forum
ITT 2: We post shit that is neither funny nor interesting 2j1py
posted
Total Posts
57,527
Deleted_6709840
Deleted_6709840
Endaris wrote: 6j5f7
I'm over that but it simply is no fun to discuss with you because you derail every topic to muslims being the culprits.B1rd wrote: 4w393k
Perhaps when other people get over their "triggered at everything" phase.
Which is complrtely different to the people that are culprits being muslim
Endaris wrote: 6j5f7
I'm over that but it simply is no fun to discuss with you because you derail every topic to muslims being the culprits.
B1rd wrote: 4w393k
If we're talking about terrorism, of course Muslim terrorism is going to come up. I was talking about free speech and anything about Islam was a side point. Vipper was the one to derail the discussion into one about Muslims by replying to a couple of my sentences with a full wall post. If this is a sensitive topic for you, I don't really care.
Step 1) Recognise that Muslims who live outside of Europe and parts of the Middle East are okay and nice
Step 2) Recognise that most Middle East and European Muslims need to go away, preferably to Turkey, where we can cleanse them together at sword point
Step 3) Find new religion to pick on
Step 4) ???
Step 5) Profit
Step 2) Recognise that most Middle East and European Muslims need to go away, preferably to Turkey, where we can cleanse them together at sword point
Step 3) Find new religion to pick on
Step 4) ???
Step 5) Profit
That was one of multiple occasions.B1rd wrote: 4w393k
Endaris wrote: 6j5f7
I'm over that but it simply is no fun to discuss with you because you derail every topic to muslims being the culprits.B1rd wrote: 4w393k
If we're talking about terrorism, of course Muslim terrorism is going to come up. I was talking about free speech and anything about Islam was a side point. Vipper was the one to derail the discussion into one about Muslims by replying to a couple of my sentences with a full wall post. If this is a sensitive topic for you, I don't really care.
Something I find especially odd is the shortsightedness of the claims that Islam, being Islam, is what causes terrorism in the first place. The VAST, VAST majority of people in the world (in human history, less so nowadays thanks to information spread and such) have been religious, but you don't see the argument commonly made that religion in general is a massive problem and needs to be stopped since it causes so much murder- it's only Islam being pointed out since that's the current one involved with issues.
And no shit are terrorists Islamic, considering where much of the world's political tensions have been over the last 30 years. If the middle east wasn't so unstable right now, do you really think there'd be as much terrorism purely because Islam is a spooky dangerous religion? It's such an ignorant belief to hold, it defies all rationality and factual basis.
And no shit are terrorists Islamic, considering where much of the world's political tensions have been over the last 30 years. If the middle east wasn't so unstable right now, do you really think there'd be as much terrorism purely because Islam is a spooky dangerous religion? It's such an ignorant belief to hold, it defies all rationality and factual basis.
Other people? Surely you can see that right-wingers get extremely triggered by many things, such as islam :^)B1rd wrote: 4w393k
Perhaps when other people get over their "triggered at everything" phase.
Also, the fact that sync says shit this stupid while being Alumni is a proof of why this game's community is as awful as it is.
Occasions of what? That I talked about Islam? So what? I talk about what I like. The claim was that I "always" "derail" discussions in to one about Muslims. Veritably false.Endaris wrote: 6j5f7
That was one of multiple occasions.
Of course, the argument never was that all religions cause murder, it was that Islam in particular caused murder. It's not ignorant and irrational to hold that belief when so many terrorists attacks are done by Muslims, who have a holy book that preaches violence, and the large majority of whom hold, by Western standards, very backwards fundamentalist views when surveyed. It takes a whole lot of mental gymnastics to think that Islam isn't the problem.DaddyCoolVipper wrote: 4p47
Something I find especially odd is the shortsightedness of the claims that Islam, being Islam, is what causes terrorism in the first place. The VAST, VAST majority of people in the world (in human history, less so nowadays thanks to information spread and such) have been religious, but you don't see the argument commonly made that religion in general is a massive problem and needs to be stopped since it causes so much murder- it's only Islam being pointed out since that's the current one involved with issues.
And no shit are terrorists Islamic, considering where much of the world's political tensions have been over the last 30 years. If the middle east wasn't so unstable right now, do you really think there'd be as much terrorism purely because Islam is a spooky dangerous religion? It's such an ignorant belief to hold, it defies all rationality and factual basis.
