Total posts: 19,931
-->
@Wylted
It was pretty clear sarcasm and obviously you could tell by reading it, at least anybody even mildly socially adept, that I was saying it was a terrible ideal and running it past the religion forum would make you unelectable.Please use common since when interpreting all future statements of mine.
Not at all, you even followed it up saying you'd be happy to work with me on it with the mods but I am so used to your fakeness and gaslighting that I was ready for you to go back on your word like you always do.
It's been run by the religion forums now, we'll see how unelectable I am.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Please PM me your answers or ask me to send you the questions via PM to you for your convenience.
This violates campaigning via PM, you're just going for a loophole as you're not the candidate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
@whiteflame
You must ban any PM discussion about it and ask Pie what has been campaigned from Wylted to him private.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
If I met her in person, I'd likely seduce her more easily than you can, because I recognize her feminine nature and will play to it.
Well, we're talking about a lesbian who is married, so you really need to question yourself if this is the case. :)
Also, this is most amusing:
her being more likely to sleep with me if we met in person, means she respects me more than she respects you
That's definitely how things work in Wylted's workshop.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
When did I say I thought it was sexist 💀
Only natural that men seek to be dominant. After all bros before hoes.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
The fact you think that phrase is sexist as opposed to about friendship mattering more than a new spouse shows lack of grasp on it.
Sisters before misters too, buddy.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
That's definitely the statistical fact of why men lean to the party that favours patriarchal society. /s
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I you are curious about Wylted's platform you also should take a look at his thread.
Let me give you a head start:
I'm just helping the cause of letting you religion forum users get an idea of the platforms of the candidates.
Created:
Same guy posting this thread: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7118-should-we-crack-down-on-members-of-the-religion-forum
posing as my opposition to that idea, says this in my own thread:
Created:
Same guy posting this thread: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7118-should-we-crack-down-on-members-of-the-religion-forum
posing as my opposition to that idea, says this in my own thread:
Created:
-->
@Wylted
did you intentionally forget to quote yourself fully endorsing my idea?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
@bmdrocks21
@Bones
Latest words from Wylted:
Women really aren't good at logical discussions. I'm not sure this is the place for them. Maybe we could invite random one night stands to start an account and see if they stick around though
master of tact
Created:
-->
@Bones
I genuinely am clearing that up on PM, waiting for a reply.
I will do it privately, depends exactly who has done what to her. Not gonna bring it as a public drama. I understand a user is repeatedly asking her a specific question she hates and harassing her in other ways too. I am not certain which user it is or what's going on and I will help her bridge the gap with the mods ASAP in private.
She is currently under the impression Ragnar is the chief moderator, this led to certain miscommunications I believe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
Mafia feels like you describe Resistance as if you play it open-setup.
The obsession with closed-setup and themed is all high tier mindgame level.
Created:
-->
@Castin
@thett3
@ludofl3x
@n8nrgmi
@Double_R
I have to spam-ping here because if I pm links to this campaign or talk about it individually via PM it breaks a campaigning rule.
Created:
-->
@sadolite
@Username
@Sum1hugme
@Bones
@ComputerNerd
Please ask me anything about my campaign or Wylted's in comparison.
Created:
-->
@EtrnlVw
@Polytheist-Witch
@GnosticChristianBishop
@FLRW
@Lunar108
Please ask me anything about my campaign or Wylted's in comparison.
Created:
-->
@Barney
@zedvictor4
@oromagi
@Discipulus_Didicit
@Reece101
Please ask me anything about my campaign or Wylted's in comparison.
Created:
We'll see how great Wylted makes DART look on his next rampage of troll threads, it will come no doubt about it. Hopefully not too severe this time.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
mhmm, yeah I agree we dislike each other's character.
So yeah, gg.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
You are welcome to.
Just be aware of his own views.
Created:
-->
@badger
I will not offend Danielle for your amusement that's all.
People are very sensitive about topics like that and the genuine answer is that she is in between.
I won't specify where she lies on the spectrum between masculinity and femininity, that's my own take/opinion and her own right to tell me to stfu about.
I will say I do not take Wylted's 'totally feminine' stance on her at all. That's all I will say on it.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Yes I do.
However, whatever I say here, you'll find an angry post by me to 'disprove'.
I would say that Wylted's mood changes like the wind. When it suits him, he can be a very hostile even sadistic guy and when it also suits him he can be overly friendly even. I am not here to shame anyone's way of being but this specific question requires such an answer and any look at his accounts will show you, if you even just flip through his profiles and the threads and posts, how problematic his mood swings can be.
