My, my. Lots of action in here.
Let's see.
I would like to make a note that I never defended Gendanken's posts. So many strawmen in this thread. I pointed a finger at hypocrisy. Nothing more.
On the subject of the tolerance of insults, that's a completely different topic; however, I tend to fall on the side of tolerance more than police-stateism.
But, that's neither here nor there and I don't think the admin is amenable to a policy discussion at this time. I could be mistaken.
Anyway.
Let's start with the Grand Wazoo:
James,
First of all, good job. You've always been fairly impartial, and this time is no exception.
A few things.
The only "behaviour" of the moderator, apart from issuing the ban, is posting the reason as gendanken being an "insufferable bitch". I don't see exactly how that's "worse behaviour" than gendanken's five or six posts of insulting, unrequested character analysis of another member of the forum.
It's worse for two reasons.
1. It's crude.
2. It's from a moderator performing a blatant act of hypocrisy. Salt in the wound.
Technically speaking, I see the two offenses as practically equal.
However, the dangerous area here for a moderator is the precedent involved. Ben was setting a precedent where character analysis is perfectly acceptable. However he set the precedent while punishing the same act. Hence chaos.
Bad business.
That's still my personal policy, especially where nobody has reported any of the posts. When I do receive reports, I look to see whether the person reporting is equally at fault. And that has an effect on whether and what penalty is applied.
That's good to know.
A question.
What about Lori telling Gendanken to, and I quote: "kiss my ass. if you want to bitch about my face, then here's something else to look at, bitch. bye."
It's true that one is far more effective than the other, but isn't this is a bit of tit for tat?
I suppose that you're allowed a free parting shot, perhaps?
And what of a typical snowflake response such as: "
you have a unique and refreshing way of spewing self-indulgent bullshit. most of us try to disguise it with a point. "
What type of response would this warrant?
It is attacking content rather than character, but isn't it antagonistic? Especially considering that what it really means is that the snowflake can't read more than two sentences in a row without losing consciousness?
Unfortunately, intelligence and wit only go so far to compensate for foul language, sex obsession and character assassination. gendy walks the line, and I'm sure she is well aware of when she is stepping over it - mostly.
As I said to Enmos. I was answering a direct question. I was asked to compare two pieces of literature and judge the intelligence and/or wit of the respective authors. I did so. I stand by my assessment.
The point is mostly shock value. She thinks it boosts her reputation for being daring and unconventional and individual. And for some members, it works.
The problem with being moderately intelligent is that after a while you start to assume that you're always the smartest person in the room. But mostly that's just because you don't meet or interact with people who are smarter than you are. Ego is a dangerous thing to have as the primary basis of your self-worth.
No offense, but this so off-base.
Ever heard of Ambrose Bierce?
I sympathise, but we can't have one rule for idiots and a different rule for the rest when it comes to matters of basic courtesy in interactions on the forum. There's no rule against being stupid. Maybe we should have one...
I agree. However, sometimes it seems we have one. The idiots slip under the radar as their insults are so ineffective as to seem ridiculous. However, the intent is there, just not the means.
Ok. Let's pick at some random scabs:
I suppose first of all a direct message to Enmos.
Enmos,
You seem to be full of logical fallacies. Can you name them?
I'll forgive the fallacious line of questioning and answer some regardless.
Just pointing out your own hypocrisy..
That's one.
Which?
You were insulting Lori from the start, calling her snowflake etc. Now you want her punished for calling you a name?
That's another. I'll help with this one.
From the start?
I answered a direct question.
A strawman, by the way.
Also, it seems you define the difference between a snowflake and a witty person by the effectiveness of their insults; i.e. witty persons are far more effective in their insults.
Furthermore, you seem to argue that a 'witty person' is preferable over a 'snowflake'.
Does this mean that you celebrate effective insults while thinking that ineffective insults should be punished?
Could be fallacy. Could be purposeful or other obtuseness.
This thread is about equality under the law.
However, yes, a witty person is preferable over a snowflake. You like defending the inadequate from themselves?
The definition of snowflake is not centered around insults...
I have a dog.
My dog will not pee on the tile. He will not pee on the hardwood floor.
However, there is an area in my house which has the subfloor (i.e. plywood) exposed awaiting installation of hardwood.
My dog will pee there.
See. I've tried to train my dog to know that peeing inside is bad. Peeing outside is good.
He focused not on the inside/outside schism, but rather the substrate.
That's what you're doing.
Forget insults.
Snowflakes are inadequate. Ineffective. Unintelligent. Incapable. In need of defending. Especially from the knowledge that they are not really snowflakes at all.
...
You've read Fight Club? Seen the movie?
This isn't my concept.
I can't disagree with that..
But.
You like Snowflakes!
And, you like that warm fuzzy feeling of defending them?
Noble, yes?
So.. it's ok to insult people now?
That's what Ben was advocating, yes?
Randwolf,
I don't think Enmos, a prolific poster and extremely fair moderator, whom can hardly be considered "blind", deserved that insult, veiled or not.
I do.
He doesn't even read her shit.
Most people don't.
Skaught,
Wrong again.
It sounded better the second time though.
Have
you ever heard of Ambrose Bierce?
What's missing on the internets is emotive content.
You're all fucked up on what you read.
As to the "how dare you be upset that the insulter is insulted", see above.
Good point on the unfair thing, I agree. But sometimes you tilt at windmills nonetheless.
Sometimes they're actually dragons.
Lori blah blah,
some of the sickest, most hateful, vile shit i've ever read, in my marriage thread.
I thought it was pretty funny and right on.
She wasn't even attacking you, (I was about to say "you big dummy" as that is a particular affectation of mine derived from one Sanford and Son, but that would likely only incur wrath from above...)
She's attacking your religion and customs.
I'm not going to bother to explain though.
You won't understand.
the gesture i made to gendy by posting a pic of my backside (fully clothed) was not only mild-mannered, it was entirely appropriate. it's not surprising that you and gendy are too superficial to get the message but it was "kiss my ass. if you want to bitch about my face, then here's something else to look at, bitch. bye."
On the contrary, Buttercup.
It was quite blatant.
You really don't think you're smarter than other people, do you?
i apologize for offending.
Liar.
that was Q. it's expected.
Interesting.
Don't worry. I know you don't understand why.
Back to the E
I think you're right about most of the above, except for the misanthropy part
You would.
It's appealing and comforting.
Easy.
Burns no calories.
Signal,
No need to quote.
Just to agree.
Lori's Ass,
Of course the ass pic was inane. That's the point. It wasn't offensive. Not in the least. How could some stupid shit like that ever offend anybody but the most uptight muslim? (Sorry, Sam, not you.)
But it was meant to be.
That's all.
Now as to comments on user pics. I'm ambivalent.
People do post their pics here to get comments. They love places that are snowflake friendly to do so they can get all cuddled and rubbed and whatnot.
I do think that if you want to get the good, you should be prepared for the bad as well.
Sort of the nature of the beast.
Sam,
This is nothing frankly, Dr Lou was unbelievably graphic in The Pitcher Thread where he caricatured members quite ruthlessly - including moi - its just that some people have the ability to laugh at themselves and some people prefer to laugh at others.
That was fucking awesome.
Man.
That was some good shit right there.
Think *name deleted* is a doctor yet? Riding around in his ambliance?
Frankly Lori takes it better than many other posters
Personally, I see her as mostly harmless. But, then again, that's the danger isn't it?
Kira,
Then again, probably Gendanken wasn't reported because of her comments to Lori's pic. We don't know she was reported because of which posts or by whom!
Yeah. That Christi-whatsit. Showing her big ol' titties to the slobbering drunk boy.
By the way, just a quick note, off topic and all, Gendanken never called her fat.
I will not make any opinion unless I see the whole thread. Nevertheless, I wouldn't want anybody say that to me *cringe*. I understand why she was reported.
Good call.
The quote out of context is inane.
She was pointing out that such acts, according to Lori's religion, constitute a marital contract and are holy. That sort of thing.
Not sure if the actual post exists anymore.
Shame really.
I don't do it justice.
Oh. Almost missed:
About what Ben wrote in the ban page (reason of banning: being an insufferable bitch), that is just Ben's style. If you look up the ban list, he wrote things like:
- Fuck your iPads, spammer douchebag.
- Fuck your cheap phones.
- asshole spammer
- Get lost asshole.
- ball-licking spammer
- asshole selling phones
- spammer crackpot douchebag
- etc
so he didn't write it in an unusual way as if he has some kind of personal grudges against Gendy.
A bit different don't you think?
See. If I had objected to those ban statements the scenario would have been this:
Banned: Spambot2000.
Reason: Buy my Ipad at spamwhore.com
By the way.
I actually like Ben.
He's crusty.
Or used to be.
Alright.
Looks like about it, doesn't it?
Kinda peters off at the end, doesn'
