Fly Paper

Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by Mr. G, Apr 20, 2022.

  1. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    You think theres a 'we' and a 'they'. How cute.
    You think theres a 'have' and a 'have not'.
    How simple.

    By design, this thread, by you, is about you.

    This is public masturbation.

    Last edited: Apr 24, 2022
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Well, let's see. You left, and then you came back. What does that suggest to you?

    I don't know. Why would I imagine that?

    What are you trying to say?

    It's what you wanted, isn't it? Some attention.
    Maybe they're right. How many sheep have you herded?
    Where is this "out here" place you mention? Tell me more.

    What more do you have "out here"?
    Last edited: Apr 25, 2022
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    None of you is that important.

    "I don't know. Why would I imagine that?"


    "What are you trying to say?"

    I thinking of selling hearing aids. Want a pair?

    "It's what you wanted, isn't it? Some attention."

    Ah, projection. Got it.

    "Maybe they're right. How many sheep have you herded?"

    Never aspired to be a petty tyrant.

    "Where is this "out here" place you mention? Tell me more."

    Log off, go outside. Put your pants no first.

    What more do you have "out here"?

    Everything you don't have "in here".

    *Mike drop*
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Feeling better now that you got all of that off your chest?

    Clearly, you're life "out there" is amazing and fulfilling and you don't need this place. We won't be seeing you again, then, I assume? Or do you perhaps feel like you need to have the final word before you depart again for your greener pastures?
  8. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Oddly, perhaps, I'm finding this request the most interesting post of all.

    It says a lot about the nature and ethos of this "place".

    "Important Things" can happen only in this "place". That 'Sanctioning' thingy.

    Acceptance here requires full-time adherence to the resident wisdom: that of the groomer types of folks.

    Let's just say it as it is, Groomers pretending to be not.

    I'm sensing that the term "Groomer" is a Swiss Army Knife-kind of term.

    It really works in a lot of situations.

    Like recharacterizing petty tyrants as indistinguinshuable from dispicable.

    Just my opinons. 1st Amendment right to express them, unless I'm not allowed. This is where the tyranny thingy kicks in.
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2022
  9. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Moi thinks your scrambled brain cells create scrambled thoughts (you not only are over thinking, you are over thinking YOUR overthinking)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    sideshowbob likes this.
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Mr. G:

    You're still here. How strange, given all your protests. Or maybe not. Maybe time to start being honest with yourself? You need us, don't you?
    I think you missed my point.

    Recall when you were telling us all that you have lots of better ways to spend your time than to come here? I observe that that seems to be disproved by your continued presence. Right now, for instance, as you read this, you're choosing to leave aside all those Important Things you spend your oh-so-valuable time attending to. You're choosing to invest in this place, here and now. At the same time, you're thinking about how to compose yet another post in which you pretend that you're above all this, because for some reason you need to think yourself better than us.

    You make an interesting character study.
    You're being creepy now, Mr. G.

    I'm going to ask you nicely, just once, to stop with the snide innuendo, because abusing kids is a serious matter. You should never imply that somebody is a child abuser, especially not to score some silly ego points on an internet discussion forum.

    So, don't do it again.

    You were just leaving anyway, weren't you?
  11. candy Valued Senior Member

    Thank you Mr G. I had forgotten to put out the flypaper.
  12. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Thank you all for demonstrating to me that you are no longer a coordinated force against all things/people who must be destroyed because you want them gone.

    Times are changing. Your turn to get used to it.

    The swing of the pendulum.

    Never been religious. Now reap what you've sowed.


    Scream at the sky all you want!

    It's soon going to be your time.

    The swing of the pendulum.
  13. Bells Staff Member

    That moment I tell you that this site isn't American and your Constitution means diddly here...

    Uh huh:

    If you think your 1st Amendment right kicks in here, you're wrong.

    Sure, you may think you have a right to be a dick, does not mean we have to put up with it. Insinuating sexual abuse behaviour is not protected speech. Libel is not protected in your country.

    Just so you're aware.