I will not pretend that when angered or hurt, I am the nicest guy. I am also not going to take that as a major temperament issue to do with presidency, I'm cool-headed in a sort of defense attorney mindset, it's about the mindset. Am I the defendant or their lawyer? I'm more temperamental and deeply emotional as the defendant himself, it's a weakness I accept but in terms of defending others, I'm passionate but very level-headed from what I can recall.
Created:
Polytheist Witch, please unblock me and we can talk about it.
I remember when I was blocked kind of, it was over a misunderstanding on PM, you took me warning you of something as a hostile thing (If I recall correctly).
If you never deleted your PMs here, the chat will still be there. I have deleted on my end though as I clear mine from time to time. Let me know either way, I'm happy to publically chat with you about the issues.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
You can have your liaison crutches as you please, in the end this isn't a team-position. I use the site regularly and can hard-carry almost any situation thrown at me, if need be I will consider who I think is best suited to temporarily take my place.
Your track record is flaky even when unbanned, you have months offline. I think people need to consider that alone as a major worry because if they elected you but your vice and liaisons are hardcarrying your presidency, they're left with a presidency they never elected.
Created:
-->
@badger
If you keep trying to get a sadistic kick out of your questioning, I will just stonewall you. I'm not your victim, ask Wylted these questions in his thread first.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
These are mods you pride yourself on having good relations with in the other thread.
Created:
-->
@badger
I didn't say that, you did. If you meant it as a joke then leave it at that.
I meant it as in warnings, temp-bans or whatever.
Created:
-->
@badger
What can we do to bring women back to DebateArt?
I am not joking, that is an excellent question and I believe I'm the far better candidate to do this (this is not some joke about skills at seduction).
I am going to aim for the website to slowly and inevitably reduce toxicity including the toxicity of how the very handling of toxic situations happens. I am aiming for an environment where literally any thread a newcomer to the site clicks on is going to be either full of friendly banter or serious debate (not insulting quips that are blatantly intended to hurt or tactical posts intended to gaslight and/or bait out abuse from the other).
I can't say for sure if this will attract more feminine users but I do believe currently there's a huge locker room testosterone-fuelled type environment here that I will try and balance out over time.
Created:
-->
@badger
The comment he made, even without the age considered (this is a point I felt wasn't pushed hard enough) was out of order.
So, my problem with Bsh1's comment was the nature of the comment and yes that he was the chief mod.
His comment was just plain out of order but the reason I would not call it sexual harassment is that the person it was said to took it as a joke genuinely and felt it was fair banter. If the recipient of 'banter' truly feels it is such that is where moderating the harshness is wrong, where I am different perhaps to yourself and Wylted is that I believe the opposite too. If you say something you feel is banter but the recipient feels hurt or shamed by it, that's where you've gone wrong and if you continue to knowingly do it for a laugh you must be disciplined by the moderators.
Created:
-->
@badger
I have already given my honest opinion of my opponent.
Created:
-->
@badger
I will only answer serious questions.
The reason I answer this instead of 'no' is that if I entertain you anymore it will get problematic as I know how inappropriate you will go further.
Also, there is no shame at all in arousal itself as long as any act based on it is with consent except that in the instance of cheating there is consent but not from the one who was cheated on but that is a separate debate.
If anyone feels aroused that is fine, telling others you are aroused and acting on it is where you should stop strongly and think about consent. It really is that simple, so I'm not going to answer 'no' because you have only asked it to:
- Troll the seriousness of my campaign and me as a candidate.
- Shame anyone who happened to be sexually aroused towards someone else on this site at any point.
Created:
-->
@badger
Not any more difficulties than Wylted's mental disorders would cause him, no.
There will be social difficulties, I'm not an entirely likable guy but what I am is a very attentive guy so I can listen well and I'm also a very eloquent guy meaning I can advocate well.
My autism, in fact, lets me stand in the face of social pressure from the mods to cave in with relative ease as I need to actually manually tell myself to care about social peer pressure, I don't naturally want to cave into it at all. I would go as far as to say that being autistic in a position of power-balancing (which is what presidency is on this site) is an actual advantage in ways because the president is much more akin to what the board of directors are to the CEO of a corporation. I am meant to be balancing out the unilateral authority of the mods (think of it as CEO and second in command) on behalf of the userbase/shareholders. I should not be primarily or even secondarily concerned with being buddy-buddy with the powerful CEO (whiteflame at the moment, in this analogy).
