Welcome to DART: Introduce Yourself

Author: bsh1

Posts

Pinned
Total: 389
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,699
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Lunatic
YYW can be extremely stubborn and will probably never admit he is wrong, so I don't imagine this went anywhere.
It wasn't "admit you're wrong or leave" it was "debate him or leave him alone". In YYW's state of mind though even what you would call a restraining order around here might seem like admitting he was wrong. His position was that if you're disgusted enough you don't need an argument. Which as I said at the time and maintain today is an extraordinarily questionable thing for a self-professed homosexual to say. Privilege is quickly taken for granted and history is quickly forgotten.

I don't know if airmax ever actually delivered the ultimatum though.

I guess my only difference of opinion with you would be whether it is justifiable for you to be angry that action wasn't taken against YYW.
I was angry that I was promised one thing and then without any breach on my part was reneged upon and treated unequally in the end. It was the unequal censorship that broke the camel's back. I didn't ask for anything to be done to YYW, airmax essentially came up with the scheme in order to get me to stop responding to YYW. My skin was more than thick enough and I was content in defending myself without moderator force.

He tends to think his own opinions and morals are the one and only objective truth.
So do I, but I know there must always be a reason. Absolutism without deductive logic really is the worst.

If Max did nothing in this situation, that's probably the exact measure I would have supported him taking ...
Same

... Maybe he should have been better at communicating that this was his chosen method
It certainly was not, he deleted posts and threads. That's not nothing.

I think moderation action against you is unlikely. Wylted usually says way more controversial things
Well "controversial" was never an stable property of any given assertion, I just saw a story that people are calling for Tulsi Gabbard to be arrested for talking about labs. The social contract is falling apart in the west. It's bound to be mirrored here and everywhere else. The question is how it's handled. You're saying it's handled well, I'll take your word on it for now.
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 49
Posts: 2,767
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If fear that you or someone else will use the mentioned sections of the CoC as an excuse to suppress only those opinions which are fashionable to suppress and thereby deprive posters of equal protection under the CoC.
It isn't written in stone. You're welcome to initiate a referendum to change that or any other part of the CoC. If it changes too far in any direction I find to be intolerable, I'll resign (I strongly suspect this would be the same with any other moderator).
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,087
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
I have zero interest in being on the same site as some dude arguing for fucking his dog. That's 4chan shit. It's ugly humanity and not needed in my day. 
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 7,348
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
Here we go again
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,087
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
I don't know how that's a here we go again, dude. I don't know what moral good you think you're championing here or what argument of his swayed you, but the dude fucks his dog. You dismiss these weirdos out of hand always or you're also a weirdo. Being a debater doesn't save you. 
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 7,348
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
-->
@badger
I don't know how that's a here we go again, dude. I don't know what moral good you think you're championing here or what argument of his swayed you, but the dude fucks his dog. You dismiss these weirdos out of hand always or you're also a weirdo. Being a debater doesn't save you. 
I am not going to morally defend dog fvcking, like I am not going to morally defend the torture of animals in factories before we eat them. Hunting for survival is one thing but mass torture of our food is probably worse than someone screwing an animal. I don't like either of them, but I'd rather just acknowledge that morality is non-existent, and still enjoy a cheeseburger and not think about what went into making that burger happen.

Screwed up stuff you do not subjectively like happens all the time. Some people think abortion is murder, and others do not. I don't know why someone pleasuring himself with their dog is worth chasing off the site over someone you think committed actual murder though. 

It is silly to arbitrarily draw a line on one thing and not others. I know this is an un popular opinion. And before you draw a line to pedophilia or whatever, you should acknowledge that our pets don't have the same rights as humans. Yeah the dog doesn't consent and will never understand to consent and that's unfortunate. Thats the number one reason I dis-agree with it. But you have to recognize equally that animals don't get the same rights as humans in virtually any other area too. Even your furry best friend is forced to eat the same bland diet for the rest of his or her life, has to obey your commands to live with you, and generally doesn't get the same treatment. Also we arbitrarily decide which animals get rights and which don't.


