An out-of-left-field non sequitur. There
Not out of left field, James;
see #61↑ above.
There is no threat in post #61.
You wrote, "I will bear this in mind in future interactions with cluelusshusbund", and the thing is, James, you issue infractions to people for make-believe offenses.
And consider, James—
If he is unable to remain civil in conversation, it is probably a waste of my time and effort to try to help him to compensate for his apparent learning difficulties. But maybe that's just an act, too.
—there remains the question of what happens if he's just too retarded. Maybe you'll make him an Administrator?
(What has happened to basic manners? Why do so many people find it so hard to have a cordial, honest and open conversation with another human being?)
Actually, James, it's you. This is the atmosphere and culture you, as Administrator, sought. And it's pretty clear that sarcasm, trolling, flaming, and lying is acceptable to you as long as people have the right politics. But someone gives you a, "Bye, Felicia", and
that hurts your feelings.
What happened to basic manners is that you sacrificed them at the altar of not silencing political views. Because apparently there are just some views that cannot be properly expressed with rational, supportable discourse.
That's why some people around here never have to put up an actual argument, and are allowed to run on fallacy.
Consider that you didn't need to thank me. The thing about it is that the subsequent paragraphs in #61 have absolutely nothing to do with me except that you posted them. After the first paragraph, none of #61 has anything to do with me; it was your vehicle for communicating with Cluelusshusbund and other members whose challenge might distress you.
What you present to the world, James, is a fragile, incapable, bitter old fuddy-duddy.
†
Here, James, let's take a look at this:
I set up a poll to compare the opinions of sciforums readers to the results in the Gallup poll. I used the same terms they did. Why don't you take your "word game" issue to Gallup?
You wrote that in one of your posts dancing around the human rights of women; that was 11 February, Pacific Time.
On 28 February,
Seattle↑ decided that wasn't good enough: "Tiassa, why word the poll to include the right to choose in general vs the right to choose in all cases if the point isn't to make people think?"
He's probably not going to take the question up with you. "Most reasonable people, when responding to a poll aren't going to pick an ill defined absolute choice," he said. You're probably not going to get all sniffy about it and tell him to take it up with Gallup.
It doesn't matter, in his moment, what you actually said about the poll. All he can do is challenge from ignorance. For instance, the prospect that a minor isn't competent to abort, results in the circumstance that she is competent to carry a pregnancy to term. It's kind of a glaring contradiction, but beside the point for his purpose, which is akin to a stumbling block.
Think about it; something about cryptocurrency upset you enough to issue a personally-motivated infraction against Seattle that contradicts even your own passionately-argued standard. (Remember? You fired me for pointing that out.) But when Seattle is foolin' around in order to troll a thread with thoughtless noise and demand, well, you're okay with it because it suits your political need.
Nor is that unfamiliar behavior, James. Consider Yazata. You liked him a lot more when he covered for you in the Religion subforum, but lately
bawled↗ about Yazata telling a "big lie", a label
you assigned↗. Yet when it comes to the notorious "Big Lie" that sought to overturn an entire nattion, you're
crying for the believers↗.
It's why Billvon can double and triple down on encouraging terrorism, but when it's Parmalee doing a comedy bit, you make the joke about stochastic terrorism into something more dangerous than the stochastic terrorism, itself. Indeed, Billvon can even chirp hypocritically at Parmalee, and that's all to the good, for you, because Billvon supported a politic you agree with, and Parmalee supported a politic you disagree with.
(True, he was clumsy about his performance, but you're also someone who
spent↗ four↗ posts↗ about↗ one-armed men and cancel culture in stand-up comedy; as you note, you wrote more about it in the back room. The idea that you can't discern the joke does not suit your huffy confidence about stand-up comedy, and we can even see in those posts the beginning of you falling down a hole.¹)
Your politics have shown for a long time, James. And your sensitivity makes the point. We can look back over fifteen years to find you issuing an infraction on behalf of white supremacist arguments. (Oh, right, you've hidden that record from people.)
Look, you wonder what happened to basic manners? You were worried, James, about suppressing political views. So, while Seattle's question about your poll isn't exceptional compared to the noise around here, it's a reminder that around here it doesn't matter what the other side has, as such, because as long as it suits your political need, one side of an argument needs nothing more than insistent superstition and shitposting.
And let's be clear: As a political reality, whatever; it's hardly unexpected. However, in consideration of your lament about basic manners, well, it's hard to understand what you expected when showing such favor, over the years, to shitposting.
____________________
Notes:
¹ To the one, you tried to make the case for
Justine Sacco↗; to the other, you would
later assert↗, "It also sound like you think that it is possible for a person to be a white supremacist without realising it, which strikes me as a little bizarre." That is to say, apparently your defense for Sacco strikes you as a little bizarre. This sort of contradiction isn't exactly uncommon, James, and at best reads like you're perpetually grasping after straws and unable to keep track of everything you're saying.
