commonplace than you think, and they don't always manifest in an overtly detrimental manner but everyone to an extent is apathetic towards someone else. How far that circle of caring goes depends on the person, or even what might disqualify someone from it after having been included before. Look it up right now, there is no clear-cut category of sociopath, it's all gradients and many people have tendencies for certain behaviours in certain areas. In fact, last I heard it wasn't even an officially recognized psychiatric disorder but who knows if it is today, that field is all kinds of fuck.



                                    Doc didn't just make any joke, he made a racial joke and he continued to do so. Look up the pyramid of hate and stochastic terrorism, and how the normalization of these kinds of "jokes" lead to shit like the new zealand shooter. One edgy joke here or there can be funny, but if you entire schtick revolves around shitting on minorities it can lead to pretty fucked up shit.
                                    This is literally a slippery slope argument.


                                    [quote] [URL]https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2011.0268#aff-1[/URL] this is the study. I'm not talking about financially secure people, I'm talking about social security. I'm assuming by "alt-left" you're referring to SJWs? Blue haired college kids that hardly represent the entirety of the left, and I see more fear mongering about immigrants with dog whistles to borderline white nationalism in mainstream news than I do "the second coming of Hitler." Although, with these kinds of ideas becoming more prominent I wouldn't blame them for thinking such. Especially if you want to get into "internet personalities" as the internet(youtube in particular) is crawling with far-right cults of personality.

                                    [/QUOTE]

                                    Whether or not they're the majority isn't really relevant. They've made waves, their concerns are at the forefront of corporate Democraps and have already cucked Bernie once despite his popularity. Like it or not, they're the representation of the left right now.

                                    That study is inredibly unrelated to this discussion we're having, dude. lol. It's talking more about risk-aversion and propensity for hedonism, and yeah obviously if you're not in a very secure spot you're going to be much less likely to take risks. You say it has nothing to do with financial security, but that's actually what this partly entails.

                                    Comment


                                      Originally posted by Tezcatlipoca View Post

                                      So you aren't just talking about milquetoast conservatism, you're complaining about not legitimizing borderline nazi-ideals like racialism and "demographic displacement". Although If you want to have a discussion on these, I'm more than happy to oblige and I'd urge Cid and Phob not to interject with their ban-hammer.
                                      Hitler's bizarro-world Aryanism has little, hell nothing, to do with what I'm talking about. We're free to discuss it, I know that much, but discussions aren't the problem here, it's not what got Doc banned

                                      Comment

                                      Working...
                                      X