Landa: Consider, for a moment, the world a rat lives in. It's a hostile world, indeed. If a rat were to scamper through your front door right now, would you greet it with hostility?
LaPadite: I suppose I would.
Landa: Has a rat ever done anything to you to create this animosity you feel towards them?
LaPadite: Rats spread diseases. They bite people.
Landa: Rats were the cause of the bubonic plague, but that's some time ago. I propose to you, any disease a rat could spread, a squirrel could equally carry. Would you agree?
LaPadite: Oui.
Landa: Yet I assume you don't share the same animosity with squirrels that you do with rats, do you?
LaPadite: No
Landa: But they're both rodents, are they not? And except for the tail, they even rather look alike, don't they?
LaPadite: It's an interesting thought, Herr Colonel.
Landa: Ha! However interesting as the thought may be, it makes not one bit of difference to how you feel. If a rat were to walk in here right now, as I'm talking, would you greet it with a saucer of your delicious milk?
LaPadite: Probably not.
Landa: I didn't think so. You don't like them. You don't really know why you don't like them; all you know is you find them repulsive.


My goal here isn't to defend Bestiality. I do not like bestiality any more than I like cows and chickens being tortured. My point is no topic is too "controversial" for debate. If there is an argument to be made it should be made, and if it is an unpopular idea or opinion that a society agrees with, they will make the needed change to adopt that subjective moral. If we want to give animals more rights we can't punish one idea and not another. 


badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,087
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
You've philosophised your way into keeping company with dog-fucker. Well done. That's what cleverness buys you, eh. 
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,980
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@badger

Remember that society is composed of Intelligent Man and Worm Man.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,388
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Lunatic
Which is the lesser evil, in a pragmatic sense:

  1. Having pure freedom of speech on a website that's on the brink of death, driving sensible members away and leaving only... lunatics and madmen behind.
  2. Reining in the wildest and most offensive and repulsive debates, especially if they'll show on the 'hot topics' list for an extended period of time, so as to avoid potential onlookers to the website going W T F and never visiting it again (bestiality being defended is one of those ones).
I am asking you which is the lesser evil and how clear it is to you what needs to be done to keep this site popular and presentable to Twitter, as Airmax wants it to be.

Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 7,348
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
-->
@RationalMadman
  1. Having pure freedom of speech on a website that's on the brink of death, driving sensible members away and leaving only... lunatics and madmen behind.
You are attaching the conclusion that freedom of speech won't bring more members, and aren't able to substantiate anyone actually leaving because of certain members. Badgers threat to leave is empty until he carries it out in my mind. Even if he does leave that doesn't substantiate the site will riot and leave because of one members opinions they find to be offensive.

2. Reining in the wildest and most offensive and repulsive debates, especially if they'll show on the 'hot topics' list for an extended period of time, so as to avoid potential onlookers to the website going W T F and never visiting it again (bestiality being defended is one of those ones).
I am not advocating that these are the only debates that should be advertised either. In fact I have been pretty clear that mostly what we w ant to advertise are current hot button issues. Things like whats going in Ukraine, the Covid crap, racial issues in America, etc etc. Suggesting we don't ban certain ideas doesn't mean I favor those ideas over others.

I am asking you which is the lesser evil and how clear it is to you what needs to be done to keep this site popular and presentable to Twitter, as Airmax wants it to be.
Finding a topic personally deplorable doesn't mean it should be banned. Again, see my argument about abortion being considered as MURDER by people. We don't chase anti abortionists off the site either. 
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Lunatic
Several of your points expressed in this thread require my response. 