Deleted_6709840
Not disagreeing with you but reminded me that people aren't paying attention to white supremacist terrorism, since that is also on the rise with Trump in office.DaddyCoolVipper wrote: 4p47
Something I find especially odd is the shortsightedness of the claims that Islam, being Islam, is what causes terrorism in the first place. The VAST, VAST majority of people in the world (in human history, less so nowadays thanks to information spread and such) have been religious, but you don't see the argument commonly made that religion in general is a massive problem and needs to be stopped since it causes so much murder- it's only Islam being pointed out since that's the current one involved with issues.
And no shit are terrorists Islamic, considering where much of the world's political tensions have been over the last 30 years. If the middle east wasn't so unstable right now, do you really think there'd be as much terrorism purely because Islam is a spooky dangerous religion? It's such an ignorant belief to hold, it defies all rationality and factual basis.
It's very ignorant and short-sighted to claim that White supremacy causes terrorism. The vast majority of people in America have been white, only a tiny handful of white supremacists commit terrorist acts. In fact, the increased vilification of White supremacists and rise of political tensions in America are the cause of increased terror attacks by White people; nothing to do with White supremacism itself. Check your privilege.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War
where it started going downhill
where it started going downhill
I'm gonna regret this post in like two hours, but fuck it. I don't even care if I get silenced for it. You wanna play this game?B1rd wrote: 4w393k
Perhaps when other people get over their "triggered at everything" phase.
This is the crowd who said Ariana Grande deserved the bombing because of a) those damn Mooslems and/or b) for licking a donut and saying "I hate America" that one time.
The ones who have called the Ghostbusters reboot, Mad Max: Fury Road, and Rogue One, among many others, "feminist propaganda" simply for having the crime of having major female characters.
The ones who are getting upset over Sean Hannity losing rs for pursuing his Seth Rich conspiracy, not even aware about how GamerGate did the same thing with Intel and a Gamasutra article.
The ones who complain about liberals' love of "participation trophies" but have formed literal torch-wielding mobs to defend monuments to Confederate traitors. "Heritage, not hate," my ass.
The ones who praise Greg Gianforte bodyslamming an innocent reporter AND WINNING PUBLIC OFFICE DESPITE IT but cry about Richard Spencer getting socked in the face.
The ones who complain about Antifa getting "violent" but then openly call for throwing Communists off of helicopters, a la Pinochet or Scarface.
The ones who cry for "freedom of speech" whenever Milo Yiannopoulos, Ann Coulter, or Charles Murray gets their speech shut down but completely stonewall any speech by any group critical of Israel's behavior towards Palestinians.
The ones who cry for "freedom of religion" but get nuclear-mad at the mere sight of a hijab.
The ones who complained about Obama golfing when their Supreme Deity has already racked up almost a quarter of Obama's travel expenses in less than half a year -- just for a nice round of golf in Florida.
The ones who complained about Michelle Obama wearing a $3,000 dress while flaunting Melania Trump's $50k fashion during the overseas trip.
Speaking of that...
The ones who constantly used the Saudi's of Hillary as a battering ram against her, while remaining completely silent about Trump's multibillion-dollar arms deal to the Saudis, or his cozying up to scumbags like Erdogan and Duterte.
The ones who didn't like Obama droning Syria, but who don't seem to mind at all that Trump's doing the exact same thing.
The ones who couldn't get over Benghazi so much that they spent more time investigating it than Pearl Harbor, Watergate, Iran-Contra, or 9/11.
The ones who get so triggered by transgenders/nonbinary people for simply existing, that they painted a bus with "there are only two genders" messages and drove it all across America.
The ones who thought a picture of a fucking TORNADO DRILL was an image of Muslims enforcing mandatory prayer.
The ones who locked down their whole goddamn subreddit because they thought the Reddit s were (((globalist cucks))) who had an agenda against them.
The ones who have constantly pushed for this rhetoric for decades, and can't fathom the possibility of people not tolerating their exploitative, discriminatory worldview -- "so much for the tolerant left!"
So yeah, don't EVER say that the right never gets triggered on the scale that the left does. And this goes for all you asshats -- B1rd, Jordan, Comfy Slippers, ColdTooth, FuZ, and especially you, Sync, you piece of shit. Do the world a favor and douse yourself in gasoline and light yourself on fire.