Wylted is in fact too concerned about flexing his super close friendship with whiteflame to realise it's a drawback for his position.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Why are you laughing? The question posed made clear three things,
- This was to represent my approach to multiple conversations and reflect my default approach if totally ignored by Whiteflame on a matter I deemed severe harassment.
- There were only 2 extremely contrasted options (sheer negligence vs sheer exposure/rebellion)
- You chose option 1, I chose option 2
I'm the freedom defender, you're the conformist shill. It doesn't matter what you do to twist this now, as you always want to twist things and laugh and downplay seriousness but you want to expose each other for being bad leaders? You're actually one of the worst options to lead out of the entire website, I say that not out of spite but that I would genuinely vote Pie over you.
Created:
Please pay attention to Wylted's thread, anybody watching this and questioning who to vote.
Furthermore, please notice this:
You see, Wylted, what you are a textbook poser, manipulator and gaslighter even.When it suits you, you will twist anything and any situation even a friendship you formed with Whiteflame to your advantage and yet when I point out the flaw that comes with being his best bud, suddenly you'll revert to the rebellious freedom fighter persona that is gonna defend everyone's freedom.Cute position, adorable really but in the end I'm the beast you want in your corner, yes your corner mr recently-banned, when you get banned because I won't cower. I do not bow to them, I actually fight for the freedom you pretend you will.Your voters are voting for a self-admitted shill who prides himself on his literal only conviction in life being that god is real.Now we are getting into psychology. My therapist seemed to notice this as well and asked my."Why don't you have any convictions"I don't, which is why I can change with the wind. The resolute part is something I do just for rhetorical purposes.Perhaps not having convictions will change though. I have one conviction and it acted like a light bulb going off in my head and I lot of things flowed from it.RM, God is real.Knowing this has unclouded my judgement in a lot of ways, and many things flow from this.And if it suits you it's god's will you become president instead of me, but who are you as a mortal to talk of God's will? Watch your tone to declare such things if you truly worship this deity because I know that you are not truly a believer if you think you know of God's will.A true believer would let things play out and know that no matter who wins is God's will. That is real faith, real worship and real humility.
the only reason you went from posting this:to this very thread is that I didn't soothe your fragile ego in my thread and pretend to respect a guy I have seen habitually lie, twist context, post tactically worded antisemitism and anti-black racism even mocking the disabled and relishing in the anguish of a user he said the world would be better of if she was dead and laughing with pleasure as she showed severe frustration at his victimisation and the supporters you have need to question the man you are.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
No, I assumed in the scenario it was a one shot thing. In good negotiations though both parties are usually a bit unhappy, so all successful advocacy attempts will still lead a bad taste in your mouth.
You didn't, nice attempt to gaslight, your question was this:
Are you capable of proving your ability to use discretion. The ability to use discretion is important to a working relationship. Let's say you earn whiteflames trust and he starts leaning heavy on you as an advocate for users he interacts with less than you.A lot of those conversations may be very private and ugly facts about users could come out that was only the privy of mods. Say whiteflame concludes a particular case of harassment is not harassment and the user should go unpunished. You guys fight hard over it and he basically says "fuck you, not banning the harasser " . Your only two options are1. Drop your argument and let the harasser get away with itOr2. Air your personal grievances with whiteflame publicly and break his trust and ruin the relationship necessary for a working relationship.Will you and can you be trusted to take option 1.I know I have the ability to maintain that relationship with whiteflame and have previously proven it as I have interacted with him a lot off site and we have both told each other personal things, and both of us have seen each other never betray that trust. Can whiteflame trust you like he trusts me, so a working relationship is possible?
You never said one time in one scenario, you said which is the default that I would go for in defense of a user that was being abused via harassment while Whiteflame turned a blind eye to it.
I made crystal clear what my stance was. You did as well. Do not change what you said to imply you can switch it around when it suits you, that only discredits you saying option 1.
Created:
the only reason you went from posting this:
to this very thread is that I didn't soothe your fragile ego in my thread and pretend to respect a guy I have seen habitually lie, twist context, post tactically worded antisemitism and anti-black racism even mocking the disabled and relishing in the anguish of a user he said the world would be better of if she was dead and laughing with pleasure as she showed severe frustration at his victimisation and the supporters you have need to question the man you are.
Created:
You see, Wylted, what you are a textbook poser, manipulator and gaslighter even.
When it suits you, you will twist anything and any situation even a friendship you formed with Whiteflame to your advantage and yet when I point out the flaw that comes with being his best bud, suddenly you'll revert to the rebellious freedom fighter persona that is gonna defend everyone's freedom.
