Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Left-wing Speech Control

Page 7 of 11 [ 174 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

03 Feb 2011, 8:50 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
pandabear wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
What, both sides aren't equal? Both sides of what? Is this a racist statement of some sort? Quick pandabear, impose censorship!! !


Why would you want me to do your dirty work? I'm not a moderator.


It wouldn't surprise me if you were made into one. You'd probably be just slightly less of a bully than Sinsboldly was when she was given authority for a time.


Moi, a bully? Well, I suppose I could impose some language control, then.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

03 Feb 2011, 8:58 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:
@ pandabear: I wasn't talking about social security and I haven't even done much reading on it, which is why you don't see me mentioning it. When I say entitlements and handouts I'm talking about the ones pertaining to the poor. Affirmative action and welfare was what I mostly had in mind. The dysfunctional paradigms of generational poverty are meant to adapt to their immediate situation rather than adapting to prospering from it, which is why entitlements and handouts are BS ways of dealing with the culture of poverty. Oh, and a lack of role models as well as fatalism also exacerbates the culture of poverty, but those are caused by the culture of poverty rather than them causing it.


Social Security has been keeping the elderly and disabled just above poverty for generations.

I see relatively little in the way of entitlements and handouts going to the poor. Not much affirmative action. Do you object to the SSI payments? Unemployment compensation?

There is quite a lot of money going to the rich. Especially to government contractors.

I think that you really know very little about our nation's "culture of poverty" and "entitlements and handouts" beyond what you may have heard from Rush Limbaugh or others of his ilk.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

03 Feb 2011, 9:06 pm

ikorack wrote:
What logic dictates that one is more wrong than the other? Racism can not be justified

One is a cause and the other is a reaction. You would say that someone who takes a swing and bloodies a bullies nose is just as wrong as the bully who started it all?



ikorack
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Mar 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,870

03 Feb 2011, 9:09 pm

marshall wrote:
ikorack wrote:
What logic dictates that one is more wrong than the other? Racism can not be justified

One is a cause and the other is a reaction. You would say that someone who takes a swing and bloodies a bullies nose is just as wrong as the bully who started it all?


So according to you black people are just responding to slavery and racism which no longer exists? Even if we acknowledge that racism still exists against blacks from white people(which I do) how can you hold the whole race responsible? And how can you treat two races as if they are two individuals and not two groups?



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

03 Feb 2011, 10:01 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
@ iamnotaparakeet: Seriously? The same person who made a anti-right wing flame bait thread was a moderator?


Sinsboldy was a mod from around 2008 through 2009, was she an author of a bait thread? I don't read every thread here and occasionally take breaks when I'm tired of arguing for a time.
http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt148380.html


Yep, that was the same Sinsboldly who was a moderator once. She wasn't a moderator when she made that thread, but often enough other moderators and admins here (tau, ed, MrMark) have also made some highly charged political statements. They don't let their authority get in the way of their free speech, no way. (It will take me a while to dig through PPR to find the example threads, but there's at least one by MrMark that I keep almost having its title return to memory.)



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

03 Feb 2011, 10:04 pm

Well, maybe iamnotaparakeet can be a moderator. Anyone whom he labels a "Liberal" will be banned.



AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

03 Feb 2011, 10:04 pm

marshall wrote:
ikorack wrote:
What logic dictates that one is more wrong than the other? Racism can not be justified

One is a cause and the other is a reaction. You would say that someone who takes a swing and bloodies a bullies nose is just as wrong as the bully who started it all?
No but I would say punching someone cuz that person's ancestor swung at your ancestor is wrong.

@iamnotaparakeet: It's not that the moderators may be biased, but that she made such childish remarks in that thread that I just can't see her going about moderating in a mature manner.
@pandabear: wtf makes you think iamnotaparakeet would resort to silencing the opposition? He seems a lot more reasonable than that.



Last edited by AceOfSpades on 03 Feb 2011, 10:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

03 Feb 2011, 10:06 pm

pandabear wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
pandabear wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
What, both sides aren't equal? Both sides of what? Is this a racist statement of some sort? Quick pandabear, impose censorship!! !


Why would you want me to do your dirty work? I'm not a moderator.


It wouldn't surprise me if you were made into one. You'd probably be just slightly less of a bully than Sinsboldly was when she was given authority for a time.


Moi, a bully? Well, I suppose I could impose some language control, then.


You could start with that of your own, such as the mockery of people holding opposite political and religious views. Feel free to begin self control at anytime.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

03 Feb 2011, 10:08 pm

pandabear wrote:
Well, maybe iamnotaparakeet can be a moderator. Anyone whom he labels a "Liberal" will be banned.


