The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: goodbye to the forum on April 01, 2019, 02:58:51 PM
-
Mustachians,
I (EnjoyIt) came back (with a fake account (i'm sorry) to send out my last goodbye. As of a few days ago I was banned from the forum (more about that below if interested.) But before I leave I wanted to send heartfelt thoughts.
Thank you MMM for the revelations he instilled in me and my family. Our lives are so much better because he helped us realize the value of our labor and our money. It has allowed us to reach financial success we would never dream of while improving our day to day lives. I hope to in the next several months to start a movement in healthcare that will one day actually get Americans affordable healthcare. I hope I don't get lazy and I hope I succeed. Actually banning me from these forums will give me more of my free time back which is a very good thing in the long run. I have spent a little too much of my life on this forum and Bogleheads.
I also want to thank all the kind members of this forum that were willing to have political discussions with me. I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal and when I started commenting on these forums I would say that I was very blind to everyone's views and needs in the US. Anyone who is willing to check will see how my views began to lean more and more left to where I stand today. I believe it is a good thing. All those disagreements and discussions allowed me to understand from so many different angles I never had the chance to see in my closed off world. So again, thank you so much for that. I hope all those talks will not go to waste as I try and pursue to help change how medicine is delivered in the US.
Another thanks goes out to those who have helped answer my questions over the years regarding general life and lifestyle. You all make this community great so keep it up.
I will miss you all, even the mods who felt I don't belong here anymore.
You can stop reading now if you don't care about my banning:
I was banned a few days ago with no warning, no restrictions, just a ban the next time I logged in. It was a surprise to me as my only transgression has been to not be a far left leaning liberal who felt free to discuss my views and perceptions of society. I openly discussed how some views divide the country as opposed to bringing the country closer together. By being more moderate compared to the liberal left I have had many insults directed at me and I can honestly say I have never insulted a single person directly. I did at many times question ideas which is how I believe we learn from each other. We talk to people we disagree with so that our own views can improve. I realize this site is a private and can keep or ban anyone they see fit. Despite that realization I feel like my freedom of speech was cut by those who run the forum and lean to the very left of our political spectrum. I think it is a little sad how this played out. But again, private forum, private decisions, private results.
Since I was officially banned, creating a new fake account is pretty damn crummy and for that I am sorry. I wanted to get my thank you in to those who deserve it and leave with my thoughts behind regarding the ban. I do not expect this account to last any longer than leaving this message and I am not asking to be unbanned.. I suspect there is a good chance this message may be deleted but I hope not.
Again, thank you all, and goodbye. I hope everyone here can achieve their goals and then some.
-EnjoyIt
-
I'm not sure what happened re:the ban but that's a nice goodbye. Good luck to yourself.
Cheers.
-
Are you sure you are banned? There is some funny business with IP addresses and the like that will kick people off in an apparent ban. I would think that if you were banned you would get a warning, etc.
@FrugalToque - if this person was not banned, perhaps you have time to contact them and explain this better than I.
-
Hi, EnjoyIt @goodbye to the forum . I was curious what happened, so went to the Member List to read posts under your old name...can't find EnjoyIt at all. So, maybe banned for real? (Or, maybe I'm missing something. That could happen too.)
I never noticed someone's entire post history disappearing when they were banned. I had assumed banning meant preventing future posts. I would have assumed posts previously allowed to exist would be allowed to continue existing. Maybe they get deleted to increase efficiency of the forum software?
Re setting up a new forum name...well, so far I've considered the ability to make a new profile a feature rather than a bug, as long as it's used judiciously. Abuse would damage the forum, judicious use probably adds value. We're probably in the ok middle so far as a group. I've created a new forum name just because I couldn't figure out my old password, hence I have two spellings/profiles. Understandable for your message, I think.
It's hard to imagine how much work the mods do, but I think it's a lot. I suspect that at some point troll blocking has huge value in building a positive community. But just as obviously incorrect blocking of a non-troll is unjust even if well intended. I'd really like to review some of those posts...
Anyway, nice goodbye post if that's how it works out. At minimum, best of luck in your life; take care!
PS. If you get your movement started, I'd love to see a mention or link, even if it means a third profile is created in in a few months. I'll click on it if ever see a post from EnjoyOurNewHealthCareMovement, for example. :)
-
Just read through the Off Topic. It's obvious who this person is. Every single person who doesn't lean left has been banned. I am much more left than this poster and I appreciated their comments, while not agreeing with hardly any of them. For what it's worth, I'm guessing this is "Versatile"? If I'm wrong, then sorry, wrong poster. UPDATE: Just realized you wrote "EnjoyIt" and I don't remember reading your comments.