Deleted_6709840
The point is that it's rising now because of right-wing agendas, since racism has always been deeply rooted in the right for several decades now. I never said I was claiming it causes terrorism, I'm saying that terrorism from white supremacists is on the rise in general.B1rd wrote: 4w393k
It's very ignorant and short-sighted to claim that White supremacy causes terrorism. The vast majority of people in America have been white, only a tiny handful of white supremacists commit terrorist acts. In fact, the increased vilification of White supremacists and rise of political tensions in America are the cause of increased terror attacks by White people; nothing to do with White supremacism itself. Check your privilege.
It's true, the world's gonna end in the next hundred years anyway.Railey2 wrote: 6a2u27
The right gets triggered all the time, but the left is arguably worse when it comes to that.
What they have in common is that they both regularly get mad over petty shit that doesn't matter.
EDIT: on another topic, because politics discussions suck for everyone involved:
I think leftist 'sjws' used to be really fucking awful, but after Gamergate far-rightwing idiots have pretty much completely replaced them. Right now, the right-wingers are definitely the worst, especially since they've actually voted people into positions of power. (Thank goodness Le Pen didn't win.)Railey2 wrote: 6a2u27
The right gets triggered all the time, but the left is arguably worse when it comes to that.
What they have in common is that they both regularly get mad over petty shit that doesn't matter.
Great list of examples by the way @Raspberriel
I think it's obvious at this point that some people aren't going to change their minds in the discussion themselves.lol wrote: k2335
just dont see the point of talking politics online, especially on this forum
you could give the best argument of your life but the odds of impacting someones life or even views are next to 0 so what is the point
raileys post was p funny tho
But can you say the same about everyone else who's just reading through the thread? You can't, and that's basically the point of all public discussion of politics, intentional or not.
Unrelated, but this video is amazing. Headphone warning
It's just a way for them to let out some steam.lol wrote: k2335
just dont see the point of talking politics online, especially on this forum
you could give the best argument of your life but the odds of impacting someones life or even views are next to 0 so what is the point
Discussions on the forum get needlessly prolonged. Every time I went to discuss something on a voip, the thing took a couple of hours at most compared to random retarded arguments on the forum. You can write the sort of shit you see in most of these posts, but you sure as fuck can't say that to someone with a straight face.
Yeah, I was pretty peeved (from something unrelated to OT, for what it's worth) before writing that wall of text. And you can clearly see stuff I'd never write normally -- a.k.a. that end segment, which was just way too uncalled-for.Aurani wrote: k3n52
It's just a way for them to let out some steam.lol wrote: k2335
just dont see the point of talking politics online, especially on this forum
you could give the best argument of your life but the odds of impacting someones life or even views are next to 0 so what is the point
Discussions on the forum get needlessly prolonged. Every time I went to discuss something on a voip, the thing took a couple of hours at most compared to random retarded arguments on the forum. You can write the sort of shit you see in most of these posts, but you sure as fuck can't say that to someone with a straight face.
That's probably the last politics-related thing I'll type out in a long while. Being confrontational sucks.
Hoyl ShiT Raspberry started flaming! This is the best day this week for me, can't wait to read into this :eyes:Raspberriel wrote: 2f96m
So yeah, don't EVER say that the right never gets triggered on the scale that the left does. And this goes for all you asshats -- B1rd, Jordan, Comfy Slippers, ColdTooth, FuZ, and especially you, Sync, you piece of shit. Do the world a favor and douse yourself in gasoline and light yourself on fire.
don't get your hopes up, my dudeKisses wrote: 53h3c
Hoyl ShiT Raspberry started flaming! This is the best day this week for me, can't wait to read into this :eyes:Raspberriel wrote: 2f96m
So yeah, don't EVER say that the right never gets triggered on the scale that the left does. And this goes for all you asshats -- B1rd, Jordan, Comfy Slippers, ColdTooth, FuZ, and especially you, Sync, you piece of shit. Do the world a favor and douse yourself in gasoline and light yourself on fire.
Because people saying mean stuff over the internet and voting for people you don't like is worse than rioting, blocking road access for ambulances, attacking people on the streets, ruining lives for people who said something the Left doesn't like?DaddyCoolVipper wrote: 4p47
I think leftist 'sjws' used to be really fucking awful, but after Gamergate far-rightwing idiots have pretty much completely replaced them. Right now, the right-wingers are definitely the worst, especially since they've actually voted people into positions of power. (Thank goodness Le Pen didn't win.)
