What constitutes privilege?

[Sarkus]

Moderator note:
...
If the personal attacks continue - ... - then I will close it.

If you want to close the thread, James R, you really should just close it rather than continuing the "personal attacks" upon which you have conditioned the thread's closure.

Or maybe it's a case of personal attacks against Tiassa, Parmalee, etc, fall outside the scope of unwanted behaviour? Just asking. For a friend.

There again, maybe, just maybe, you might one day deign to set the example you want others to follow? You know, you being the only active moderator 'n' all.
Again, just asking. For a friend.


So, please, can everyone - including you, James R - just drop the personal attacks, unless they are somehow relevant to the thread topic? The thread is already struggling enough under the weight of its linguistic and other tangents.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.

 

[Tiassa]

The thread is already struggling enough under the weight of its linguistic and other tangents.

It is also true, for whatever it's worth, that struggle provides, and perhaps becomes, its own example.

 

[billvon]

But it is essential, if left of centre politics is ever again to win over a majority of voters, to understand what drives the voting behaviour that has brought the far right to power. Simply demonising all these voters and writing them off as the enemy is not going to do anything to win back people seduced by the promises of the far right.

In general, I disagree that the best approach is to "give the right what it wants" rather than "do what's right." I realize that from a strategic position that would give the left more power. But once the goal of any political movement is "more power" - there's something wrong IMO.

In the US in 1967, the Supreme Court declared interracial marriage legal. This went contrary to the vast majority of Americans - when it was passed, fully 70% of Americans opposed it. But the Court did what they thought was right, and I am glad they did.

Had that decision been made today, the left would once again lose elections because "they want American women to be raped by foreign criminals" or some similar meme-ified outrage generation. But I would not support the anti-interracial-marriage side just to win an election - because I don't think those sorts of "deals with the devil" work out in the end.

 

[exchemist]

In general, I disagree that the best approach is to "give the right what it wants" rather than "do what's right." I realize that from a strategic position that would give the left more power. But once the goal of any political movement is "more power" - there's something wrong IMO.

In the US in 1967, the Supreme Court declared interracial marriage legal. This went contrary to the vast majority of Americans - when it was passed, fully 70% of Americans opposed it. But the Court did what they thought was right, and I am glad they did.

Had that decision been made today, the left would once again lose elections because "they want American women to be raped by foreign criminals" or some similar meme-ified outrage generation. But I would not support the anti-interracial-marriage side just to win an election - because I don't think those sorts of "deals with the devil" work out in the end.

You appear to have misunderstood me. I was arguing for trying to understand the motivations of that sector of the electorate, not to “give the right what it wants”, as you put it.

 

[billvon]

You appear to have misunderstood me. I was arguing for trying to understand the motivations of that sector of the electorate, not to “give the right what it wants”, as you put it.

OK sorry. It sounded like you were advocating placating the right with compromises. But if not I agree - it is worth understanding at least what drives them.

 

[exchemist]

OK sorry. It sounded like you were advocating placating the right with compromises. But if not I agree - it is worth understanding at least what drives them.

Evidently the nuance in what I am trying to convey is beyond the capacity of the more left wing members of this forum to grasp. I am now OUT of this discussion.

 

[billvon]

Evidently the nuance in what I am trying to convey is beyond the capacity of the more left wing members of this forum to grasp. I am now OUT of this discussion.

"The more left wing members of the forum" - as in me? Fascinating!

 

[parmalee]

Next time you want to avoid interacting with me, maybe consider not inserting sly insinuations about me into your posts. Also, bear in mind, I was not sure you were calling me out, there, and I would have written exactly the same post regardless of who it was you were trying to call out.

Perhaps, but the only way we could verify this with any degree of certainty would be by traveling back in time and having me write the exact the same post as before--only with a different person in mind. This could be a potentially perilous undertaking and, more importantly perhaps, might alter the course of history in such a way that neither you nor I would be comfortable with. I'm gonna have to give a hard pass on that.

 

[James R]

Sarkus:

If you want to close the thread, James R, you really should just close it rather than continuing the "personal attacks" upon
which you have conditioned the thread's closure.

Gee. Thanks a lot for that great advice, Sarkus. Once again, you have proven your value to this forum.

Keep on keeping on! I don't know what I'd do without you.

There again, maybe, just maybe, you might one day deign to set the example you want others to follow? You know, you being the only active moderator 'n' all.

You miss a lot of things, Sarkus. What a shame.

 

[Sarkus]

And there we go! Personal insults from the mod. Whodathunkit. Did anyone else have that on their "Moderator Bingo" card?

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

You appear to have misunderstood me. I was arguing for trying to understand the motivations of that sector of the electorate, not to “give the right what it wants”, as you put it.

If you understand what motivates all sides, then possibly you can come to some type of solution that will satisfy part, though not all, of each side.