Cute position, adorable really but in the end I'm the beast you want in your corner, yes your corner mr recently-banned, when you get banned because I won't cower. I do not bow to them, I actually fight for the freedom you pretend you will.
Your voters are voting for a self-admitted shill who prides himself on his literal only conviction in life being that god is real.
Now we are getting into psychology. My therapist seemed to notice this as well and asked my."Why don't you have any convictions"I don't, which is why I can change with the wind. The resolute part is something I do just for rhetorical purposes.Perhaps not having convictions will change though. I have one conviction and it acted like a light bulb going off in my head and I lot of things flowed from it.RM, God is real.Knowing this has unclouded my judgement in a lot of ways, and many things flow from this.
And if it suits you it's god's will you become president instead of me, but who are you as a mortal to talk of God's will? Watch your tone to declare such things if you truly worship this deity because I know that you are not truly a believer if you think you know of God's will.
A true believer would let things play out and know that no matter who wins is God's will. That is real faith, real worship and real humility.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
Especially not when you will bow your head like a good puppet when he tells you to.
'puppet' is my words, yes, but you chose option 1 as your go-to every time correct?
Created:
-->
@Wylted
I will be asking you the three fundamental things Ilikepie5 asked me in my thread
Should a person who makes rational and fact based (either sources, etc) arguments about their support of racism, sexism, transphobia, etc be banned?
How do you reconcile differences that may be “derogotary” with pure differences. For example, if I say Blacks are dumber than whites because of their inherent brown structure and provide evidence, should I be banned?
*do or do you not* believe that white supremacy should be advocated for/debated on the site when it includes evidence?
The ** text is inserted by me for the question to apply to Wylted
Created:
-->
@Wylted
If you're best friends with him, is that not a problem when you need to battle him in defense of a user? Challenge him?
Created:
-->
@Wylted
RM is probably one of the few other people on the site that has been in personal contact with me for a rather long period. He has exclusively done it through the site, but we've had similar discussions. I wouldn't set you two apart so far in that regard. I've known you longer, but that doesn't give you greater influence over me. If you want to claim that direct communication over a prolonged period = a better position to influence me, that's up to you, but you both have that.
- WF
I appreciate how you are navigating this situation. I've been in leadership positions as well, and have had to use similar diplomatic language.
-Wylted
Perception is a funny thing.
I will let the reader decide which of the 2 of us is delusional about themselves as I've also been accused of having delusions of grandeur.
Created:
If people want to see Wylted's habitual dishonesty at work, I'd like to point out the following.
I gave him 2 chances to fess up to what he did.
These were his 2 replies:
You are mistaken. I would never advocate for suicide. I did debate that the world would be better off, if I killed myself.
I didn't remember. You brought up a post from 3 years ago. The post was in bad taste, but clearly meant to be humorous. She was in the op equating socialized healthcare to having the right to live.I wanted to challenge the notion of "right to live" and if the debate would have taken place, I would have used some antinatalist type argument.
Now, I'd like to show his own post on the matter in another thread than the one I linked.
LOL, that is the interpretation. Even the first comment on the debate before she got a chance to accept I explained that I was going to run some sort of schoppenhour argument that explained non existence was preferable to exist or take the environmentalist angle. The title was "The User known as Yeshuabought should die"
Let's observe what happened here.
he said this:
You are mistaken. I would never advocate for suicide. I did debate that the world would be better off, if I killed myself.
Which firstly is self-evidently impossible as his stance about his own suicide was that suicide's a good idea but I'm not going to go into that as perhaps he really was suicidal at the time and meant it (I genuinely do not know and even if I was his literaly psychiatrist I'd be sworn to confidentiality on the matter).
The point is how explicitly he mentioned remembering who I was talking about and insisting I was mistaken rather than saying 'I dont remember, can you show me the posts'.
This is a habit Wylted often will do.
Created:
In the meantime, please try and answer every single question that Pie asked me in my thread.
Created:
I'll take a break for now, get back to you with more questions and posts later.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
And it's the same Stephen that runs around harassing people relentlessly in the religion forums as his genuine daily hobby.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
The election is a referendum on what people want. If not elected, they likely could care less about having a site currency
They have a site currency, it's in our profile as green coins and that hardly should be what people base their vote on unless your crypto is bribery.
If it's bribery, that's the whole problem in itself.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
@Vader
@whiteflame
I'm actually curious, was this user Wylted? If so isn't that multi-accounting at a pure bannable level in and of itself?