Pretty much every person who has a little bit of rationality will say that the Left is worse than the Right.
At the very least, you can advance your own understanding. When people stop shitflinging that is.lol wrote: k2335
just dont see the point of talking politics online, especially on this forum
you could give the best argument of your life but the odds of impacting someones life or even views are next to 0 so what is the point
people can't help but be at each other throats
Peoples political views are mostly dependent on their social environment, aka their parents, teachers, friends. The desire to belong to a group is a stronger driving force than the desire to form your own opinions, independent of what your group thinks. Once you're already part of a group (and almost all people are, because we're brought up in a group most of the time), your confirmation bias will assure that you sure as hell won't stray away and change your opinion.
First thing B1rd or Mahogany do when they lose an argument? Run back to their respective camp (aka their sources for information, favorite youtubers, friends) to recharge their feelings alliance, i can promise you that much.
The most effective strategy to change peoples mind is not to make coherent arguments, but to change their social setting, introducing them to a group that consistently holds different views, generating the wish to belong to the new group in your target.
Something this forum is incapable of doing because we have everyone on the political spectrum here, from B1rd to Mahogany. You don't change your opinion in a melting pot, you just group up with the people of your opinion EVEN MORE, to stand against everyone else.
This applies to what 85 percent of all people? The rest know how to think for themselves, so they don't need your arguments in the first place.
Fuck, do you really believe someone can change his opinion in this environment? You can affect maybe one out of a 1000 people, at best. You're just arguing for your own sake here, and you know it.
yes, you can absolutely say that.DaddyCoolVipper wrote: 4p47
I think it's obvious at this point that some people aren't going to change their minds in the discussion themselves.
But can you say the same about everyone else who's just reading through the thread? You can't, and that's basically the point of all public discussion of politics, intentional or not.
Peoples political views are mostly dependent on their social environment, aka their parents, teachers, friends. The desire to belong to a group is a stronger driving force than the desire to form your own opinions, independent of what your group thinks. Once you're already part of a group (and almost all people are, because we're brought up in a group most of the time), your confirmation bias will assure that you sure as hell won't stray away and change your opinion.
First thing B1rd or Mahogany do when they lose an argument? Run back to their respective camp (aka their sources for information, favorite youtubers, friends) to recharge their feelings alliance, i can promise you that much.
The most effective strategy to change peoples mind is not to make coherent arguments, but to change their social setting, introducing them to a group that consistently holds different views, generating the wish to belong to the new group in your target.
Something this forum is incapable of doing because we have everyone on the political spectrum here, from B1rd to Mahogany. You don't change your opinion in a melting pot, you just group up with the people of your opinion EVEN MORE, to stand against everyone else.
This applies to what 85 percent of all people? The rest know how to think for themselves, so they don't need your arguments in the first place.
Fuck, do you really believe someone can change his opinion in this environment? You can affect maybe one out of a 1000 people, at best. You're just arguing for your own sake here, and you know it.
Huh, I honestly haven't seen it that way.Railey2 wrote: 6a2u27
Fuck, do you really believe someone can change his opinion in this environment? You can affect maybe one out of a 1000 people, at best. You're just arguing for your own sake here, and you know it.
I've certainly let myself get too pissed off sometimes when replying to B1rd's stuff for example, but for the most part I try to make arguments that are consistent and logical so that anyone reading it could see that and perhaps agree with my side over his. I think forums (and the internet in general) are DEFINITELY a part of people's "social environment", and that just because there are all kinds of opinions you can find on forums, that doesn't completely invalidate the effect that they can have on people's political views. Hell, I'm pretty sure a large amount of the right-wing shift in the last few years has been influenced by the internet, especially places like reddit (which, granted, have a much better setup for creating their own 'safe spaces' where people can go and feel validated for any opinion they could want.)
Your view of things is quite a lot more cynical than mine. That said, though, you may have a point in that nothing posted here specifically will affect people, since it's more of a dedicated base with already-decided opinions. Maybe I have been wasting my time there, I'm not sure.
I'm a Libertarian, not because I've always been around Libertarian people, but because I've been around authoritarian people and it's bred a dislike for them. It's only because of the internet that I've been able to consolidate my views. If I were simply a product of my social environment, I definitely wouldn't a be Libertarian. And even within my "own camp", there are still constant arguments and debates. Though of course one would tend to associate more with one's own group, the large majority of people have little maturity and can't engage in civil discussion without attacking other people with an "us vs them" mentality, even though I do spend most of my time on non-libertarian forums, no one wants to get shat on constantly.