    And to really drive that point home, keep pulling this kind of crap, you'll be moderated. You can whine about your 1st Amendment as much as you want, this isn't America. You actually have no right to free speech here.
  14. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member


    Speaking (posting) in tongues - which looks like the English Language

    Very interesting

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  15. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    What are you talking about?
  16. foghorn Valued Senior Member

    You must be addicted to this site's flypaper. Don't leave your legs stuck here when you next fly away. Yuk.
    You seem to be stuck good this time round.
    Not another armageddon preacher.
    Watch you don't fall out the pulpit?
    No, that's just you stuck on your own thread's flypaper here.
    You are that Reality person that got kicked off this site. What was his name?? Had his own thread here.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    EDIT: It was 'Spellbound.' The preaching is the give away.
    Last edited: May 3, 2022
  17. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    You missed the point. You're not the only one who gets to control/redefine the meanings of words.
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    No. You did. See post #27, above. I note, also, that you're still choosing to spend time with us, despite your whining protestations. Funny, that.
  19. foghorn Valued Senior Member

    He has just nipped out for another quinquennium.
    You see, I (the great exposer

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ) exposed him.
    Last edited: May 8, 2022
    James R likes this.
  20. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    I can't tell if he's a prophet or a Republican, but in either case that's the thing: A part of American culture that raised its progeny not simply to be wary of the crazy preacher dude with a sandwich board, but to take satisfaction from his misfortune, are finally becoming the crazy preachers with sandwich boards.

    Here's a joke: Once "liberty and justice for all" actually came to mean it was for everyone, wypipo called it off.

    The short form is that the people who have largely been in charge want to imagine history has oppressed them, so they can hide their bloodlust in the passions of vengeance as justice. That is to say, the people who want to inflict harm are lining up for vendetta. They literally need the effed-up, delusional narrative in order to justify themselves as freedom fighters instead of institutional oppressors.

    It's actually a large-scale political threat: Pogrom as self-defense. And they're actually excited at the prospect of the harm they might cause.


    It is important for people to recognize what they are actually seeing; at Sciforums, for instance, I've always thought it was a bad idea to pander to these people, but that's the thing: Rational discourse has the inherent effect of disqualifying irrational arguments. And so, for years, when people would pretend to be striking some enlightened position in which rational discourse itself becomes anathema, this sort of incoherent, bloodlusting antisocial dysfunction is what they were protecting and advancing. The thing is, this sort of appeal to "free speech" has the effect of quieting or drowning out discourse that is not dysfunctional, and for many people that dampening was always the point. And over time, one volatile aspect is some people who claim to not support this stuff eventually have to reckon with the effects of their own rhetoric, and instead of stepping away to not be part of it, like they would otherwise have claimed, they dive in.

    And while I might have plenty to say about enabling and empowerment, the actual important point is to to make clear that people are dealing with an actually dangerous phenomenon.

    The most straightforward explanation is relativistic and circular: The expressed concern is that Sciforums becomes too liberal, elitist, and tyrannical if we hew to rational discourse, valid evidence, rhetorical integrity, and good faith. It is not utterly baseless; a political argument that relies on deception, misrepresentation, and bad faith will have a hard time if obliged to good faith, rational consideration of valid evidence, and generally rational discourse.

    If you look back to G's heyday around here, you'll find the place could be pretty brutal. It was different, then, compared to now; it's one thing to concede certain market realities, but when push came to shove, we simply abandoned the complicating principles as quietly as possible. Nobody has ever come out and explicitly called off rational discourse, but any expectation asserting a threshold of rational discourse is actually considered inappropriate, viewed as a tool intended to silence political dissent and actively guarded against; I've had that discussion a few times over the years.


    So here's the subtle difference: Once upon a time, we let people like G roam around ostensibly in the name of free speech and not freaking out over every little thing; we did not want to silence political views. The problem with that is its underlying, tacit presupposition of good faith, without which impassioned political argument becomes nothing more than a heap of meaningless insults delivered for the satisfaction of someone or other's freedom.

    Here's an outcome: Obviously, it's not that what happens here determines what goes on in the world, but I'm thinking of an old staff dispute that spilled into public view, and for once it wasn't actually me. I dug it up last year, while looking for an obscure reference point, but it came to mind recently when a governor's press secretary popped off on Twitter—the subsequent conservative noise about grooming just keeps reminding.

    So, once upon a time, one moderator dropped one of those rough political lines on another, a homophobic bit accusing of some context of child sexual abuse. How granular should I be, because it is important to note that connecting the dots between what was said and how that constitutes child abuse was something of a reach, which the other described as creepy and perverted. The one started a separate thread to bawl about it, and the result coming down the ladder was that more was expected of staff than calling someone a creepy pervert. As near as I can tell, accusing child abuse like that is just part of politics, and gets a little more room. Or something approximately like that.