I've been a lurker for at least 6 months now, just created my account finally. I live in Australia and find American politics fascinating. Reading some of the off topic political threads, it's been disheartening that the topics almost seem to be a setup to expose anyone who leans right so they can be promptly banned. The double standard sucks. Any dissenting or differing opinions just seem to stop all of a sudden, and lots of bans. Posters make fake accounts like this, too. It's a mess.
My suggestion would be to remove the entire Off Topic section, or at least anything political. Maybe we should just focus on finances here? I won't waste my time reading the political threads anymore in light of the behavior from the mods, what's the point? The discussions end prematurely as right leaning users are banned without cause. It just shows how awful politics can be, especially when moderators are biased and weaponize their authority.
I would appeal to the users here, and the mods, to just delete the political threads. It's not the place for it.
-
I've been a lurker for at least 6 months now, just created my account finally.
Welcome to the discussion zone!
I live in Australia and find American politics fascinating.
Fascinating indeed, my friend.
Reading some of the off topic political threads, it's been disheartening that the topics almost seem to be a setup to expose anyone who leans right so they can be promptly banned. The double standard sucks. Any dissenting or differing opinions just seem to stop all of a sudden, and lots of bans. Posters make fake accounts like this, too. It's a mess.
My suggestion would be to remove the entire Off Topic section, or at least anything political. Maybe we should just focus on finances here? I won't waste my time reading the political threads anymore in light of the behavior from the mods, what's the point? The discussions end prematurely as right leaning users are banned without cause. It just shows how awful politics can be, especially when moderators are biased and weaponize their authority.
I would appeal to the users here, and the mods, to just delete the political threads. It's not the place for it.
Personally I think the politics threads serve some valuable functions. I think Bogleheads bans politics, but I like that MMM allows it, at least to the extent that it does.
I think the key value right now is that if people want to engage, they have at least a chance to do so. In a society that has a lot of fragmentation going on, any viable public space is a good thing. My hope is that at some point, such public spaces might lead to some sort of civic reconciliation or improvement. In some threads (more journals that Off Topic discussions, alas) really civil and thoughtful discussions of deep issues sometimes occur.
I haven't seen enough bans on pure viewpoint grounds to recognize that as a pattern. I will pay more attention...in the increasingly rare event that read much of the politics threads. :) Which is becoming more rare because, while some of them begin as really legitimate explorations of issues, others begin or shift toward a provocative/confrontational mode and become dominated by people who just expound their views while no one seems to learn anything.
The bans I've seen in the past came from violations of the rule against ad hominem attacks. That's not partisan, but in the cases I saw, the attacks were by someone expressing a right wing view via a personal attack on someone. This would be easy to confuse with censoring a right wing view, but it's not the same.
Peace to all reasoned and thoughtful discussers...
-
There is a recent separate thread where banning politics was discussed. It's a pretty overwhelming "no".
There is a light hand on moderation. If you can manage to not be a jerk to others, especially during heated discussions, you won't get banned - regardless of your political leanings.
I don't enjoy the nasty turn some heated threads take, so I just avoid them. Problem solved (but not the problem that "someone on the internet is wrong")
-
The key is avoiding the political posts altogether, especially if you don’t lean super hard left here.
The few times I have scrolled those sections I just see a lot of people being stressed, upset, and angry, over something a stranger on the internet believes. Also over a topic they generally have no control over in their “real” life.
People are quick to stand behind MMM financial posts, if only more people would read his “low information diet” article about 50 more times.
-
I never noticed someone's entire post history disappearing when they were banned. I had assumed banning meant preventing future posts. I would have assumed posts previously allowed to exist would be allowed to continue existing. Maybe they get deleted to increase efficiency of the forum software?
I still see EnjoyIt's posts.
I'm skeptical that anyone to the right of Karl Marx is getting banned simply because they're to the right of Karl Marx. Is there any proof of that? (Not to BicycleB, necessarily, but to others who have claimed that.)
-
I enjoyed EnjoyIt's posts and I'm sad to see him go.
I am socially extremely left, but economically very libertarian, and I've had no moderation of my posts here. However, I think when people say that "non-left learning posts get moderated", they are referring to socially non-left views. All I would say to that is that I think people should be able to express politely whatever views they like.
I have been banned from other forums for politely expressing my economic views (which are not particularly nasty - simply that I like the status quo and I prefer to focus on my wealth and early retirement than the redistribution of my assets to others). I am grateful to this forum for providing a safe space for people like me, and I would hope that all political views (expressed politely) can be similarly encompassed.