And I'm not under any illusions that arguments on the internet are the best way to "convince people". "Convincing people" is more about social posturing and sophistry than the quality of one's arguments. I like talking about politics and philosophy, I do not like to be a politician who's job is to get the crowd on their side (a.k.a redditors). One of the reasons I'm against Democracy. However, there are a minority of people who can argue in good faith and who will actually learn something and change their opinions form a rational debate.
And I'm sure Railey thinks he's the only one who doesn't have a confirmation bias, when he is no better at most people when it comes to personal attacks. Which is why I don't bother arguing with him anymore because that is always the result.
And I'm not under any illusions that arguments on the internet are the best way to "convince people". "Convincing people" is more about social posturing and sophistry than the quality of one's arguments. I like talking about politics and philosophy, I do not like to be a politician who's job is to get the crowd on their side (a.k.a redditors). One of the reasons I'm against Democracy. However, there are a minority of people who can argue in good faith and who will actually learn something and change their opinions form a rational debate.
And I'm sure Railey thinks he's the only one who doesn't have a confirmation bias, when he is no better at most people when it comes to personal attacks. Which is why I don't bother arguing with him anymore because that is always the result.
@vipper
This forum is of course a social environment, but
a) if you have a life, its effect on you will most likely weaker than the effect of other environments you're in
b) the forum is super fragmented. What usually happens here is, that people pick the group that you already feel close to instead of opening up to alternative lines of reasoning. Cue Mahogany.
What happens when you enter a platform that is basically a political battleground? You become more set in your own ways.
Don't get me wrong here, vipper: i would agree that many communities on the internet shape (especially young) peoples political views to great effect. Take for example the streamer you linked earlier, Destiny.
Someone right-leaning might his stream for the gaming side of things, start to identify with him and then suddenly become involved in his political content. That's powerful.
But i doubt that something like that could ever happen here, because we don't provide that sort of streamlined community.
if you want to be effective, you really shouldn't argue HERE. Try somewhere else, maybe Destiny's community would be a good place. People that don't agree with him but still like his streams would actually be open for some compelling arguments.
if you want to change peoples minds, you need to separate them from people that agree with them.
This forum is of course a social environment, but
a) if you have a life, its effect on you will most likely weaker than the effect of other environments you're in
b) the forum is super fragmented. What usually happens here is, that people pick the group that you already feel close to instead of opening up to alternative lines of reasoning. Cue Mahogany.
What happens when you enter a platform that is basically a political battleground? You become more set in your own ways.
Don't get me wrong here, vipper: i would agree that many communities on the internet shape (especially young) peoples political views to great effect. Take for example the streamer you linked earlier, Destiny.
Someone right-leaning might his stream for the gaming side of things, start to identify with him and then suddenly become involved in his political content. That's powerful.
But i doubt that something like that could ever happen here, because we don't provide that sort of streamlined community.
if you want to be effective, you really shouldn't argue HERE. Try somewhere else, maybe Destiny's community would be a good place. People that don't agree with him but still like his streams would actually be open for some compelling arguments.
if you want to change peoples minds, you need to separate them from people that agree with them.
i guess not, huhB1rd wrote: 4w393k
My parents were Conservative Baptists? You learn something new every day.
forget what i said then
To sum up my point nicely:
Group hip is (to most people) a stronger force than any rational argument.
it follows that if you want to be effective, you have to talk to people that are separated from their group.
You can't be separated from your group on OT, because the whole spectrum is represented here.
Therefore, OT isn't a good place to try and change peoples minds.
Point 1:Mahogany wrote: 4pak
I thought your point was that we were trying to convince outside observers that we are correct rather than each other
Group hip is (to most people) a stronger force than any rational argument.
it follows that if you want to be effective, you have to talk to people that are separated from their group.
You can't be separated from your group on OT, because the whole spectrum is represented here.
Therefore, OT isn't a good place to try and change peoples minds.
Consequentially, Point 2:
if you're aware of Point 1 and still participate in debates here, you do so for your own sake, not for the sake of ''convincing others'' (as that would be pointless).
i only post here cause its fun.