 

[parmalee]

If you understand what motivates all sides, then possibly you can come to some type of solution that will satisfy part, though not all, of each side.

Understanding is one thing; entertaining all perspectives, as though they are equally valid, is something else entirely. The real problem is when people engage in false equivalencies, when the fact is, being offended, embarrassed, or criticized is in no sense comparable to being systemically disenfranchised, discriminated against, targeted by law enforcement, etc.

 

[James R]

And there we go! Personal insults from the mod. Whodathunkit. Did anyone else have that on their "Moderator Bingo" card?

Well, you did state the bleeding obvious. Did you really think I needed your help, with that? (He said, expecting a snarky reply.)

 

[Tiassa]

If you understand what motivates all sides, then possibly you can come to some type of solution that will satisfy part, though not all, of each side.

The good faith of all sides, requisite to such outcomes, is not a safe presupposition.

 

[Sarkus]

Well, you did state the bleeding obvious. Did you really think I needed your help, with that? (He said, expecting a snarky reply.)

So not addressing your hypocrisy, then? You think personal attacks are the way forward? I mean, saying you'll close a thread if the personal attacks continue, then a few posts later you continue the personal attacks, and then a few posts after that you continue with personal attacks... I mean, just what are people to think.

 

[DaveC426913]

This thread has spun wildly off the rails into a gulch and exploded, killing all passengers and crew, and a bunch of wildlife to-boot.

Yet it rises from the smoking wreckage, despite the protests of the member who started it, propped up by sheer will of its individual components, like a zombie Edgar the Bug from MiB:



:unsub:

 

[James R]

Sarkus:

So not addressing your hypocrisy, then?

YOu're polluting this very valuable thread that our members voted to keep open.

Let's continue this oh-so-valuable discussion of my alleged hypocrisy in the spin-off totally-not-trollbait thread, shall we? After all, it's clear that you have a lot more you want to say on the issue, and you're quite unable to stop yourself from saying it.

You think personal attacks are the way forward?

Try asking your mates cluelusshusbund, Baldeee and parmalee. They seem to be full of good advice on that. Not at all hypocritical.

 

[cluelusshusbund]

So not addressing your hypocrisy, then? You think personal attacks are the way forward? I mean, saying you'll close a thread if the personal attacks continue, then a few posts later you continue the personal attacks, and then a few posts after that you continue with personal attacks... I mean, just what are people to think.

Let me say this about that:::

James R is plenty smart enuff to know he needs help... an his acting-up is simply a cry for help... but he cant bear to take advice in public... SOoo... im willing to tooter him thru PM on how to be the best Moderater anybody's ever seen.!!!

An to you James R... my help will be calm an gentle... an I will go as slow as you need as to not be overwhelmed... an I gurantee that wit-in a week... 2 weeks at most... you will be a changed man.!!!

Your newest best Frind... cluelusshusbund

 

[James R]

cluelusshusbund:

Do you think that personal attacks are the way forward?

James R is plenty smart enuff to know he needs help...

Are you referring to something specific and on-topic, here? Or are you trying to imply that I have a mental health problem that I need help with? Or what?

... but he cant bear to take advice in public...

Well, that doesn't seem right, given the existence and all the unsolicited advice I'm still getting in this thread and in the one YOU started as a spin-off.

I'm a moderator, remember. If I really couldn't bear listening to your public advice on this forum, I could shut down and/or delete all the numerous posts in which you continue to post your personal "advice" to me. That hasn't happened so far. Maybe I can bear your "advice" after all. Something to think about.

SOoo... im willing to tooter him thru PM on how to be the best Moderater anybody's ever seen.!!!

Please do not contact me by PM unless it is something clearly important relating to a specific moderation matter. You may respond, of course, to any direct messages you receive from me in my capacity as a moderator.

Your attempts at giving public "advice" is bad enough. I don't need more of that stuff clogging up my inbox.

Besides, I now think you're mostly a troll, which makes me not want to have any more private chats with you.

I hope you understand and that you will respect my request.

Now, do you have any comments on the thread topic, or was this personal attack of yours all that you wanted to say?

 

[cluelusshusbund]

cluelusshusbund:

Do you think that personal attacks are the way forward?

Not at all James R... an soon after you accept my offer of tooterin you to be the best moderater ever... Sciforums will be calmin/enjoyable for you an everybody else... eg... somptin for all to look more forward to... promise

Are you referring to something specific and on-topic, here? Or are you trying to imply that I have a mental health problem that I need help with? Or what?

A mental health issue... ha... (not that thers anythang rong wit that)... why... I figer you'r prolly about as sane as me... an I thank you really want to be a top notch Mod but ignorant about how to get-er-done... an thers no shame in that at all.!!!

In 2 weeks or less James R... only a few minutes a day... that's all it will take

Maybe I can bear your "advice" after all. Something to think about.

Cool