Jump to content

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

What about using out of context posts, in argument? Wouldn't that verbally be the meme in lieu of argument point you're fighting for?¬†ūü§Ē

That's for the poster to defend the point they're making.  But since I did not actually come up with the rule I can't provide the justification exactly as it was meant.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

That's for the poster to defend the point they're making. 

...To your liking. You left out that part. 

Funny thing about life. 

Its crazy I  know but when you show respect  you tend to get it in return.

Uncanny. I mean, who would have thought.

49 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

There was a general discouragement of images

But not against rules. Okay, so whats the problem with memes, again? They hurt your feelings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

1. ...To your liking. You left out that part. 

2. Its crazy I  know but when you show respect  you tend to get it in return.

3. But not against rules. Okay, so whats the problem with memes, again? They hurt your feelings?

1. Well, I would say to the resolution point of those engaged in the discussion.

2. Yes.  This is why participants get to veto names and tags associated with them.  Or at least they did.  There was also a rule against calling Liberals and Conservatives "libs and cons".

3. Memes aren't against the rules.  I think that we both have a problem with them, from your comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well, I would say to the resolution point of those engaged in the discussion.

If you don't accept a word has various acceptable uses, then its a you issue. Someone explaining and you refuting, is no longer a matter of a word being used out of scope. Arguing out of scope to denounce what you feel is out of scope is some Matrix level of irony.

If one can't accept terms that are demonstrable, they are beyond help.

"But its not a standard I accept"

Well, I may not accept my wife is the boss. Good luck in me enforcing anything about it. When I buy anything for the house. Who do you think I consult? 

Whether you accept it or not, is irrelevant.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Memes aren't against the rules.  I think that we both have a problem with them, from your comments.

I couldn't care less about memes.

Post at will. I find it amusing in someone using them instead of debate. Posting memes in itself, couldn't care less.

Your style of debate is essentially moving goal posts, gaslighting and passive aggression. Then a sprinkle of martyr complex and condescending pseudo intellectual responses when called on it or having the same exact behavior thrown in their face. Memes pale in comparison to this.

Debate with memes, I will treat your posts with the same level of seriousness.

Your style, which isn't putting a mirror to someone. I am fine with mirrors, but rather demanding an adherence to terms that are seemingly always in motion, and putting ultimatums on what I must accept, when participating in free and open dialogue is where I stop playing along.

Ultimately I don't care, but its a weak argument to debate with pictures.

My post wasn't in debate, but rather me jokingly stating what I feel the woke movement has devolved itself into.

Whining, victimhood, and people who are nasty and  threatening behind computer screens, but while in actuality...really doing a whole lot of nothing, that actually helps the cause they are fighting for. 

Trans ideology, is woke. Because it's shoved into faces with force, creates division and alienates women especially, who could be your fiercest allies. Those who ultimately pay are those who are trans and just want to exist.

This is woke ideology in a nutshell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

1. If you don't accept a word has various acceptable uses, then its a you issue.

2. Someone explaining and you refuting, is no longer a matter of a word being used out of scope. Arguing out of scope to denounce what you feel is out of scope is some Matrix level of irony.

3. If one can't accept terms that are demonstrable, they are beyond help.

4. Your style of debate is essentially moving goal posts, gaslighting and passive aggression.

5. Trans ideology, is woke. Because it's shoved into faces with force, creates division and alienates women especially, ...

 

1. That's not the issue.  The issue is when you call ME a derogatory name.   
2. No, it's rules of decorum.  There is a precedent on here.  We didn't even allow people to call the PM by their last name.
3. Of course YOU decide what is 'demonstrable' right ?
4. Except, we haven't got to the actual issues because you demand to set the rules of engagement.
5. Moralizing and virtue signalling... can't you see that there are two sides to things ?  Why can you moralize about how women are treated and you decry 'virtue signalling' ?   I'm not gaslighting or debating ANYTHING here, I am asking you how YOU feel about this, which honestly seems to be to be a dichotomy.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

The issue is when you call ME a derogatory name.   

I never called you a groomer. I eluded to what grooming entails and provided examples. Certainly did not mention my take or meaning to wording I was using to mean sexual abuse to children.

If you got that of my points, then you were truly not paying attention and you intent wasn't debate.

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

No, it's rules of decorum

Isn't this a free speech forum? Unless actual rules are being violated what is the issue?

Talk to me as you wish. As long as debate is done fair, then as you were.

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

you demand to set the rules of engagement.

Thats you mirroring again. Debate shouldn't be this complicated. Life is short. 

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

can't you see that there are two sides to things

Of course, hence my mentioning of the deliverate throwing of the equal behavior back  in your face.