When i said ''exactly my point'' in my response to you, i meant that you seem to be one of these people that value group hip over everything else. You can't bear talking to B1rd (member of a different group) for even a second, you put him down right away, regardless of context.
You can't use logic to make someone change their opinion if they didn't arrive at that opinion through logic. If someone simply changes their opinion by being in a different social group, it means they never had a rational basis for their ideas in the first place, and were just doing it for social acceptance. It's not so much an issue of the social groups themselves, rather it's the people who make up those social groups. If you are in a hugbox like Reddit, where opposing opinions aren't tolerated, most of the people there aren't there because of a desire for intellectual betterment, but rather a desire to fit in with a certain group (which is a characteristic of most people). If you transplanted one of the people from one of those groups they might change, but it would only be a superficial change. I've been to these hugboxes, it doesn't change the fact that it's a "battle", it just changes the amount of people on "my team" so it's me verses everyone.
So, changing someone else opinion might be rare, but it's still possible, it's just dependent upon finding the right person. The prerequisite for having a productive debate is mutual respect. As soon as it turns into a "battle", any chance for mutual benefit has gone. That's why it's largely pointless to debate people who engage in ad hominem is largely pointless, not to mention not very fun. Though it is true that debates can be a benefit to oneself even if it isn't for the other party.
So, changing someone else opinion might be rare, but it's still possible, it's just dependent upon finding the right person. The prerequisite for having a productive debate is mutual respect. As soon as it turns into a "battle", any chance for mutual benefit has gone. That's why it's largely pointless to debate people who engage in ad hominem is largely pointless, not to mention not very fun. Though it is true that debates can be a benefit to oneself even if it isn't for the other party.
That's exactly my point, B1rd: Humans are social beings, and for most people social groups have a profound impact on what they will and will not think.B1rd wrote: 4w393k
You can't use logic to make someone change their opinion if they didn't arrive at that opinion through logic. If someone simply changes their opinion by being in a different social group, it means they never had a rational basis for their ideas in the first place, and were just doing it for social acceptance. It's not so much an issue of the social groups themselves, rather it's the people who make up those social groups. If you are in a hugbox like Reddit, where opposing opinions aren't tolerated, most of the people there aren't there because of a desire for intellectual betterment, but rather a desire to fit in with a certain group (which is a characteristic of most people). If you transplanted one of the people from one of those groups they might change, but it would only be a superficial change.
Social acceptance is a stronger factor than rationality, otherwise bullshit like religion couldn't be thriving for thousands of years - obviously rationality has nothing to do with it.
But this is not superficial, in fact i'd say that it is quite the opposite: it runs very very deep. An opinion that is the result of someones socialization is usually much harder to change than an opinion that was formed rationally.
The former needs a lot of hard work, potentially the formation of a completely new social environment, while the latter just needs... a better argument. So if you manage to turn someone's opinion around using a socialization process, it's usually the opposite of a superficial change.
Hence why its most effective to try and convince people that are already one foot in a new social environment, such as the right-leaning person that enjoys Destiny's stream.
i agreed 100 percent.B1rd wrote: 4w393k
So, changing someone else opinion might be rare, but it's still possible, it's just dependent upon finding the right person. The prerequisite for having a productive debate is mutual respect. As soon as it turns into a "battle", any chance for mutual benefit has gone. That's why it's largely pointless to debate people who engage in ad hominem is largely pointless, not to mention not very fun. Though it is true that debates can be a benefit to oneself even if it isn't for the other party.
if you find someone using ad-hominems, its usually a sign that they value the protection of their group higher than the pursue of truth (if they valued truth higher, they'd try using arguments instead of insults)
ACTUALLY
i don't think that respect is needed, so i guess its not 100 percent. But still.
B1rd is actually really polite in discussions (for internet-standards), even when his opponents raise him hell.Mahogany wrote: 4pak
It's ironic that b1rd says that when all he's ever cared about is shitting on my opinion
You are the one thats always shitting on him every chance you get, even when the discussion about something that should be completely unrelated to your political disagreements.
Even right now you try to make an ad-hominem argument, or at least i assume that you're trying for that.
You're calling him a hypocrite, even though that has nothing to do with what B1rd and i are discussing.
Well if you say you didn't mean it as ad hominem then fair enough, but its still clear as day that you're very hostile towards B1rd.Mahogany wrote: 4pak
Excuse me, I'm just pointing out a fact? That would make you the one with an ad-hominem here, friendo.Railey2 wrote: 6a2u27
Even right now you try to make an ad-hominem argument, or at least i assume that you're trying for that.