Even if I were a moderator I would not ban people or threaten them with banning. I will chew their ears off if they really care to argue though.



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

03 Feb 2011, 10:17 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
You could start with that of your own, such as the mockery of people holding opposite political and religious views. Feel free to begin self control at anytime.



I did try being a conservative for a while. It was rather fun. You really don't have to think much to be a conservative. All you have to do is chew people's ears off.



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

03 Feb 2011, 10:34 pm

pandabear wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
You could start with that of your own, such as the mockery of people holding opposite political and religious views. Feel free to begin self control at anytime.



I did try being a conservative for a while. It was rather fun. You really don't have to think much to be a conservative. All you have to do is chew people's ears off.


:roll:

Any other juvenile insults...



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

03 Feb 2011, 11:36 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
pandabear wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
You could start with that of your own, such as the mockery of people holding opposite political and religious views. Feel free to begin self control at anytime.



I did try being a conservative for a while. It was rather fun. You really don't have to think much to be a conservative. All you have to do is chew people's ears off.


:roll:

Any other juvenile insults...


Well, from the movie What About Bob the clip of swearing to prevent Tourettes might be germane.



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

04 Feb 2011, 12:12 am

AceOfSpades wrote:
marshall wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
marshall wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
marshall wrote:
ikorack wrote:
Why must one be worse? They are both essentially the same action towards different groups, the punishment for each should be in accord. Unless of course you approve of certain racial groups having more protections than others.

I think black-and-white axiomatized moral thinking is a problem. It's too simplistic to claim that both sides are equal when they are not.


That line of thinking is used to justify racism and any other form of bigotry.

Only if you are too stupid to understand what I was actually saying. :wall:
That's not the case, so how about not resorting to knee jerk reactions? That line of thinking can go both ways, which was his point. Replacing one double standard with another is fighting fire with fire.

This is the problem. When a bully attacks and the victim responds by attacking back you don't place equal judgement on the victim as you place on the bully. You can say both sides are wrong, but you can't say they are equivalent in their wrongness. One side is more wrong than the other. Blindness to this fact is the kind of insensitivity and unjust treatment that leads to escalation and things like school shootings. Applying a one-size-fits all axiomatic rule-based moral reasoning to the situation is an insult and an apology for the bully at the expense of the victim.

I see the black-vs-white racism issue the same way. Now please don't piss me off by claiming that I'm trying to excuse black-on-white racism because I'm not. Both sides are wrong but they are not equivalent.
A lot of the victimization has to do with what happened back then. Since slavery and segregation isn't happening institutionally nowadays, it's only fitting that all races be treated dead equal rather than separate but equal. Separate but equal is contradictory since it's a double standard.

If someone punches you at a bar, you have the right to send him straight to the floor. But you don't have the right to swing at someone at a bar because one of his ancestors knocked out one of yours in a bar fight.

Whoooosh! It seems like what I just tried to carefully explain went right over your head. Why do I even bother?



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

04 Feb 2011, 12:57 am

marshall wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
marshall wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
marshall wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
marshall wrote:
ikorack wrote:
Why must one be worse? They are both essentially the same action towards different groups, the punishment for each should be in accord. Unless of course you approve of certain racial groups having more protections than others.

I think black-and-white axiomatized moral thinking is a problem. It's too simplistic to claim that both sides are equal when they are not.


That line of thinking is used to justify racism and any other form of bigotry.

Only if you are too stupid to understand what I was actually saying. :wall:
That's not the case, so how about not resorting to knee jerk reactions? That line of thinking can go both ways, which was his point. Replacing one double standard with another is fighting fire with fire.

This is the problem. When a bully attacks and the victim responds by attacking back you don't place equal judgement on the victim as you place on the bully. You can say both sides are wrong, but you can't say they are equivalent in their wrongness. One side is more wrong than the other. Blindness to this fact is the kind of insensitivity and unjust treatment that leads to escalation and things like school shootings. Applying a one-size-fits all axiomatic rule-based moral reasoning to the situation is an insult and an apology for the bully at the expense of the victim.

I see the black-vs-white racism issue the same way. Now please don't piss me off by claiming that I'm trying to excuse black-on-white racism because I'm not. Both sides are wrong but they are not equivalent.
A lot of the victimization has to do with what happened back then. Since slavery and segregation isn't happening institutionally nowadays, it's only fitting that all races be treated dead equal rather than separate but equal. Separate but equal is contradictory since it's a double standard.

If someone punches you at a bar, you have the right to send him straight to the floor. But you don't have the right to swing at someone at a bar because one of his ancestors knocked out one of yours in a bar fight.