I initially debate in good faith, then give you some of your own medicine. Petty? You bet.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Perspektiv said:

 

1. Isn't this a free speech forum?  

2. Talk to me as you wish. As long as debate is done fair, then as you were.

3. I initially debate in good faith, then give you some of your own medicine. Petty? You bet.

1. No, people have been banned from here.

2. What is fair is what the guidelines say.

3. When did I refer to people who share your opinions as something derogatory?  I wouldn't do that.  I try to be polite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

No, people have been banned from here

Being banned for blatantly violating rules is like being banned for stunt driving.

Most people speed.  It doesn't mean speeding is bad. Recklessness always is. But when you nitpick on speeding, then it becomes more subjective.

Speech isn't meticulously policed here. We aren't babies.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

What is fair is what the guidelines say.

Are you a moderator? I don't follow speed limits unless in a residential. 

Rules are meant to be broken. I rather ask forgiveness than permission.

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

I try to be polite.

So do I. 

To quote the wife, I "dance with your music". 

I then reflect the behavior to give you a taste of what you're doing. It tends to be far more irritating, as you realize how your behavior is towards others. I remain calm as nothing is more satisfying to me to see someone flailing, who has been trying to get under your skin.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/31/2023 at 8:00 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Actually posting memes in place of arguments has always been against the rules in the past

You're that friend at a hockey game watched on TV, people get quiet around:

Didn't Patrick Roy get something like over 500 wins?

"He got 551 wins."

Uh, ok.

"Your numbers were incorrect"

I was estimating...

*pulls out cellphone* "It only takes 10 seconds to verify this data on Google. I even timed it. 10.25 seconds."

Bro. You're running my alcohol buzz....

"If you need a buzz to watch hockey, one must question your dedication to your team."

*gets kicked out of the house, blaming judgmental friends who refuse to feel the heat for their incorrect thoughts*

#wokeisnojoke.com 

If you just checked the above for a website, you have just proven why woke policies don't work.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The crudity of the culture surrounding the woke trans and LBGTSKUS2&*whatever the hell ideology and its new obsession with demonstrating it before children is disgusting. And only exceeded by the willingness of woke parents to expose their kids to it.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

The crudity of the culture surrounding the woke trans and LBGTSKUS2&*whatever the hell ideology and its new obsession with demonstrating it before children is disgusting. And only exceeded by the willingness of woke parents to expose their kids to it.

 

I was literally just posting about that in another thread.

And i really can't find a lot of gay sources saying "Maybe we shouldn't do that kind of thing"  with regards to this or the pride parade sex content, etc etc.  In fact i did find a bunch that say it's good for kids to be exposed to kink and homosexual sex at a very early age.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

1. Are you a moderator?

2. I don't follow speed limits unless in a residential.  Rules are meant to be broken. I rather ask forgiveness than permission.

3. So do I. 

 

1.  I was one at the time that the rules were strongly enforced.  
2. Ok.  So, what about social rules ?  Etiquette ?  Rules of decorum ?   Is it a case by case thing ?  I am guessing for your responses that it is because of...
3. This.  "Try" to be polite I guess is fair enough.

20 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

4. You're that friend at a hockey game watched on TV, people get quiet around:

Didn't Patrick Roy get something like over 500 wins?

"He got 551 wins."

Uh, ok.

"Your numbers were incorrect"

I was estimating...

*pulls out cellphone* "It only takes 10 seconds to verify this data on Google. I even timed it. 10.25 seconds."

Bro. You're running my alcohol buzz....

"If you need a buzz to watch hockey, one must question your dedication to your team."

*gets kicked out of the house, blaming judgmental friends who refuse to feel the heat for their incorrect thoughts*

#wokeisnojoke.com 

If you just checked the above for a website, you have just proven why woke policies don't work.

4. In your scenario the person who is politely but irritatingly pointing out the facts was booted from the house, the forum equivalent being ... was banned from the forum.

--------------------

Am I off "ignore" now ?   If so, I would continue with the discussions of woke politics, perhaps focussing now on explaining why your statements, which you perceive as harmless, are seen as offensive.  Or maybe draw parallels between the social response to certain unwoke ideas has parallels in other moral responses.

Suffice it to say everyone involved in these discussions appears to be a moralist, present company not excepted.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

In your scenario the person who is politely but irritatingly pointing out the facts

My wording was deliberate. His friend didn't make an incorrect statement. "over 500 wins" isn't an incorrect statement. 

The one making the correction, perceived the lack of precision in the answer as being incorrect. Either answer would have been suitable for the context that it was being used in. 

This was grasping at straws, out of context, and with p*** poor social timing to boot. 

There is nothing polite about the correction. It's dry, rude and arrogant. 

You're not entitled to people accepting that they may or may not be wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Perspektiv said:

 

1. There is nothing polite about the correction. It's dry, rude and arrogant. 

2. You're not entitled to people accepting that they may or may not be wrong. 

1. I suppose one could take offense to being corrected, especially in a social context.  Of course, in an edifying discussion corrections are sometimes necessary also.

2. No one's entitled to anything, agreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I suppose one could take offense to being corrected

The correction is fine.