As soon as someone with radically different views rolls in you stop discussing and start fighting. This becomes really clear when you say anything about B1rd.
if you were interested in rational argument you'd be way more open (like daddyvipper, for example). But instead you just flat out insult him every single time you see him. This is because you're not actually interested in hearing what B1rd has to say, you're just interested in protecting your socio-political identity by being as aggressive as you can to anyone that challenges it.
if i started expressing views from the other side of the spectrum, you'd probably start insulting me too. Even if i was very polite to you.
Hostile? Absolutely, he's treated me like shit before our political views even clashed, so he deserves my full ire.Railey2 wrote: 6a2u27
but its still clear as day that you're very hostile towards B1rd.
I actually can't discuss anything with b1rd because he has me blocked, man. If more decent people with still opposing opinions like Foxtrot posted about it more often you'd see that side of me more often, too. It just so happens that b1rd is the only person here being an asshole about it.Railey2 wrote: 6a2u27
As soon as someone with radically different views rolls in you stop discussing and start fighting. This becomes really clear when you say anything about B1rd.
Well, yes, of course. Do you really expect a gay man to let homophobes advocate for violence? A black man to let racists advocate for oppression? A woman to let sexists advocate for abuse? It doesn't matter how polite you are about it, it's about what you're saying.Railey2 wrote: 6a2u27
if i started expressing views from the other side of the spectrum, you'd probably start insulting me too. Even if i was very polite to you.
And before it becomes an issue this isn't me shitting on "libertarians" like b1rd, this is me shitting on nazis or as they call themselves "alt-right", because that's how I interpret "the other side of the spectrum" relative to you. Even though b1rd has shown for the same movement.
To put it bluntly, I have an assumption about Mahogany- I think he's had enough bad experiences with B1rd to hold a grudge against him, deciding to try and give him shit wherever he can after what happened in the past.
I don't know you guys' history, though, so this is really just an assumption. I think for your sake (@Mahogany) that you should probably try to lay off the insults about him as a person and instead attack his arguments, since that's more appealing as a viewer, I guess.
Also, something interesting is that everyone talks about how convincing people isn't necessarily a matter of a good argument. While I agree that good, consistent, logical arguments aren't necessary to change people's opinions, and it's probably more effective to appeal to their emotion or to be a dominant social group, I REALLY detest that kind of way of changing people's opinions. I think that logical, consistent arguments are so important/valuable that I only really want to use those when it comes to 'convincing' people, and I feel like anything else is just cheap and... well, gross, honestly.
It reminds me of something they showed on the news recently, where they interviewed someone who ran a twitter discussing Corbyn and May's clothing (UK elections). They said "While in a perfect world people would vote only on policies, we're embracing the reality that people care more about populism, and the personality of the person being voted for! So we feel that this kind of thing is important in the modern political landscape."
Things like that honestly make me *sick*. I have a massive distate for anything that isn't relatively emotionally-disconnected rationality when it comes to politics, I guess.
I don't know you guys' history, though, so this is really just an assumption. I think for your sake (@Mahogany) that you should probably try to lay off the insults about him as a person and instead attack his arguments, since that's more appealing as a viewer, I guess.
Also, something interesting is that everyone talks about how convincing people isn't necessarily a matter of a good argument. While I agree that good, consistent, logical arguments aren't necessary to change people's opinions, and it's probably more effective to appeal to their emotion or to be a dominant social group, I REALLY detest that kind of way of changing people's opinions. I think that logical, consistent arguments are so important/valuable that I only really want to use those when it comes to 'convincing' people, and I feel like anything else is just cheap and... well, gross, honestly.
It reminds me of something they showed on the news recently, where they interviewed someone who ran a twitter discussing Corbyn and May's clothing (UK elections). They said "While in a perfect world people would vote only on policies, we're embracing the reality that people care more about populism, and the personality of the person being voted for! So we feel that this kind of thing is important in the modern political landscape."
Things like that honestly make me *sick*. I have a massive distate for anything that isn't relatively emotionally-disconnected rationality when it comes to politics, I guess.
You know what? I'm fucking tired of this shit. I'm tired of oldfags shitting on newfags in an attempt to make their petty lives seem more important than what they really are. This is the reason I stopped playing Hearthstone and the reason I stopped using reddit. They are both so circlejerky and are unfriendly to newcomers, and I eventually got fed up with their shit. The difference in this community is that they are at least remotely willing to let new people into their circlejerk.
Stop labeling all newfags as cancer. Some of them are, but you shouldn't apply the term like a blanket, covering anyone who hasn't been here for two years or more. Without new people a community dies, I don't even have to mention tuuba to you all so you'll understand what I'm talking about. Stop having this "patriarchal" attitude that you all have. Just because you have wasted five fucking years of your life on this stupid forum doesn't mean you're better than someone who signed up last year.
Stop labeling all newfags as cancer. Some of them are, but you shouldn't apply the term like a blanket, covering anyone who hasn't been here for two years or more. Without new people a community dies, I don't even have to mention tuuba to you all so you'll understand what I'm talking about. Stop having this "patriarchal" attitude that you all have. Just because you have wasted five fucking years of your life on this stupid forum doesn't mean you're better than someone who signed up last year.
...uhjohnmedina999 wrote: 3r3a6s
You know what? I'm fucking tired of this shit. I'm tired of oldfags shitting on newfags in an attempt to make their petty lives seem more important than what they really are. This is the reason I stopped playing Hearthstone and the reason I stopped using reddit. They are both so circlejerky and are unfriendly to newcomers, and I eventually got fed up with their shit. The difference in this community is that they are at least remotely willing to let new people into their circlejerk.
Stop labeling all newfags as cancer. Some of them are, but you shouldn't apply the term like a blanket, covering anyone who hasn't been here for two years or more. Without new people a community dies, I don't even have to mention tuuba to you all so you'll understand what I'm talking about. Stop having this "patriarchal" attitude that you all have. Just because you have wasted five fucking years of your life on this stupid forum doesn't mean you're better than someone who signed up last year.
I just mentioned that the thread had a different tone since it had more 'oldfags', wasn't intending to shit on anyone
You might not have meant it, but you said it. The gist of your post:DaddyCoolVipper wrote: 4p47
...uh
I just mentioned that the thread had a different tone since it had more 'oldfags', wasn't intending to shit on anyone
RoseusJaeger wrote: x175n
Not the OT i came to see when I first arrived, thats for sure
Also, you're not the only part of the problem. It's all the regulars of this thread, the oldfags. I intended to post something like this when the discussion was up about a week ago, but I couldn't.DaddyCoolVipper wrote: 4p47
It's because these newfags are shitting the place up, that's why, I guess!
Jump off the bridge haha mem Xd
That is a good point; however, seeing as the older s were once just as cringy as they see the newer s, they should be more tolerant with them, because again, without them, this community would die. It's not their fault they were born in 2003 and not in 1995.Zain Sugieres wrote: 2n3vj
I think the reason older s hate newer s is because of the age difference. In a game like osu, new players are usually young (13-15 years old) so if you ed this community 5 or 6 years ago, even if you were 13 at the time you'd be an adult right now which means in general you'll be more mature than people new to the game. That's why the usually childish behavior of newcomers annoys old of the community.
Definitely reading too much into what I said. Unlike a lot of people, I'm not that overly nostalgic about how OT used to be.johnmedina999 wrote: 3r3a6s
You might not have meant it, but you said it. The gist of your post:
RoseusJaeger wrote: x175n
Not the OT i came to see when I first arrived, thats for sureAlso, you're not the only part of the problem. It's all the regulars of this thread, the oldfags. I intended to post something like this when the discussion was up about a week ago, but I couldn't.DaddyCoolVipper wrote: 4p47
It's because these newfags are shitting the place up, that's why, I guess!
I understand that you're just taking the opportunity to have this discussion now since you didn't (want to?) earlier, though.
I never did that. I said the regulars of this thread. I can point out many people who are oldfags but at least tolerate newfags. abraker and levesterz are prime examples.Tae wrote: 27212k
...but you're perfectly fine with doing the reverse?johnmedina999 wrote: 3r3a6s
Stop labeling all newfags as cancer. Some of them are, but you shouldn't apply the term like a blanket, covering anyone who hasn't been here for two years or more.
I was silenced.DaddyCoolVipper wrote: 4p47
Definitely reading too much into what I said. Unlike a lot of people, I'm not that overly nostalgic about how OT used to be.
I understand that you're just taking the opportunity to have this discussion now since you didn't (want to?) earlier, though.