Whoooosh! It seems like what I just tried to carefully explain went right over your head. Why do I even bother?


Oh wow, a fiat statement about one side being more wrong than the other. Gee, what a wonderful point. Who the heck do you claim is the "victim" nowadays?



marshall
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,752
Location: Turkey

04 Feb 2011, 1:56 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
marshall wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
marshall wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
marshall wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
marshall wrote:
ikorack wrote:
Why must one be worse? They are both essentially the same action towards different groups, the punishment for each should be in accord. Unless of course you approve of certain racial groups having more protections than others.

I think black-and-white axiomatized moral thinking is a problem. It's too simplistic to claim that both sides are equal when they are not.


That line of thinking is used to justify racism and any other form of bigotry.

Only if you are too stupid to understand what I was actually saying. :wall:
That's not the case, so how about not resorting to knee jerk reactions? That line of thinking can go both ways, which was his point. Replacing one double standard with another is fighting fire with fire.

This is the problem. When a bully attacks and the victim responds by attacking back you don't place equal judgement on the victim as you place on the bully. You can say both sides are wrong, but you can't say they are equivalent in their wrongness. One side is more wrong than the other. Blindness to this fact is the kind of insensitivity and unjust treatment that leads to escalation and things like school shootings. Applying a one-size-fits all axiomatic rule-based moral reasoning to the situation is an insult and an apology for the bully at the expense of the victim.

I see the black-vs-white racism issue the same way. Now please don't piss me off by claiming that I'm trying to excuse black-on-white racism because I'm not. Both sides are wrong but they are not equivalent.
A lot of the victimization has to do with what happened back then. Since slavery and segregation isn't happening institutionally nowadays, it's only fitting that all races be treated dead equal rather than separate but equal. Separate but equal is contradictory since it's a double standard.

If someone punches you at a bar, you have the right to send him straight to the floor. But you don't have the right to swing at someone at a bar because one of his ancestors knocked out one of yours in a bar fight.

Whoooosh! It seems like what I just tried to carefully explain went right over your head. Why do I even bother?


Oh wow, a fiat statement about one side being more wrong than the other. Gee, what a wonderful point. Who the heck do you claim is the "victim" nowadays?

It's pointless because people like you will twist my words so that they fit into your preconceived mindset. From my experience conservatives are incapable of thinking in non-simplistic non-black-and-white terms. They have a rule-based rather than a compassion-based morality.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

04 Feb 2011, 2:49 am

marshall wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
marshall wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
marshall wrote:
AceOfSpades wrote:
marshall wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
marshall wrote:
ikorack wrote:
Why must one be worse? They are both essentially the same action towards different groups, the punishment for each should be in accord. Unless of course you approve of certain racial groups having more protections than others.

I think black-and-white axiomatized moral thinking is a problem. It's too simplistic to claim that both sides are equal when they are not.


That line of thinking is used to justify racism and any other form of bigotry.

Only if you are too stupid to understand what I was actually saying. :wall:
That's not the case, so how about not resorting to knee jerk reactions? That line of thinking can go both ways, which was his point. Replacing one double standard with another is fighting fire with fire.

This is the problem. When a bully attacks and the victim responds by attacking back you don't place equal judgement on the victim as you place on the bully. You can say both sides are wrong, but you can't say they are equivalent in their wrongness. One side is more wrong than the other. Blindness to this fact is the kind of insensitivity and unjust treatment that leads to escalation and things like school shootings. Applying a one-size-fits all axiomatic rule-based moral reasoning to the situation is an insult and an apology for the bully at the expense of the victim.

I see the black-vs-white racism issue the same way. Now please don't piss me off by claiming that I'm trying to excuse black-on-white racism because I'm not. Both sides are wrong but they are not equivalent.
A lot of the victimization has to do with what happened back then. Since slavery and segregation isn't happening institutionally nowadays, it's only fitting that all races be treated dead equal rather than separate but equal. Separate but equal is contradictory since it's a double standard.

If someone punches you at a bar, you have the right to send him straight to the floor. But you don't have the right to swing at someone at a bar because one of his ancestors knocked out one of yours in a bar fight.

Whoooosh! It seems like what I just tried to carefully explain went right over your head. Why do I even bother?


Oh wow, a fiat statement about one side being more wrong than the other. Gee, what a wonderful point. Who the heck do you claim is the "victim" nowadays?

It's pointless because people like you will twist my words so that they fit into your preconceived mindset. From my experience conservatives are incapable of thinking in non-simplistic non-black-and-white terms. They have a rule-based rather than a compassion-based morality.


Speak plainly then to appeal to our simplistic mind Mr. Compassionate, if you don't mind.