-
I never noticed someone's entire post history disappearing when they were banned. I had assumed banning meant preventing future posts. I would have assumed posts previously allowed to exist would be allowed to continue existing. Maybe they get deleted to increase efficiency of the forum software?
I still see EnjoyIt's posts.
Good! At least someone does.
When I look at the member list around Enj, the names I see in order are enigmawrap, EnjoyTheJourney, and enki. Shouldn't EnjoyIt be between enigmawrap and EnjoyTheJourney?
Where should I look to see EnjoyIt's post history?
-
I am fiscally conservative and socially liberal and when I started commenting on these forums I would say that I was very blind to everyone's views and needs in the US. Anyone who is willing to check will see how my views began to lean more and more left to where I stand today.
It was a surprise to me as my only transgression has been to not be a far left leaning liberal who felt free to discuss my views and perceptions of society. I openly discussed how some views divide the country as opposed to bringing the country closer together. By being more moderate compared to the liberal left I have had many insults directed at me and I can honestly say I have never insulted a single person directly.
Just read through the Off Topic. It's obvious who this person is. Every single person who doesn't lean left has been banned. I am much more left than this poster and I appreciated their comments, while not agreeing with hardly any of them.
The key is avoiding the political posts altogether, especially if you don’t lean super hard left here.
Really? I don't lean super hard left. I have expressed libertarian views many times on this forum and never felt that I was unwelcome here.
-
Just read through the Off Topic. It's obvious who this person is. Every single person who doesn't lean left has been banned. I am much more left than this poster and I appreciated their comments, while not agreeing with hardly any of them.
The key is avoiding the political posts altogether, especially if you don’t lean super hard left here.
Really? I don't lean super hard left. I have expressed libertarian views many times on this forum and never felt that I was unwelcome here.
I have been pretty harshly criticised for my libertarian views. But overall this forum is one of the friendlier ones. On reddit I regularly get -100 downvotes just for stating that I prefer my own money in my own pocket than distributed to others. Still, for a forum like this which is dedicated to being financially savvy, there's a lot of unease about those of us who are simply libertarian and more inclined to want to fix up our own finances than save others who are incapable of doing so for themselves.
-
That was a nice farewell. I recognize your old handle as a frequent poster here, but never associated it with an overly political bent. Yes, some of the mods likely lean to the left. But from what I've seen, you'd typically have to be a troll, hopelessly obsessed with a topic no one wants to discuss, or quick with the ad hominems to get banned around here. If you were truly banned for calmly expressing your political views, that's a real shame. All the best in your health care endeavor - hope you spend your newfound time on that.
-
Where should I look to see EnjoyIt's post history?
This link works for me anyway:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/profile/?u=25363
It's not immediately obvious what recent posts would have prompted banning, but perhaps they were deleted? (Edit: Oh, looks like a discussion on one of the off topic threads that escalated into personal insults back on March 25th could have been the culprit).
Probably also worth investigating G-Dog's point about false banning messages showing up. I've seen multiple people post with that issue.
-
I can attest to the false banning thing. There was a period of time where I couldn't visit the site from work and got the "you're banned" message. Apparently, part of their IP range had been banned for some random reason, unrelated to my actions.
-
Where should I look to see EnjoyIt's post history?
This link works for me anyway:
https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/profile/?u=25363
It's not immediately obvious what recent posts would have prompted banning, but perhaps they were deleted? (Edit: Oh, looks like a discussion on one of the off topic threads that escalated into personal insults back on March 25th could have been the culprit).
Probably also worth investigating G-Dog's point about false banning messages showing up. I've seen multiple people post with that issue.
Yeah, never mind. Repeatedly calling people “retarded” is incompatible with civilized discussion in 2019. As the OP acknowledges, private forum, private rules. That’s a good one in my opinion.
-
I have been banned from the forum, both intentionally and accidentally, on multiple occasions.
Intentional bans are usually temporary for a first offense, unless it's obvious to everyone ahead of time what's about to happen.
-
Here’s hoping the ban is only temporary (and that you choose to come back). I don’t always agree with you, but you’ve always struck me as a thoughtful and knowledgeable person, and I’ve enjoyed reading your point of view.
That said, I totally understand taking more time to “enjoy it” (life outside MMM and bogleheads).
-
I'd be a liar if I said I shared his views on anything. At one time, I was convinced he was just a troll. Later on, I began to believe that MMM is an outlet for stress for him. I'd rather not see EnjoyIt banned permanently. I do come here for political viewpoints as well as financial. My vote if one were taken would be to restore his account as long as there are no personal attacks. Good luck to you EnjoyIt.
-
Whether some one expresses "super left wing views" seems to me largely a matter of perspective. By US /Aus standards NZ runs pretty left wing even when we have a right wing government !
I like reading different view points as long as they are expressed thoughtfully and respectfully. I appreciate the general tone of the forum and the work that goes on behind the scenes to keep it a civil place.
Thanks to the moderators and regular contributors for this.
And good luck with the Healthcare project Enjoyit.
-
I think what makes this forum civil is that there isn't a lot of emotionality involved.
When I post on some place like Reddit about how I'm annoyed at how high my tax burden is, people reply with the usual bullshit - "you could be starving on the streets - why don't you work a min wage job and then come back" etc etc
On here we are all intelligent, financially savvy and most of us are financially comfortable so it takes away the knee jerk emotional component of discussing finances/politics.
I admit to being a little bemused at the racial discussion but I think that is an American political thing.
-
As a fellow physician, I will miss EnjoyIt. He added insight to many of the discussions on healthcare and his point of view will be missed. Best of luck!
-
I don't know or follow the OP, but agree in principle with the idea that conservative views are completely unwelcome on the forum.
This is the main reason I don't bother posting in political threads.
-
Pfft, my account gets "banned" like every second day.
If there was no warning, then it's more likely a glitch than a left-wing conspiracy. There are many of us who get "banned" out of nowhere.
Try deleting your browsing history a few times and see if you you get un-banned. I literally have to do this 2 or 3 times a week.
-
Oh gosh, I really hope this is a mistake or glitch. I really appreciate what EnjoyIt contributes to this forum. Yes, I often disagree with some of the things he posts, as I fall on the other end of the political-spectrum. However, I do really value the perspective of someone in the medical-care-delivery-industry to chime in on discussions that affect us -- especially with respect to health care and early retirement.
-
I don't know or follow the OP, but agree in principle with the idea that conservative views are completely unwelcome on the forum.
This is the main reason I don't bother posting in political threads.
You couldn't possibly read through the political threads and come to any other conclusion. It's black and white. Just reading through, conservatives make arguments and poof, they just disappear. It's never any of the liberal posters despite personal attacks and intense posts from both sides of the discussion. The intensity is what makes the discussions interesting.
I would stand by my previous post, that if the forum is going to moderator conservative posters with a different standard compared to liberal posters, then why even have political threads? It's frustrating reading the threads and enjoying the conversations then the alternate viewpoint just, gone. Disappears. Banned. Then you wait for the next right wing sucker to take up the debate, then, banned. Then another. It looks to be a trap for moderators to weed out right wingers! They seem dumb enough to fall for it, and it is kind of funny, but is that the purpose of this forum?
I would ask again that the forum eliminate the political discussions. They don't serve any purpose, appear to be weaponized, and seem to be fragmenting the forum itself.
-
A lot of us MMM followers, are really Hippies trapped in a corporate/capitalist/conservative world. We're putting in just enough of our time in that world, to hack enough money to bailout. We like some social programs and see them as a necessary safety net. Social Security, the ACA, pension guarantees and many other collectives are important to us. Personal freedoms are important to us. The environment is important to us. When you and your leadership work against those things we see it as a threat. The nation has split and gone tribal based on these and other philosophical differences. That split will continue to exist here as well. The crevasse is too wide to bridge.
-
I wonder how the ban glitch works? I've never been banned or glitched. I know this forum is operated on a budget version of Simple Machines. Maybe people that post too many words per post get flagged?
Most other forums I visit have the political threads are in the "basement" area with warnings about not getting your feelings hurt. One of them has a word nanny, which makes us use creative spellings for dirty words.
I enjoy reading the political threads here more than any of the other forums I visit. The conversations are usually more intelligent and engaging. Trolling is an issue everywhere & it's difficult to know who they are. Maybe longer membership & non-political topic thread post count requirements would help keep trolls out.
-
Best of luck to you! Sounds like you found a cause you are passionate about, and I wish you best of luck in your endeavors.
On the other topic at hand, probably best to wait until the mod has had a chance to defend him/herself if a banning did take place (could be a glitch too). No point in jumping to conclusions when we have only heard 1 side.
That being said I did spend some time a while back reading through some of the political threads in the off topic section. I generally don't like discussing politics. Not because I hold "controversial" views (I would say I align with a lot of people here on most issues), but I've seen people get really nasty towards each other when discussing politics and it is very rare I see an actually productive political conversation. However, I thought this forum might be different from what I typically see as I generally view members here to be very rationale and smart people. What I found reading through some of the discussions is the forum is the type of echo chamber type of place I generally avoid. It felt like the vast majority of people in the forum aligned with one side of thinking and there was not adequate representation on the other side for it to be a "fair fight". But hey, almost every venue that discusses politics seems to heavily favor one type of thinking and usually does not give the other side adequate representation, so it is not like this place is any different.
-
I’m conservative and 100% support this President. I have made posts supporting him and have had good discussions with people with different views. But, most of those posts were made in a thread about the Trump presidency (in the appropriate place).
Could it be that the conservative posts were non sequiturs and just made in the wrong places? I understand that this forum leans very left. Banning people when they hijack threads is understandable. Banning them for bringing up conservative views when relevant to the discussion would be really sad. I hope it’s the former and not the latter. MAGA.
-
I don't know or follow the OP, but agree in principle with the idea that conservative views are completely unwelcome on the forum.
This is the main reason I don't bother posting in political threads.
I dipped my toe in the water of the Off Topic political threads for about 2-3 days and never will again. Basically, I don't buy the whole Russia conspiracy/collusion (the Trump campaign had too many leaks and was too unorganized to pull it off), I expressed doubt about the effects of the Russia troll operation (given its incredibly small scope relative to total online users), and I expressed that I thought the entire investigation was started in bad faith, and boom...I must be Putin's puppet.
The scary thing is that I voted for Obama and Hillary, and my views are pretty common among most the people I talk to in real life. But go into liberal online world/MSNBC/HuffPo? Any dissenting opinion is uneducated, unwelcome, and must be shouted down until people like me, who are otherwise pretty liberal on a ton of positions, simply give up.
-
Just to be clear: have you cleared your browser cache and then tried to log in again?
I have been "banned" several times due to this glitch and this has always fixed the problem.
I assume this is the issue you are experiencing. Or, there is a vast left-wing conspiracy on the part of the moderators to take you down. Hard to say.
-
I'm sad that I won't be able to enjoy(it - the posts of) EnjoyIt any more.
I always found him to be well thought, and as another health care worker I engaged in some productive discussion with him. He isn't overly political and in general his politics were full of examples with his life as a physician. I haven't read whatever he was referenced up thread to have done.
I hope its temporary, and that if the mods would consider bringing him back that he would return. If not, best of luck to you EnjoyIt. I hope your semi FIRE is everything you'd hoped it would be and I am hopeful that you can start a movement.
-
I’m conservative and 100% support this President. I have made posts supporting him and have had good discussions with people with different views. But, most of those posts were made in a thread about the Trump presidency (in the appropriate place).
Could it be that the conservative posts were non sequiturs and just made in the wrong places? I understand that this forum leans very left. Banning people when they hijack threads is understandable. Banning them for bringing up conservative views when relevant to the discussion would be really sad. I hope it’s the former and not the latter. MAGA.
Unfortunately, conservative viewpoints in the off-topic threads, even made by some of the more central-leaning members were not tolerated well. As both a fiscal and social conservative (on many but not all issues), I dared not engage any posters in the political threads. I observed what happened when others did. It's ok that this forum skews heavily left, nothing wrong with that. But the intolerance for dissenting opinions, the personal attacks, and the gross misbehavior, keeps me away from engaging others in those threads. What this means is that we cannot have civil dialogue about important issues; the echo chamber will just continue to grow and folks like me will just keep going to the ballot box and vote accordingly. And more importantly, continue to vote with my $s.
The stereotypy of conservatives as uneducated toothless, racist, redneck, misogynists, continues to proliferate, even here on MMM. Despite the fact that virtually all of my conservative friends are well educated upper middle class doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists and the like. MMM is just one forum of many outlets to express ourselves in our lives. Fortunately, I don't need to engage here to help promote the ideals and values I believe in and stand for.
-
Just to be clear: have you cleared your browser cache and then tried to log in again?
I have been "banned" several times due to this glitch and this has always fixed the problem.
I assume this is the issue you are experiencing. Or, there is a vast left-wing conspiracy on the part of the moderators to take you down. Hard to say.
I am not saying there is any left-wing conspiracy. But I have been called a troll simply for saying that I believe my own retirement is more important than redistribution of income, and for saying that I think it's ridiculous that I pay over 2/5 of my income in federal taxes yet still get called out for 'being selfish' (for not contributing enough). So I can understand why those of us who are not fully of a left persuasion can feel lonely on these forums.
It's a bit different in real life.
-
EnjoyIt used the word "retards" to describe people who he believes "lack intelligence." Said it once, and then defended himself by using it again. Just saying...
-
Just to be clear: have you cleared your browser cache and then tried to log in again?
I have been "banned" several times due to this glitch and this has always fixed the problem.
I assume this is the issue you are experiencing. Or, there is a vast left-wing conspiracy on the part of the moderators to take you down. Hard to say.
I am not saying there is any left-wing conspiracy. But I have been called a troll simply for saying that I believe my own retirement is more important than redistribution of income, and for saying that I think it's ridiculous that I pay over 2/5 of my income in federal taxes yet still get called out for 'being selfish' (for not contributing enough). So I can understand why those of us who are not fully of a left persuasion can feel lonely on these forums.
It's a bit different in real life.
Perspective is everything: I am a leftist and I find this place quite conservative, moreso than other forums I frequent. Certainly when I was "banned" my only response was to think, "mmm....bummer" not to establish a burner account to rail against an imagined right-wing plot against me. If you're feeling lonely on these forums, focus more on your real-life relationships and less on the opinions of a bunch of strangers on an obscure personal finance forum.
-
I've had to stop posting in Off Topic, and I really dislike when politics bleeds into other subforums as well.
-
Unfortunately, conservative viewpoints in the off-topic threads, even made by some of the more central-leaning members were not tolerated well. As both a fiscal and social conservative (on many but not all issues), I dared not engage any posters in the political threads. I observed what happened when others did. It's ok that this forum skews heavily left, nothing wrong with that. But the intolerance for dissenting opinions, the personal attacks, and the gross misbehavior, keeps me away from engaging others in those threads. What this means is that we cannot have civil dialogue about important issues; the echo chamber will just continue to grow and folks like me will just keep going to the ballot box and vote accordingly. And more importantly, continue to vote with my $s.
The stereotypy of conservatives as uneducated toothless, racist, redneck, misogynists, continues to proliferate, even here on MMM. Despite the fact that virtually all of my conservative friends are well educated upper middle class doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists and the like. MMM is just one forum of many outlets to express ourselves in our lives. Fortunately, I don't need to engage here to help promote the ideals and values I believe in and stand for.
+1
-
Can confirm that accidental, IP address related banning is a thing.
I got banned a couple months ago for, according to the message, "Race baiting, trolling" and was told that "This ban is not set to expire."
I thought, huh, that's weird. Because I'm definitely not the hottest flamethrower around here.
When I was able to log in through another IP address, I messaged the mods, and they confirmed that it was not an intentional ban.
It looks like EnjoyIt was rightly dinged for using the afore mentioned slur against intellectually disabled people, but that was on 3/25, and it's not like they've been splashing it around in the week since.
Smells like a fake ban to me.
-
So... this was posted on April 1st.
-
I don't know or follow the OP, but agree in principle with the idea that conservative views are completely unwelcome on the forum.
This is the main reason I don't bother posting in political threads.
I agree with your view, although I occasionally will post something that causes the
liberals to tell me how wrong I am, with gusto!
-
I haven't followed close enough to notice people being banned for
conservative leaning posts, but some say they notice.
I find it suspicious that no mod has come forth and said it is not true
that conservative thinkers don't get banned for expressing their thoughts. :-(
-
I haven't followed close enough to notice people being banned for
conservative leaning posts, but some say they notice.
I find it suspicious that no mod has come forth and said it is not true
that conservative thinkers don't get banned for expressing their thoughts. :-(
I doubt the mods are even aware this thread exists, unless someone has notified them. There aren't that many of them, and they can't read every thread.
-
I haven't followed close enough to notice people being banned for
conservative leaning posts, but some say they notice.
I find it suspicious that no mod has come forth and said it is not true
that conservative thinkers don't get banned for expressing their thoughts. :-(
If conservatives get banned for being conservative, I find it suspicious that there are so many conservatives in this thread telling everybody how conservative they are :-)
-
Yup I have the freedom to use the word retard to describe someone with a lower level of intelligence just like you have the right to call me an asshole or ignorant for doing so.
Just to confirm: Is this the type of "conservative opinion" that everyone here is convinced they need the freedom to express?
I have no idea if this is what got EnjoyIt banned, or if it's just an IP address error as others have suggested, but I think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that his only fault was expressing conservative opinions.