  1. "bsh1."  You have represented that I accused the individual known as "bsh1" as a "pedo."  I have not accused the individual known as "bsh1" of being a "pedo," and to the extent you have claimed otherwise, that is incorrect.  Bsh1 directed sexually suggestive communications, language and comments to an individual that bsh1 knew, at the time he made them, to be under the age of 18 and at most 14 years old.  Bsh1 made those communications in the context of a "rap battle," which is a matter of record.  I and others, including esocialbookworm ("annie") objected to this, among other things.  Annie and I stated our objections in several contexts.   A consensus among active members began to form, relating to the inappropriate nature of bsh1's communications.  Bsh1 thereafter unilaterally decided to leave DDO.  Further, I do not see what, if any, relevance that set of facts and circumstances has to any matter raised in this thread.  As a general practice, it is best to let what is in the past remain there.  
  2. "adreamofliberty."  You have made certain representations about prior activity on another site relating to the individual known as "adreamofliberty," who may be currently active on this website under the same username.  On DDO, as you will recall, I objected to that individual's use of DDO as a forum to advocate for sexually assaulting non-human animals, in response to gratuitous and repeated activities and communications posted by the individual known as "adreamofliberty" advocating for sexually assaulting non-human animals.  My argument there was simple: DDO is not the place to advocate for sexually assaulting non-human animals.  Various users, including yourself, disagreed and thought that advocating for sexually assaulting non-human animals should be allowed.  Those views were unfortunate.  Here, my position on that issue is similar: DebateArt should not be a forum to advocate for sexually assaulting non-human animals.  You're free to think otherwise, but there is no world where my position on that issue changes.  There are plenty of places on the internet for deviants of all types to congregate; no compelling reasons exist to support the proposition that this should be one of them.  An appropriate analogy is to a Nazi in a bar.  Nazi walks into a bar.  The bar owner throws out the Nazi, even though the particular Nazi hasn't done anything especially egregious.  Other patrons ask why.  Bar owner says that if you let one Nazi in, others will follow and before you know it, he's running a Nazi bar.  Bar owner doesn't want to run a Nazi bar.  Simple as that.  There are plenty of other places online where those discussions can take place, like 4chan or other shitholes of the internet.   No one, including me, is arguing for "censorship," as such.  Arguments which begin from the proposition that all censorship is wrong miss the point, accordingly.  Even if you wanted to begin from the proposition that all censorship is wrong, however, I am certain you would readily agree that posting visual images depicting actual (as opposed to animated) human beings under the age of eighteen engaged in sexual activity would be inappropriate, right?  Of course you do, and doing so would violate this site's terms of use.  So, from this we have learned that there are at least some circumstances where certain restrictions as to the content posted on this website are appropriate.  For the same reasons as that species of restriction is appropriate, limiting advocacy for sexually assaulting non-human animals (e.g., housepets) is similarly appropriate.  You may disagree, but my position on that issue isn't going to change.  
  3. Other comments.  As a general practice moving forward, it would be better to abstain from reopening what, frankly, is ancient history.  What's in the past is in the past.  I and others, including individuals who may not be active on this site, have perspectives on them.  Prudent consideration should be given to what happens next, once all those old skeletons are dug up out of the ground.  Is anyone better off?  Will anyone's position on those issues change?  Are the foreseeable costs of re-opening those discussions worth it?  Just something to think about, before continuing those discussions, particularly to the extent doing so is likely to involve characterizing disputed facts in objectionable ways.  

coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
I also make the following observations, generally with respect to topics addressed in this thread and not related to any specific post from any particular member:

  • To the extent historical activity of any user of either this site or the prior site, DDO, is improperly described, characterized or otherwise referenced, the potential for substantial and unproductive controversy is foreseeable.  I struggle to grasp the utility associated with any such discussions.  
  • The suggestion that this website is used for, or in any way causes "oppression" of any kind is facially absurd.  Engaging in discussion of any proposed merits to that argument would be futile, when that argument is self-evidently merittless.
  • The supposed characterizations by certain others relating to purported historical activities on this or the prior site are replete with inaccuracies, omissions and misrepresentations of fact.  No reasonable person could view them as anything other than what they are: self-serving narratives, written for the purpose of supporting individual perspectives on what may or may not have occurred.  

Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 7,348
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
-->
@coal
  1. "bsh1."  You have represented that I accused the individual known as "bsh1" as a "pedo."  I have not accused the individual known as "bsh1" of being a "pedo," and to the extent you have claimed otherwise, that is incorrect.  Bsh1 directed sexually suggestive communications, language and comments to an individual that bsh1 knew, at the time he made them, to be under the age of 18 and at most 14 years old.  Bsh1 made those communications in the context of a "rap battle," which is a matter of record.  I and others, including esocialbookworm ("annie") objected to this, among other things.  Annie and I stated our objections in several contexts.   A consensus among active members began to form, relating to the inappropriate nature of bsh1's communications.  Bsh1 thereafter unilaterally decided to leave DDO.  Further, I do not see what, if any, relevance that set of facts and circumstances has to any matter raised in this thread.  As a general practice, it is best to let what is in the past remain there.  
If you weren't suggesting him of pedophilia activity what wrongdoing exactly were you accusing him? I can't find the thread because it looks like the mods here deleted the Utopia Crumbles thread and any other thread related to the drama which is absurd, but yeah. I doubt you remember the situation that clearly however, the comments weren't made in a rap battle, they were made in supadudz fan fiction thread. Even if you were able to semantically argue your way out of not directly accusing him of being a pedophile, you were happy to board the bsh1 hate train, which is in line exactly with what I said, that if bsh1's name ever comes up in any context, you will have something negative to say or contribute to the conversation and it should be taken with a huge grain of salt. Also I wasn't the one who randomly brought this up btw, I was pointing out to ADOL that bsh1 wasn't banned, that he in fact quit. We can leave the past in the past if you want, but I suspect we both know how this is going to go, because you are always gonna have a response and so am I so *cracks knuckles* lets go for round 2. 