I am genuinely asking, was this noticed and dealt with if he was Tyrone? I actually hadn't realised he himself was Tyrone until he mentioned that to me a couple of posts ago, I thought he'd given the link to the YT vid to the operator of Tyrone.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
- Making a series of overtly racist threads and posts
To prevent the creeping group think on the site and push to continue that slide by banning those who do not conform to it.
I see, so let's be clear on some of the threads you made:
When you point out that 20% of nobel prize winners are Jewish or that most of the media is controlled by Jews, or that the government and Biden's cabinet is disproportionately Jewish. The despicable Jew will wave his hand. "Oy Vey, this is not true". I can't repect that obvious fucking lie, that they don't know.I only respect Jews that respond with the following "Of course we have all that power. It is proof we are God's chosen people" Or maybe they respond with "We are superior mate, of course we more easily grab power"The second type of Jew is at least acknowledging that Jews do have disproportionate success. The funny thing is that the first type of Jew, frowns upon the second type. They see themselves as superior to "Jewish chauvinists" . If you are the first type and reading this, you aren't superior to people willing to acknowledge the truth. You are inferior to the second type for failing to acknowledge true things. Nothing is more important than truth.I don't agree with the second type of Jew, but they are at least honest. Jews have obviously succeeded because of strong in group preference and having a miniature society inside a large society which is very high trust amongst each other, but that is a different story
I'm not saying they should have jumped in and risked getting taken down with him, especially considering the gators in Florida, but what type of sociopaths mock a drowning man? Why is there an epidemic of this in the black community?
just watch the video. The jews are basically in control of the rap industry and they are for whatever reason. I don't know if it is just a secret cabal of jews that control everything or all jews are complicit, but they control the music industry and are doing fucked up things. https://youtu.be/OO3WF1Ek7RU
One second, I have other things to ask so I'll get back to you about the racism later.
Created:
-->
@Wylted
- Imitating a disabled person to then make a comment that disabled people shouldn't reproduce and that you're genetically inferior (I can link this if you deny it) over several posts.
In a thread espousing the ideals of incels and saying saying they had a few good points. I would say having genetic defects as I was claiming to hide my identity would make me genetically inferior to others. Hell I am short and that makes me genetically inferior to a tall person who is my equal In other ways. It isn't a controversial statement and does not speak to their value as a person
Nowhere did you make clear your stance.
Let's look a little into what you said.
I have been wondering lately about genetic superiority. I is clear that some people are genetically superior to others. This is to be differentiated from moral superiority or self worth. I think in the eyes of God, I am equal to all of you. In the eyes of the law I may even be a bit superior to all of you, considering my status as a white male.However I am certainly genetically inferior to most of you. I have a genetic disorder that means I have to use voice to text 50% of the time on this site. It also means I will probably be dead within the next few years. Please don't PM me asking for specifics. I am open about some of my struggles, but some things I want to avoid talking about.You guys are genetically superior to me, for the most part I assume. Do we ignore the fact that most incel's are correct. They are genetically inferior to a lot of men as well and will struggle to get laid. It used to be when early marriage and monogamy was forced on people that those who are called incel's today could have lead a happy life with a good wife and some kids. Now these guys have become genetic dead ends. Were they failed by society? Sure female agency is a good thing, but was the cost of female agency something that resulted in a large portion of males who ended up genetic dead ends?On the surface we may,so what? They can't get laid, you can still be happy and not have sex or have a significant other. I agree with this, but the fact is when we have a bunch of young men, with a very bleak picture of the future, we usually get a lot of crime and social disorder. It would be a similar result as to what happens in heavily polygamous societies.What about the other side of the coin. Some women are genetically inferior because they put on weight easier than others. Perhaps they have a genetic disorder that makes weight gain easy, perhaps their genetics mean they have a huge appetite. I am a bit overweight myself. I can emphasize, but we see a push back by these women where they demand to be seen as attractive and demand others ignore their genetic inferiority. What will be the result of a society where a bunch of women are treated merely as "slump busters" and a bunch of men cannot have sex at all?Perhaps the HAES advocates are right. Society was more stable when the government and social standards intervened to get these incel's from the 50s laid. (I acknowledge that the stability came at the cost of equality). Perhaps we should also as a society push to change beauty standards as well, so that way we can encourage some social stability.Just my thoughts on the results of ignoring that genetic superiority is a real thing. People are genetically superior to me and society has helped me bridge that gap with the americans with disabilities act. Should society save other genetically inferior people to avoid social decay such as HAES advocates and INCELs
Do you stand by these statements?
Created: