Possible explanation for the "SJW" mindset
goldfish21 wrote:
O hai guyz, I brought enough lefty gay popcorn to share with e'erybody! 

Don't eat the green ones!
_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.
Last edited by Fnord on 30 Jan 2021, 5:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
goldfish21 wrote:
But those ones have the lefty legal cannanis in them..
or r u saying U want them? 
Do they make you feel "libidinous"?
_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.
goldfish21
Veteran
Joined: 17 Feb 2013
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 22,612
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
goldfish21 wrote:
Fnord wrote:
goldfish21 wrote:
But those ones have the lefty legal cannabis in them..
or r u saying U want them? 
Do they make you feel "libidinous"?_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.
Cornflake wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
If people have an issue with what I post, they are free to address what I post after taking the time to read\view what was presented, contesting the details contained within it, not insinuate\make assumptions about what I "meant" by posting it in order to try to attack me personally\push me (or anyone else who may agree with what I have posted) away from the site.
This is unmitigated hyperbole.Members can and will be permitted to respond in whatever capacity they wish. If that falls short of your expectations then I suggest you modify your expectations.
Geez! I honestly don't have the patience you and Walrus have to read his waffle. This is why WP is such a great discussion site with mods who are willing to dissect and deconstruct posts in such detail,
cyberdad wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
If people have an issue with what I post, they are free to address what I post after taking the time to read\view what was presented, contesting the details contained within it, not insinuate\make assumptions about what I "meant" by posting it in order to try to attack me personally\push me (or anyone else who may agree with what I have posted) away from the site.
This is unmitigated hyperbole. Members can and will be permitted to respond in whatever capacity they wish. If that falls short of your expectations then I suggest you modify your expectations._________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.
Fnord wrote:
When I see certain usernames, I automatically skip over the contents of their posts. When I used to read their posts, it was easy to see that they engaged in hyperbole, deception, diversion, and outright lies. Maybe if we all ignored their posts, they would eventually stop posting due to lack of attention.[/color]
Fair enough, I myself prefer to shed light on misinformation when there are young people reading their posts.
cyberdad wrote:
Fnord wrote:
When I see certain usernames, I automatically skip over the contents of their posts. When I used to read their posts, it was easy to see that they engaged in hyperbole, deception, diversion, and outright lies. Maybe if we all ignored their posts, they would eventually stop posting due to lack of attention.
Fair enough, I myself prefer to shed light on misinformation when there are young people reading their posts.Is that what you want?
_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.
Fnord wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
Cornflake wrote:
Brictoria wrote:
If people have an issue with what I post, they are free to address what I post after taking the time to read\view what was presented, contesting the details contained within it, not insinuate\make assumptions about what I "meant" by posting it in order to try to attack me personally\push me (or anyone else who may agree with what I have posted) away from the site.
This is unmitigated hyperbole. Members can and will be permitted to respond in whatever capacity they wish. If that falls short of your expectations then I suggest you modify your expectations.@Brictoria Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they are not after you. You seem isolated in this thread and are quite accurate in your accusations of members/mods/admin not wanting you here , in fact they openly post it. How is this allowed?
_________________
Ello Little Ol' Lady
Chorlton88 wrote:
... How is this allowed?
Simple. I am not naming names, nor am I calling for anyone to be banned.If someone is not wanted, it is fair to point out that this is most likely due to something they have said or done to offend a lot of other people.
The Right to Free Speech does not automatically grant anyone the privilege of being wanted.
_________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.
Fnord wrote:
Chorlton88 wrote:
... How is this allowed?
Simple. I am not naming names, nor am I calling for anyone to be banned.If someone is not wanted, it is fair to point out that this is most likely due to something they have said or done to offend a lot of other people.
The Right to Free Speech does not automatically grant anyone the privilege of being wanted.
It seemed to me you were talking about Brictoria , my mistake. I'm new here so obviously out of the loop of who should be ignored due to offending a lot of people.
_________________
Ello Little Ol' Lady
Chorlton88 wrote:
@Brictoria Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they are not after you. You seem isolated in this thread and are quite accurate in your accusations of members/mods/admin not wanting you here , in fact they openly post it. How is this allowed?
Umm at the beginning we did try but he consistently attacked posters whom he disagreed with claimed the problem was with us without ever addressing the points we made.
His modus operandi was to deflect, obfuscate and hide his true intentions in pages of waffle and irrelevant links, videos and historical precedent with no relevance to the modern era. He would make snarky remarks about our intelligence, that we were too intellectually lazy to debate. Please feel free to go through his posts (although I suspect you won't bother).
Chorlton88 wrote:
Fnord wrote:
Chorlton88 wrote:
... How is this allowed?
Simple. I am not naming names, nor am I calling for anyone to be banned. If someone is not wanted, it is fair to point out that this is most likely due to something they have said or done to offend a lot of other people. The Right to Free Speech does not automatically grant anyone the privilege of being wanted._________________
The mere fact that science may not yet adequately explain an object, event, or experience does not mean the immediate explanation should automatically default to a conspiratorial, extraterrestrial, paranormal, or supernatural cause.
cyberdad wrote:
Chorlton88 wrote:
@Brictoria Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they are not after you. You seem isolated in this thread and are quite accurate in your accusations of members/mods/admin not wanting you here , in fact they openly post it. How is this allowed?
Umm at the beginning we did try but he consistently attacked posters whom he disagreed with claimed the problem was with us without ever addressing the points we made.
His modus operandi was to deflect, obfuscate and hide his true intentions in pages of waffle and irrelevant links, videos and historical precedent with no relevance to the modern era. He would make snarky remarks about our intelligence, that we were too intellectually lazy to debate. Please feel free to go through his posts (although I suspect you won't bother).
What are his true intentions?
I re-read the thread and it's clear to me he's playing Devils Advocate on certain things to elicit debate.
I do not know the history between posters here but your first post appeared to be a 'call to arms' as you are not willing to debate waffle but wish others to do so for you. This place seems very cliquey and as always I will be on the outside looking in on such cliques.
_________________
Ello Little Ol' Lady