    But if the day Pushaw went off about grooming recalled the tender oversensitivities of a supremacist and the indignity of a woman talking back, it has to do with reflections on the history leading to this American societal moment. There is a tenedency to mitigate the fact of certain supremacism. We might infantilize—i.e., oversimplify—it, in order to pretend it is not dangerous; sometimes we pretend it's just good people blowing off some steam¹; and sometimes we hide it in the noise of acceptable political speech², or bow to perceptions of market demand, &c., ad nauseam. So: No, some 2014 episode at Sciforums is not the reason why conservatives are going there today. However, it provides an example of everyday people doing their part. Society made enough excuses³, and for a while, now, the sort of barfly and gutter talk that was supposed to stay in the pubs and gutters has guided American conservative politics.

    And, look, if there is a story about a moderator deleting criticism of his post denouncing Central American migrants as an invading army, no, that episode from 2010 is not the reason Donald Trump gave that rhetoric the prestige of White House imprimateur, nor a right-winger subsequently including it in his manifesto before killing twenty-three, but I might toss a coin, being unable to decide what to tell you: Heads, compared to simply doing our part, it's also an example of how important it was to be able to talk like that. Tails, it ought to have been impossible to reasonably imagine, nearly a decade before the El Paso shooting, how far things would go.


    And here's the twist: For as much as I might disagree with James about a whole lot of what goes on around here, the idea that G wants to beef with him ought to be absurd. G's heyday comes from before staff disagreements had their present context, and includes the fabled golden age of ferocious dispute.

    Anyway, it's actually rare that I can speak anywhere near to common 'twixt James and me, but one thing that stands out is the extraordinary intensity of G's anger. Compared to once upon a time, he's in a bad mood. It's almost like we might wonder if he's tired of all that winning.

    It's one thing if G wants to throw at me; his loathing is nothing new. But this is just angry noise. What did James ever do to him, except show extraordinary accommodation to infamous politics G might happen to appreciate?

    But if part of his point is to just roar, that is what the anger has become.

    Look, what you're seeing is actually a real thing. This fixation on judgment, fancy toward triumph, and dark talk of repayment, extraneity, numbers, lining up↗, and swinging pendula is not just some one-off. They're dreaming of the pogrom. This is actually something that really does go on, these days.

    In our history at Sciforums, G is an emblem of a certain long-ago that is not entirely irrelevant. Compared to the stuff of later periods, he is a marker of something that has been going on in society more generally for a long time. Watch institutions panic about protesting and the Supreme Court in a way they just don't when the controversy at the heart of it isn't so conservative. The reason that imbalance is so evident right now is that our society has never really discouraged it. As we emerge from our traditionalist brutishness, our society still suffers and sympathizes with pangs of heritage.

    At the heart of it is an increasingly desperate antisociality angry at the fact of its own alienation, and, yes, much of it is strangely self-inflicted.

    In truth, I suspect part of the problem is that they are not utterly unaware that not only is their need irrational in itself, but contrary to their own self-righteousness. Increasing nakedness of the growing depravity about their argument further erodes their sociality in stinging winds of neurotic distress. It's one thing to wonder how many believed their own bullshit, but far more interesting to learn how they came to believe.

    As it is, in the U.S., at least, things are weirder and more dangerous than usual.


    ¹ (I might have mentioned this before)

    ² … which is not without its own significance, but that is its own discussion.

    ³ If I have a joke about the felons bringing a documentary film crew to the felonious meeting at which the felons conspire toward further felonies, it's actually a true story, and toward the present consideration reminds something about the excuses we made, because not every iteration of political violence would be so accustomed to a certain expectation of accommodation; the violent right-wing traditionalist-supremacists might never have thought of the criminal-evidentiary question in that context because why would they—society had made enough excuses for them up until then.
  21. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    Blah, blah,blah, blah, blah.

    You actually believe all that crap.

  22. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    I'm actually impressed.

    I figured that the resident Room Monitors would have nixed my ass for being totally disrespectful of their fragile egos.

    I'm inclined to give them a righteous shout-out for their willingness to suffer what they dish.
  23. Mr. G reality.sys Valued Senior Member

    "It's one thing if G wants to throw at me; his loathing is nothing new."

    I've never loathed a thought toward you.

    Funny you think you're a mind reader.

    I've thought of you and James approximatly worthy adversaries.

    There's some respect in there someplace..

Share This Page