2. "adreamofliberty."  You have made certain representations about prior activity on another site relating to the individual known as "adreamofliberty," who may be currently active on this website under the same username.  On DDO, as you will recall, I objected to that individual's use of DDO as a forum to advocate for sexually assaulting non-human animals, in response to gratuitous and repeated activities and communications posted by the individual known as "adreamofliberty" advocating for sexually assaulting non-human animals.  My argument there was simple: DDO is not the place to advocate for sexually assaulting non-human animals.  Various users, including yourself, disagreed and thought that advocating for sexually assaulting non-human animals should be allowed.  Those views were unfortunate.  Here, my position on that issue is similar: DebateArt should not be a forum to advocate for sexually assaulting non-human animals. 
This is a debate platform, and if you advocate to restrict the beliefs that offend you, no progress can ever be made. If you think someone's belief  is wrong, you should not be afraid to dispute that with logic and reasoning. Doing so only furthers that individuals point and if anything, gives it more credence and vindicates them.

You're free to think otherwise, but there is no world where my position on that issue changes.  There are plenty of places on the internet for deviants of all types to congregate; no compelling reasons exist to support the proposition that this should be one of them.  An appropriate analogy is to a Nazi in a bar.  Nazi walks into a bar.  The bar owner throws out the Nazi, even though the particular Nazi hasn't done anything especially egregious.  Other patrons ask why.  Bar owner says that if you let one Nazi in, others will follow and before you know it, he's running a Nazi bar.  Bar owner doesn't want to run a Nazi bar.  Simple as that.  There are plenty of other places online where those discussions can take place, like 4chan or other shitholes of the internet.   No one, including me, is arguing for "censorship," as such.  Arguments which begin from the proposition that all censorship is wrong miss the point, accordingly.
Imagine using this same argument with abortion. There are many people, (huge groups, probably bigger than the bestiality groups) who believe abortion is MURDER of a child. Imagine if they took the same stance as you and believed that people who thought otherwise shouldn't have a voice and should have their ability to protest that belief removed. You would think that is absolutely ludicrous. If you claim to support free speech you cannot just arbitrarily decide what views should and shouldn't be allowed to be expressed. 

You may disagree, but my position on that issue isn't going to change.  
And similarly my views on free speech aren't likely to change. I haven't heard a good enough argument from you or anyone that has yet to convince me that opinions that offend one person shouldn't be allowed to be debated.


Other comments.  As a general practice moving forward, it would be better to abstain from reopening what, frankly, is ancient history.  What's in the past is in the past.  I and others, including individuals who may not be active on this site, have perspectives on them.  Prudent consideration should be given to what happens next, once all those old skeletons are dug up out of the ground.  Is anyone better off?  Will anyone's position on those issues change?  Are the foreseeable costs of re-opening those discussions worth it?  Just something to think about, before continuing those discussions, particularly to the extent doing so is likely to involve characterizing disputed facts in objectionable ways.  
This sound a bit like a manipulative intimidation tactic. You chose to respond to this post, meaning you were willing to re-engage in this conversation. You felt the need to respond, but are now trying to threaten me in responding it sounds like. I am more than happy to let old pasts and beefs die, and have. I even said earlier in this thread that despite the fact that we don't always see eye to eye on every issue all the time, that I consider you a friend. If you want the conversation to continue I will respond, I always respond. But really as  you stated previously, nothing will likely come of this exchange since we are both adamant in our views. Your second point will literally go no where, and your first point was kind of on shaky grounds to begin with. I wasn't calling you out randomly, I was simply correcting the narrative that a member was banned when that member had left of his own accord. You chose to get defensive over that for some reason. 

Anyways, you tell me. You want this to die or you wanna keep going? I'm fine either way.




ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,699
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@coal
@RationalMadman

RationalMadman:
Having pure freedom of speech on a website that's on the brink of death, driving sensible members away and leaving only... lunatics and madmen behind.
I had noticed the low volume, it's generally true of a lot of general topic forums. I think it's a combination of being sucked into reddit and increasing preference for echo chambers. For instance I am on a zoophile forum which appears to be roughly twice as active just within the controversial topic section.

If that's the case there is nothing DART can do to attract more people besides being as open as possible. It is the belief that all opposition is beyond redemption and the fear of partisan moderation (or the desire for partisan moderation) that is driving the migration to echo chambers.

coal:
An appropriate analogy is to a Nazi in a bar.  Nazi walks into a bar.  The bar owner throws out the Nazi, even though the particular Nazi hasn't done anything especially egregious.  Other patrons ask why.  Bar owner says that if you let one Nazi in, others will follow and before you know it, he's running a Nazi bar.  Bar owner doesn't want to run a Nazi bar.  Simple as that.
And clearly this has successfully eradicated neo-nazism.... Hardly, the allure of forbidden knowledge and secret conspiracies is their #1 recruitment factor. However few there are, there would be far fewer if more people were willing to destroy them in open debate.

and if that wasn't the case? If it is true that you can successfully suppress a political philosophy or a view on sexual behavior simply by banning every attempt to bridge the gap what would that mean? That would mean the only sane thing for a suppressed point of view to do the moment it gains any kind of institutional power is to suppress the crap out of opposition. An endless cycle of censorship, will to power, power to truth.... which ironically is a very nazi conception of the world.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 556
Posts: 19,388
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@coal
The guy was 17, almost 18, just so we are clear.
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Lunatic
  1. With respect to bsh1, I have stated precisely what he did in #312, above.  You appear to be confusing one instance of potential misconduct with other circumstances, the details of which I decline to relitigate more than I already have.  If you don't remember the events I described, that's for the best.  Your opinions with respect to why I might be biased are unavailing and do not require my response.
  2. Your opinions related to the individual who posted on a prior site known as "adreamofliberty" are not persuasive and I see no reason why they require a response.  You have not addressed the specific point I made and until you do, I will not engage on that issue.  Even if you did, I might still not respond because doing so is futile and a complete waste of my time.  
  3. As to your opinions about my intent in advising you to consider, among other things, the wisdom of dragging up ancient history, I invite you to refrain from such speculation.  You have done nothing to correct any "narrative," but have stated numerous mischaracterizations of fact based on events to which you either (a) were never privy, or (b) even if you were privy to some, remained ignorant of the broader context.  You know or should reasonably expect that I and Annie knew more about situations relating to bsh1, for reasons you have previously acknowledged.  It is preposterous for you to think you are better informed than I am on any such matter, and even more so with respect to what I did or did not say related to that individual.  


coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
I should clarify something, though.  The words "for example," should appear before "Bsh1 made those communications in the context of . . . " in my post above.  The conduct I described was not limited to that specific instance, which is why the words "for example" should have appeared there.  I decline, however, to state further details.  

What's in the past is in the past.  Best that it remain there.
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 7,348
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
-->
@coal
  1. With respect to bsh1, I have stated precisely what he did in #312, above.  You appear to be confusing one instance of potential misconduct with other circumstances, the details of which I decline to relitigate more than I already have.  If you don't remember the events I described, that's for the best.  Your opinions with respect to why I might be biased are unavailing and do not require my response.
Your post 312 states absolutely nothing. I am not confusing any instance. The instance I responded to ADOL about was Bsh1 leaving the website, not being banned, in regards to accusations of bsh1 saying something in the Utopia Crumbles thread. If you are referring to another instance, then you are the one who brought it up unnecessarily. If bsh1 did something that people are unaware of yet you refuse to provide evidence of such an accusation, kind of hard for me to damn him for it. For all the "you brought this up" crap, it seems to actually be you who is un-necessarily bringing things up lol. As far as you commenting on not responding to my comments of you being bias towards bsh1, agreed, you are not required to respond. You weren't required to respond to any of this but you chose to do so anyway. You can opt out of this at any time.

  1. Your opinions related to the individual who posted on a prior site known as "adreamofliberty" are not persuasive and I see no reason why they require a response.  You have not addressed the specific point I made and until you do, I will not engage on that issue.  Even if you did, I might still not respond because doing so is futile and a complete waste of my time.  

I can't respond to a point you in fact didn't make. Your argument is that by allowing ADOL on the site, we invite more people like ADOL. In other words, you are suggesting we cancel ideas instead of debating them. I don't care if more people like ADOL join up, to be frank. If they can defend themselves in debate, that's what I care about. You use nazi's as an example, but I do not think Nazi's can accurately defend their belief, but if one wishes to, they should be granted the ability to have their ideas shown to be horrible with logic and reasoning. I countered with a more realistic point about how anti-abortionists consider abortion the literal murder of a child. This is a better example than your nazi one, because there are many more people who share this mindset. You electing not to respond proves the point that you don't actually have an argument here. You are essentially part of cancel culture.

  1. As to your opinions about my intent in advising you to consider, among other things, the wisdom of dragging up ancient history, I invite you to refrain from such speculation.  You have done nothing to correct any "narrative," but have stated numerous mischaracterizations of fact based on events to which you either (a) were never privy, or (b) even if you were privy to some, remained ignorant of the broader context.  You know or should reasonably expect that I and Annie knew more about situations relating to bsh1, for reasons you have previously acknowledged.  It is preposterous for you to think you are better informed than I am on any such matter, and even more so with respect to what I did or did not say related to that individual.  
This whole "I know something you don't know" thing isn't an actual argument. It accomplishes nothing. You are bringing up something completely irrelevant. The thing I mentioned is why bsh1 left. Bsh1 left surrounding the controversy of Utopia crumbles according to my knowledge and everyone else who was present. If you think there was a reason more than that, but aren't willing to share what it is, then it is extremely redundant for you to even mention it and it accomplishes nothing. 


coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Lunatic
The instance I responded to ADOL about was Bsh1 leaving the website, not being banned, in regards to accusations of bsh1 saying something in the Utopia Crumbles thread. . . . The thing I mentioned is why bsh1 left.
You began this discussion.  You claimed I said something.  I said no such thing.  Thereafter, I corrected you as to both what I have and have not said before, both in general and in the specific case you referenced.  The specific case you referenced was behavior in keeping with prior behavior of his in other contexts, on which I have previously spoken and which formed the perspective of what I said right after bsh1 left DART.  

. . . You are essentially part of cancel culture.
Cancel culture?  Seriously?  This argument doesn't even rise to the level of frivolity.  DART is a tiny website, with a marginally active user base.  The site's user base isn't even large enough that you could reasonably argue that it functions like a public square, as perhaps you might with Reddit (e.g., /r/thedonald), Twitter (e.g.,  Trump's twitter account), Facebook (e.g., Trump's Facebook account) or Amazon Web Hosting (e.g., Parler).  The internet at large, not to mention the world itself outside of the electronic, remains available for users such as the individual currently identifying himself as "adreamofliberty" to have any discussion they like.   By your logic, if anyone objects to anything in any specific case or context, they're engaging in "cancel culture."  Which, I will note, is not what "cancel culture" is.  

Cancel culture, it turns out, refers when someone is subject to ostracism, in which they're thrown out of some social group (whether online, on social media or in person) because they have ran afoul of what is acceptable according to the woke, in some banal or trivial way.  For example, cancel culture is when a professor who wore a hula-girl shirt gets ratioed by a Twitter mob because his wearing that shirt maked him, a sexist, misogynist pig --- or so the mob would claim.  And you missed my point about Nazis in a bar.  The point had nothing to do with the quality of being a Nazi or your feelings about them being present or experience with how you argue.  The point was about compartmentalization and its benefits; keeping some things out of some contexts, sometimes.  Not excluding them from everywhere, always.  The all-or-none argumentative strategy you took is a nonsensical strawman.  We are only talking about DART, not the internet or the world at large.  
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 7,348
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
-->
@coal
The instance I responded to ADOL about was Bsh1 leaving the website, not being banned, in regards to accusations of bsh1 saying something in the Utopia Crumbles thread. . . . The thing I mentioned is why bsh1 left.
You began this discussion.  You claimed I said something.  I said no such thing.  Thereafter, I corrected you as to both what I have and have not said before, both in general and in the specific case you referenced.  The specific case you referenced was behavior in keeping with prior behavior of his in other contexts, on which I have previously spoken and which formed the perspective of what I said right after bsh1 left DART.  

I didn't claim you said any specific thing, I explained that what you and annie's stance on bsh was. Are you denying the stance you took? You then randomly keep bringing up some hidden context that no one else is privy to in a horrible attempt to substantiate the claim. 