-
I can attest to the false banning thing. There was a period of time where I couldn't visit the site from work and got the "you're banned" message. Apparently, part of their IP range had been banned for some random reason, unrelated to my actions.
I wonder if this is what happened to me? I had a notice of banning once after what I thought was light-hearted bantering. Next time I tried to log in...notice of being banned. There's no way to tell if it's real or fake, and there was no way for me to review what I wrote to see how I offended someone so much.
In any case, if this was a false banning, I'd really like to know because I do blame someone on these forums for reporting whatever the comment was to the mods. And if I'm carrying around a grudge for no reason, then I'm willing to drop the grudge. On the other hand, this member is unpleasant and disagreeable to me quite often so I'll probably keep disliking the member.
-
Yup I have the freedom to use the word retard to describe someone with a lower level of intelligence just like you have the right to call me an asshole or ignorant for doing so.
Just to confirm: Is this the type of "conservative opinion" that everyone here is convinced they need the freedom to express?
I have no idea if this is what got EnjoyIt banned, or if it's just an IP address error as others have suggested, but I think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that his only fault was expressing conservative opinions.
Using the word 'retard' in a derogatory way is fundamental to conservative belief, and continuing to use it after it has been pointed out that it's offensive is a true sign of high conservative moral standing - not being an ass. I mean, otherwise one would have to assume that the mods have been doing a pretty good job, and that the ban had nothing to do with conservatism at all.
-
In any case, if this was a false banning, I'd really like to know because I do blame someone on these forums for reporting whatever the comment was to the mods. And if I'm carrying around a grudge for no reason, then I'm willing to drop the grudge. On the other hand, this member is unpleasant and disagreeable to me quite often so I'll probably keep disliking the member.
I probably wouldn't be a better person but ya gotta admit -- this is pretty funny.
-
Using the word 'retard' in a derogatory way is fundamental to conservative belief....
In case anyone doubted the presence of anti-conservative propaganda....
-
Using the word 'retard' in a derogatory way is fundamental to conservative belief....
In case anyone doubted the presence of anti-conservative propaganda....
Is GuitarStv a moderator?
-
Using the word 'retard' in a derogatory way is fundamental to conservative belief....
In case anyone doubted the presence of anti-conservative propaganda....
Err, wasn't that tongue-in-cheek?
Yup I have the freedom to use the word retard to describe someone with a lower level of intelligence just like you have the right to call me an asshole or ignorant for doing so.
Just to confirm: Is this the type of "conservative opinion" that everyone here is convinced they need the freedom to express?
I have no idea if this is what got EnjoyIt banned, or if it's just an IP address error as others have suggested, but I think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that his only fault was expressing conservative opinions.
Using the word 'retard' in a derogatory way is fundamental to conservative belief, and continuing to use it after it has been pointed out that it's offensive is a true sign of high conservative moral standing - not being an ass. I mean, otherwise one would have to assume that the mods have been doing a pretty good job, and that the ban had nothing to do with conservatism at all.
-
Using the word 'retard' in a derogatory way is fundamental to conservative belief....
In case anyone doubted the presence of anti-conservative propaganda....
'Twas clearly a joke, MDM. Deliberate satire, to highlight the absurdity of the argument, and only made funnier by the fact that you actually took it seriously.
-
Using the word 'retard' in a derogatory way is fundamental to conservative belief....
In case anyone doubted the presence of anti-conservative propaganda....
Is GuitarStv a moderator?
Did anyone say he is?
-
Using the word 'retard' in a derogatory way is fundamental to conservative belief....
In case anyone doubted the presence of anti-conservative propaganda....
'Twas clearly a joke, MDM. Deliberate satire, to highlight the absurdity of the argument, and only made funnier by the fact that you actually took it seriously.
Based on historical posts, it isn't at all clear it was meant as a joke. See Poe's law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law).
-
'Twas clearly a joke, MDM. Deliberate satire, to highlight the absurdity of the argument, and only made funnier by the fact that you actually took it seriously.
It's kind of next level satire when I'm unsure whether you are serious or continuing in the the satirical responses.
But either way 10/10 for really driving @MDM's point home.
-
Using the word 'retard' in a derogatory way is fundamental to conservative belief....
I...doubt... the presence of anti-conservative propaganda.
Agreed MDM. Agreed.
-
Using the word 'retard' in a derogatory way is fundamental to conservative belief....
I...doubt... the presence of anti-conservative propaganda.
Agreed MDM. Agreed.
Exactly.
-
Using the word 'retard' in a derogatory way is fundamental to conservative belief....
I...doubt... the presence of anti-conservative propaganda.
