James R: The S.A.M Issue

Discussion in 'Site Feedback' started by Gustav, Sep 7, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Interesting analysis by James. Has he also counted how many of my posts are responses to "haters" that sciforums will not reign in? Or is criticism only welcome when you agree with the point of view?
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Not quite true, most people don't, most people in fact try to ignore the topic because it's of little relevance or interest to them, of course it's thrust in their face by some activist or other pushing their warez, which incidentally if anything tends to push those people that might have paid attention to a discussion further and further away from ever reading or participating.
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Gustav Banned Banned


    a few examples would be good here
    i would like to see these "points" you consider unassailable premises
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    I have some serious disagreements with SAM. I think she is in fact bigoted against "the Jews", fundamentally confused re atheism, baffled and uncomprehending regarding US culture and Western mores, and probably adherent of numerous other flawed philosophical and intellectual positions that haven't struck my attention.

    But amid the endless spewing of vile and personal attacks against her, the ranting jingoistic shitflinging, the moronic playground backslag, the bizarre and time-wasting and irrelevant vituperation continually directed her way, most of it launched from apparent self-oblivious misreadings and bigotry-based failures to comprehend SAM's posts, I'm having a hard time getting a reasonable argument in edgewise.

    Which SAM's incorrigible deflection does not make easier, but still:

    You guys are and have been way out of line, IMHO. It has been your behavior, not SAM's, that has created the bulk of the "problem of SAM" that exists on this forum.

    And I am still waiting for this:
  8. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    But you've just said what constitutes SAMs end of the problem: bigotry, confusion, uncomprehension, flawed intellectual positions, etc. On one end you're giving this list of problems that confirm what has been said of SAM but then write all this off as everyone else's problem. That doesn't make sense, my man.

    Bigotry based failure to comprehend a post?

  9. mike47 Banned Banned

    When you support the troops and the trops kill innocent people isn't this a pure racism ???. Of course it is stupid.
  10. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Objectively, there are at any given time, far more threads on American issues in WEP than any other.
  11. Gustav Banned Banned



    oh, ice will never be your man
    there is a chasm of unimaginable proportions that separates your respective intellects. one, a giant, the other, a midget


    run along, boy!
  12. WillNever Valued Senior Member

    Gustaf, I don't know who poured hydrochloric acid down your crotch but don't take it out on me, okay?

    In the mean time, Iceaura has just gone on record saying that people are suffering from a bigotry based failure to comprehend posts. However, there's nothing complex about SAMs posts. In most cases they are written in broad, sweeping and dehumanized terms. Often, they are just questions. If you behave in the same way, and respond to her questions with questions, then she loses her cool and blows her stack: which she did, in that thread I linked to you. She reported my posts to the moderators in that thread, on page 11 or so, and even made a declaration that she was doing so.

    Such behavior is not intellectual, gustaf. It's what babies do.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  13. Gustav Banned Banned


    lets hang the baby for crimes against humanity

    roll out the goddamn gallows!

    this thread has a specific purpose
    the peanut gallery should refrain from trolling
    if you guys have issues, go sfog it
    this is not the venue
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2009
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    I'll try to explain.

    The issue raised here is "Did Barack Obama (a) order missile attacks, (b) intend to kill Palestinian civilians, or be reckless as to whether civilians were killed, (c) promise to kill civilians as an election promise?"

    Now, consider for a minute how SAM phrased her opening post. We have "humble families", "Pakistani citizens", "slaughtered", contrasted deliberately with a clearly intended irony of the "angelic, charming" President. A loaded assessment before we even start, in the guise of an innocent question or opener for a debate.

    SAM also has a racial dig at Obama. How is the fact that he is black relevant here? Perhaps SAM thinks Obama should show solidarity with those "humble families" in Pakistan because he is black. Also, there's an implied slur on the fact that Obama was educated at Harvard. Probably SAM is having a go at what she perceives as privilege, and implying that Obama's privileged education makes him disconnected from the concerns of ordinary people such as "humble" Pakistanis.

    Also consider that SAM smears Americans in general, asking what is in their hearts. The implication is that any American who supports Obama is anti-Pakistani and in favour of the killing of innocent civilians. SAM deliberately wants to paint Americans in general, and Obama in particular, as immoral and uncaring.

    This is not an opening post that invites intelligent discussion. It is an opening post that invites people to hate the evil Americans and their evil President, since they all set out to kill the humble and innocent citizens of Pakistan, for reasons we can only imagine but which can in no way be justified.

    Now, I am in no way saying that a discussion of drone missile attacks in Pakistan is invalid. I have issues not with the topic, but with the hateful way in which it is presented. This OP invites only an extreme response either way. Either you are on the side of the Good and the Right (which means you agree with SAM's assessment that the United States and Obama are evildoers through and through) or you are with the terrorists (i.e. America and its foreign policy, headed by the evil and despised Obama).

    I hope this helps explain the problems I have with this.
  15. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    SAM does no such thing. SAM posts an article written by an American, indenting the selected parts and then posts her questions at the end of the indent

    The link is given at the end of the indent.

    Why is this being presented as my words?

    My words are merely:

    Last edited: Sep 8, 2009
  16. skaught The field its covered in blood Valued Senior Member

    The only solution to this problem would be compromise. As you can see, this is not an option as certain parties are not willing to compromise or consider the others point of view and come to terms on some middle ground.