Cancel culture?  Seriously?
Yes, seriously. You want to silence a view point you disagree with, without even attempting to debate it. That's what cancel culture does, it silences a view point it finds too controversial without hearing the argument. 

This argument doesn't even rise to the level of frivolity.  DART is a tiny website, with a marginally active user base.  The site's user base isn't even large enough that you could reasonably argue that it functions like a public square, as perhaps you might with Reddit (e.g., /r/thedonald), Twitter (e.g.,  Trump's twitter account), Facebook (e.g., Trump's Facebook account) or Amazon Web Hosting (e.g., Parler).  The internet at large, not to mention the world itself outside of the electronic, remains available for users such as the individual currently identifying himself as "adreamofliberty" to have any discussion they like.   By your logic, if anyone objects to anything in any specific case or context, they're engaging in "cancel culture."  Which, I will note, is not what "cancel culture" is.  

I do not understand why the size of a website has anything to do with the cancellation of an idea. Does your view on ADOL's beliefs not spread beyond this site?

Cancel culture, it turns out, refers when someone is subject to ostracism, in which they're thrown out of some social group (whether online, on social media or in person) because they have ran afoul of what is acceptable according to the woke, in some banal or trivial way. 
Hmmm suspiciously sounds like the behavior you have towards ADOL.

 And you missed my point about Nazis in a bar.  The point had nothing to do with the quality of being a Nazi or your feelings about them being present or experience with how you argue.  The point was about compartmentalization and its benefits; keeping some things out of some contexts, sometimes.  Not excluding them from everywhere, always.
What are the benefits of restricting free speech on a debate site? So far I keep hearing these supposed slippery slope fallacies about certain members leaving or not participating, but rarely see that in action. I don't know how convinced I would be that banning "offensive" ideas because a member or two left is a rock solid is a rock solid idea anyway.

 The all-or-none argumentative strategy you took is a nonsensical strawman.  We are only talking about DART, not the internet or the world at large.  
Why should we treat DART differently since it presents itself as a debate site?
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Lunatic
Sorry, I'm too busy engaging in cancel culture to read this. 
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 7,348
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
-->
@coal
Sounds about right
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
I also literally do not understand how this point was missed, either.  Keeping discussion of fucking housepets off of DART is not a broader call to silence any such discussion on the broader internet at large.  Especially when I went out of my way to make that point clear on no less than three individual occasions.  

I also never said that bsh1 was a pedo.  Nor do I think he is that.  This is the fourth time I've reiterated that point, and if you don't comprehend what I wrote then dude I don't even know what to tell you.  He directed suggestive language that fell squarely within the category of sexual harassment to a person he knew was a young teenager and did that on multiple occasions with multiple people.  That makes him a creep, not a pedo.  

This is the stupidest conversation I have had in years. 


coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Lunatic
You actually thought that was a serious response, too. Dude.  I have no words.  
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 7,348
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
-->
@coal
You actually thought that was a serious response, too. Dude.  I have no words.  
Lol I mean it was obviously sarcasm. I was returning the sarcasm. 
Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 7,348
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
-->
@coal
I also literally do not understand how this point was missed, either.  Keeping discussion of fucking housepets off of DART is not a broader call to silence any such discussion on the broader internet at large.  Especially when I went out of my way to make that point clear on no less than three individual occasions.  
You arbitrarily decided what is too controversial for a debate site. 

I also never said that bsh1 was a pedo.  Nor do I think he is that.  This is the fourth time I've reiterated that point, and if you don't comprehend what I wrote then dude I don't even know what to tell you.  He directed suggestive language that fell squarely within the category of sexual harassment to a person he knew was a young teenager and did that on multiple occasions with multiple people.  That makes him a creep, not a pedo.  
If you are suggesting creepy behavior to an underage individual it is the same thing lol. And it still completely ignores  context
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,950
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
-->
@Lunatic
I'm going to help you understand cancel culture.

Lunatic
Lunatic's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 7,348
3
3
6
Lunatic's avatar
Lunatic
3
3
6
-->
@coal
I understand what cancel culture is and how you fit into it just fine. Dave Chappelle is hilarious too.

59 days later

Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 49
Posts: 2,767
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@Mr.Montague
Welcome to the site. I hope you enjoy your stay. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask.

219 days later

Sir.Lancelot
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Debates: 182
Posts: 807
4
6
9
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
4
6
9
I am Sir Lancelot, 
Soon to be President.