You are talking about equality of outcomes while I'm talking about equality under the law, and the elimination of double standards in society.
Why is it okay for Tiassa to promote sexism?
- Thread starter angrybellsprout
- Start date
- Status
You are talking about equality of outcomes while I'm talking about equality under the law, and the elimination of double standards in society.
such is unattainable. Lets say a couple decides to form a relationship and test it out for a year by living together. The man realizes after a while that she does not wipe the floor of their apartment as much as he does and she spends too much time on leisure, well he must understand that he must act not by "50% his job and 50% her job", he must act and think to do 100% of the job and not require or wait for her to fill in, but with happiness and acceptness fulfill the requirement fully. Only this way will a solution be reached.
So you wish to instead promote double standards?
that is irrelevant. What is relevant is understanding of once purpose in life as to achieve 100% and not wish/wait for others to do their job and not feel like you are being cheated of any.
Hard to achieve 100% when you are facing double standards, and discriminatory legislation.
The problem is that individuals such as Tiassa believe that if you say anything against the double standards that it is 'sexist' because equality is just unfair.
The problem is that individuals such as Tiassa believe that if you say anything against the double standards that it is 'sexist' because equality is just unfair.
We do not wait for "fairness" and we do not label "unfairness". We act in accordance to the best of our ability what can be done in a situation. We act to achieve close to 100% with a goal in mind to act our best. Equality is nonexistant in our world. There is no problem but what we made ourselves of.
Why should tiassa be allowed to use his moderator privileges to intimidate posters to provide evidence for an argument they never asserted?
Both of those threads reminded me of the Wiki entry for troll:
Wikipedia said:
I'd say the OP did that in both cases...
Of course someone who supports sexism would say such a thing.
So says the person who is too lazy to learn what Google is or too lazy to ever actually read articles or links posted.
hhehhehehe, well yea
But notice he wont say because i KNOW which artical hes talking about and i read all bloody 4 pages of it and THEN backed him up and what did i get for my effort?
THIS!!!
we do not wait for other's actions, we do 100% of the job ourselves. Our efforts are for ourselves, our goals are to excel in that which we do and act the most we can do, the best we can do.
superstring01
Moderator
Yes. Tiassa the gash-hater. Sure.
~String
~String
He shouldn't, plain and simple. The way that he did it distorted the discussion that was at hand, and yes it is common knowledge that it is almost always men who are hurt by license suspensions. The groups that pushed for these measures used the catch-phrase "deadbeat dads" for years. It took them quite a while to catch on to the idea that "reverse sexism" really was sexism. A few token prosecutions of female violators of the law does not make it any less sexism. Tokenism was attempted and women didn't go for it in the 1960s and 1970s. On the other hand I still don't see huge numbers of women coming up with the idea on their own to make certain that men get a fair shake. Tiassa certainly doesn't want to give men a fair shake here. I have to lay this out to show people what kind of argument Tiassa is suppressing. He isn't allowing people here to protest ill treatment of and sexist discrimination against men. I have seen him use just about every trick in the book, including the extremely tired one of saying that I started a topic "in bad faith." All things considered here, Tiassa had no legs to stand on when he talked about that.
Tiassa has been abusing his moderator powers to end a topic that he has some kind of personal thing against. He even suppressed, and probably will suppress again, discussion in the Open Government section concerning this topic and his behavior. This is behavior unbecoming to a moderator of a forum like this. People don't trust him when he sets some kind of arbitrary condition, and even if it was right for him to do so, people still don't feel that they can trust him. The price of compliance is too high when you can expect him to enter another harangue and bully you some more after you do comply with one of his directives.
Also, it looks like Asguard banned me for introducing a topic, again in Open Government, about the necessity that I perceive to discuss closed threads. Fair moderation is a legitimate concern and discussions of fair moderation belong here. I think that the only reason that Tiassa can give, the only honest reason is "because I can." It isn't honest to interfere with discussion of moderator behavior in an "Open Government" discussion area.
Any bans or threats that result from this discussion thread should be considered an abuse of moderator powers.
ABS, stop fucking whining will you? This is the second anti-Tiassa thread you've posted. Grow up.
- Status