    The only solution I can personally come up with for the Palestinian/Israeli problem would ultimately be to remove all people from the land and relocate them elsewhere on the globe as far away from each other as possible. We can all see how this would never happen. But for a situation as messed up as this one, I believe it would be the only solution. Perhaps some similar solution is called for for our situation here...
  17. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Also I would be curious to know, now that you know its written by a leftist American opinion website, do you still have the same opinion about it?


    Or does it sound different to you coming from them?
  18. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    Vacuum Warp

    We're in a war, James, where we shoot through civilians to get at the enemy.

    Would you disagree with the fictional general in the following contrived exchange:

    Reporter: How does the government justify the killing of these civilians?

    General: Well, we didn't intend to.

    Reporter: What precautions were taken against civilian casualties?

    General: This is a war. You can't always stop and be careful.​

    My point is that while Obama is responsible for the missile attacks, your points (b) and (c) are straw men.

    We're there allegedly to help people.

    Imagine you're at the bank one day when some guys come in and hold the place up. You're one of about thirty hostages they hold as the police surround the building. Now, as the police are there to help you, would it really make sense for them to just bomb the bank into dust?

    Sure, they didn't intend to kill you. They intended to kill the bad guys. But maybe a little caution is called for? Or are civilians automatically condemned by the proximity of wanted criminals?

    If you had to give the call, how many civilians would you kill to get one terrorist? Two terrorists? Ten of them?

    Despite some claims that America has transcended its black/white racial issues with the election of Barack Obama, the question still remains how we will judge him. Are we charmed by his life story? Do we let our pride at having finally elected a black president cloud our objectivity? You know, there's a lot of racism coming out in the right-wing opposition to Obama, but that doesn't mean the president's skin color and the fact that he is the first black president, doesn't affect other people in other ways.

    Smears? I think the warping caused by your compression of these issues is severe.

    Americans, at least—and I'm pretty damn sure we're not the only ones in this—engage this odd transference of identity. Students of my day going on a field trip, or to an interscholastic sporting event, are told to be on their best behavior because they "represent the school". I sat in class one day in fifth grade, for instance, for an hour, listening to my teacher explain how we were all disgraceful. Apparently, two or three players had vandalized a bathroom at another school after a basketball game.

    And we all sat back, hearing how horrible and embarrassing we all were.

    Or parents. Good heavens, it's a curse of my generation in America. In the middle class, there is a strong current that explains to the child, "Do you want the neighbors to think we're bad parents?"

    So, yes, Americans like Jay Janson are probably quite accustomed to the rhetorical device you denounce as a smear against our nation.

    Of course, beyond that, we saw overwhelming public support for the war in Iraq, broad criticism of pacifists as "anti-American" and "terrorist supporters"; we empowered the Republicans in 2002, re-elected George W. Bush in 2004, asked for change in 2006 and, despite not getting it, asked again in electing Barack Obama, a man who we knew intended to step up in Afghanistan.

    No, it doesn't speak for everyone. The alternative, of course, is that "America" and "Americans" don't actually stand for anything, so people should stop using those terms in such contexts.

    Thus: "America" didn't go to war in Iraq. "Americans" didn't support the war. "America" wasn't hit on 9/11—just a few airplanes, a couple of buildings in New York, one in Washington, and an empty field in Pennsylvania, all to the tune of 2,800 dead. Just under three-thousand people, four airplanes, three buildings, and an empty field. That's all that was attacked.

    And, okay, sure. If that's how we're going to look at it, fine. But that would also be a deviation from our typical and traditional rhetoric. It would redefine our language.

    And that's all fine. But we also have this idea in the U.S. Constitution that says you don't do things ex post facto. Put simply, if this is the new standard, fine. I can live with that. But we need to establish that new standard, and it's not fair to hold against people actions taken under the former standard that were, in fact, in line with it.

    Well, at the very least, it brings the problem out into the light. Thank you for that, at least.

    But nobody else can solve it for you. Not even S.A.M. This one's all yours.
  19. Gustav Banned Banned


    moving on.....2 of 12 unsequenced

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    again, tell me why, please. i also note the thread remains open in free thoughts
    this time i would like you to comment on the other players in that thread
    lucysnow seems ubiquitous so take a moment to assess her contribution. i am of course not asking you to neglect the rest of the players

    quote more posts from that thread that trouble you the most. i presume it is only sam's, correct?
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2009
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Because you chose these words.

    Whenever you quote something to make a point or raise an issue, you are making a selection from a multitude of available materials and sources. Your choices, SAM, invariably show the kinds of biases I just pointed out. There are plenty of unbiased sources out there, but you never use them. Or, if you do, you go quote-mining for parts of them that put the matter into the hateful light you always wish to emphasise.

    Of course.
  21. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Indeed my choices as you correctly pointed out generally reflect my biases. I am invariably and consistently biased to the leftists viewpoint in all media I choose.

    There is no such thing as a unbiased opinion, in my opinion. Opinions by their very nature are biased. Which is why it is more important to pay attention to actions than words.
  22. Gustav Banned Banned


    is that not what you did?
    highlight a portion of the text notable for its rhetorical extravagance and hold it out as an example of sam's hate? an article that was quoted in its entirety?

    are you serious?

  23. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Not entirety, I only posted the major points made across the article.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page