Its the insistence on them being wrong, and refusing to let it go (almost demanding a public apology and an acceptance one isn't worthy and what they can do to fix it).

It then is turning into a test of who is of higher moral ground, which is precisely the mountain today's woke ideologies are willing to die on.

Genuinely wanting to correct a friend, would have meant the correction would have ended then and there.

Thats what a correction is.

2 + 2 isn't 5, Perspektiv. Its 4. 

"Ah, ok".

Measuring the error as something that somehow has a moral standing attached to it, no longer is about advising of error. 

I am French. I live mostly entirely in English. So when a client approached me to let me know my "bonne apres-midi" was grammatically incorrect. Good afternoon in French is in fact, "bon apres-midi", I was incredibly appreciative.

Forcing me to publicly apologize based on the weight of shame I have brought to myself is no longer error correction. You are making a public spectacle (or social flogging), setting the social tone for the consequences one will experience for questioning you. Its social control.

If you had traveled to a communist country, you would understand the very same methods are employed for social control.

Violence is no longer needed like in Tianmen Square to crush a movement. Hong Kong was handled vastly different. Number one, is causing the population to question you. Using deliberate wording, and controlling the narrative is the easiest means to do so. Trump and the far left do this beautifully.

Same concept of the camera at bank entrances, showing you that you are being watched. 

You are already understanding before walking in, the severity of the consequences of your actions, and also, that you knowingly are doing so knowing how you will get caught.

They don't even need massive bullet proof windows or jail like security, if they can plant those bars into your head.

What I have noticed at the extremes politically  is a blatant lack of emotional intelligence at either end.

I have yet to meet someone woke, who was emotionally intelligent, or capable to read between lines.

Emotional intelligence used to be a prerequisite.

Understanding unintended consequence. 

If all you see is someone correcting another, you have just failed the emotional intelligence test.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/1/2023 at 10:15 PM, I am Groot said:

The crudity of the culture surrounding the woke trans and LBGTSKUS2&*whatever the hell ideology and its new obsession with demonstrating it before children is disgusting. And only exceeded by the willingness of woke parents to expose their kids to it.

 

Definitely inappropriate for kids. I think its kind of disturbing, those who feel this should be seen by all kids.

When people think of "indoctrination", this is precisely what they're thinking about.

Not being welcoming to a community.

Having an incredibly divisive ideology pushed by it, that any shape or form of questioning and resistance is deemed as a threat, and on par of a racial slur.

With that said, keep it in museums, and out of classrooms and I have no issue with it.

This type of ideology does nothing but hurt those they are seen as helping, and worse--teaches us to hate each other, and be ashamed of where we're from.

Thing about wokeness that bothers me. Like a protester throwing paint at a politician, vs using their voice and moment to speak and make the most of it.

I'm hardwired in logic, so its illogical to do this. There's just no end game that makes any sense--nothing, no progress comes from this.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well.. did it ever really happen? Anywhere?

Also I'm not sure if that counts.. more of a budget question than a social change right?

But good attempt.

Yes of course it did, in the USA. In Canada it was a political fad coming out of our desire to copy everything we see on American news. People staged protests calling for it. There were calls for it by councillors in various cities.

It was a social movement with some political support and given media time, that has been rolled back.

The bigger problem is that it resulted in serious recruitment issues that are still being dealt with as a result of the fallout.

"Nice try" yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

 

It was a social movement with some political support and given media time, that has been rolled back.

"Nice try" yourself.

By rolled back, I meant something that was widely adopted, like gay marriage, LGBTQ acceptance and legal status.  I accept that any such discussion is nuanced though.

The Equal Rights Amendment to the constitution was somewhat akin to Defund the Police also.  It never made it into the Constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

By rolled back, I meant something that was widely adopted, like gay marriage, LGBTQ acceptance and legal status.  I accept that any such discussion is nuanced though.

The Equal Rights Amendment to the constitution was somewhat akin to Defund the Police also.  It never made it into the Constitution.

I was highlighting recent woke ideas that are stylish fads that grab the attention of society. It's on topic. Defining wokism as a movement with naive ideas that likely will fail and be rolled back. 

Alcohol prohibition, as you injected, is ancient history and off topic.

Another good one will be the latest movement to decrim narcotics. Toronto will likely have a Chinese mayor, and she says she will do this. Coming your way. It's being done in Vancouver and there are reports that it has only worsened the problem. Surprise surprise. I predict will be a social disaster that will fail and be rolled back. 

 

Also see one up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

1. I was highlighting recent woke ideas that are stylish fads that grab the attention of society. It's on topic.  

2. Alcohol prohibition, as you injected, is ancient history and off topic.

 

1. Okay, well your topic is probably more fun.  Here's one.. ever heard of universality? Serious question.  If you know what it is without having to look it up, say so here.

2. Sure, but it satisfies the much narrower criteria I started out on. 

How about the fad of feminists not wearing bras? Not wearing makeup?

Edited by Michael Hardner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,600
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    No_Smile433
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...