Agreed MDM. Agreed.
Exactly.
Thank you both for reinforcing my point. :)
-
But either way 10/10 for really driving @MDM's point home.
Is this really in doubt are we just playing for lulz?
Because GuitarSV's whole sentence, not just the snipped taken out of context by MDM was "Using the word 'retard' in a derogatory way is fundamental to conservative belief, and continuing to use it after it has been pointed out that it's offensive is a true sign of high conservative moral standing - not being an ass." I agree that you might be confused by just the first part that MDM chose to quote, if you weren't following along closely, but then the second half of the sentence makes it clear it's a joke. I see no possible confusion here. Deliberate satire, aimed at people who are feeling persecuted for using bigoted terminology.
If you would like to defend EnjoyIt's use of the word "retard" then feel free do so direclty, instead of attacking GuitarSV for making jokes about it. I know, it's harder to defend your own views than to attack someone else's. I get that. Here's the direct quote that Mississippi Mustache has already provided once in this thread:
Yup I have the freedom to use the word retard to describe someone with a lower level of intelligence just like you have the right to call me an asshole or ignorant for doing so.
-
Is this really in doubt are we just playing for lulz?
Because GuitarSV's whole sentence, not just the snipped taken out of context by MDM was "Using the word 'retard' in a derogatory way is fundamental to conservative belief, and continuing to use it after it has been pointed out that it's offensive is a true sign of high conservative moral standing - not being an ass." I agree that you might be confused by just the first part that MDM chose to quote, if you weren't following along closely, but then the second half of the sentence makes it clear it's a joke. I see no possible confusion here. Deliberate satire, aimed at people who are feeling persecuted for using bigoted terminology.
If you would like to defend EnjoyIt's use of the word "retard" then feel free do so direclty, instead of attacking GuitarSV for making jokes about it. I know, it's harder to defend your own views than to attack someone else's. I get that. Here's the direct quote that Mississippi Mustache has already provided once in this thread:
I didn't realize GuitarStv was also EnjoyIt. I thought MDM was referring to GuitarStv's post. Or are you confusing those users?
-
There are far too many unarmed opponents in this battle of wits. That's ultimately the case that I'll make for a lack of concerted effort to attack conservatives on this forum . . . it would simply be unsporting.
Apologies for being a dick.
-
True, some people actually believe reality has a liberal bias.
-
True, some people actually believe reality has a liberal bias.
Is that why you felt it necessary to take it into your own hands to change reality as much as possible to match your expectations?
-
Here's hoping EnjoyIT is not banned.
-
But either way 10/10 for really driving @MDM's point home.
Is this really in doubt are we just playing for lulz?
Because GuitarSV's whole sentence, not just the snipped taken out of context by MDM was "Using the word 'retard' in a derogatory way is fundamental to conservative belief, and continuing to use it after it has been pointed out that it's offensive is a true sign of high conservative moral standing - not being an ass." I agree that you might be confused by just the first part that MDM chose to quote, if you weren't following along closely, but then the second half of the sentence makes it clear it's a joke. I see no possible confusion here. Deliberate satire, aimed at people who are feeling persecuted for using bigoted terminology.
If you would like to defend EnjoyIt's use of the word "retard" then feel free do so direclty, instead of attacking GuitarSV for making jokes about it. I know, it's harder to defend your own views than to attack someone else's. I get that. Here's the direct quote that Mississippi Mustache has already provided once in this thread:
Yup I have the freedom to use the word retard to describe someone with a lower level of intelligence just like you have the right to call me an asshole or ignorant for doing so.
I'm not terribly familiar with forum rules, but calling people retards seems like a pretty good reason to ban someone. At the same time, maybe we should take a look at the people who accuse others of being racists, simply because of their political party.
-
True, some people actually believe reality has a liberal bias.
Is that why you felt it necessary to take it into your own hands to change reality as much as possible to match your expectations?
This sidebar has run its course. Over and out.
-
Maybe one of the mods is a troll? That would explain a lot around here, especially the glitches.
Maybe one of the mods is a troll, with a retarded sibling or child?! I bet that's it. And, their glitch hasn't glitched me because I'm on a Chromebook, and everybody knows that Google trumps trolls.
Or, the Russian troll farm has hacked the MMM forum & is targeting the conservatives, while only giving the liberals temporary glitch bans, to make it look like favoritism by liberal mods.
There is a lot of smoke & mirrors here, mostly smoke probably.
-
I'm not terribly familiar with forum rules, but calling people retards seems like a pretty good reason to ban someone. At the same time, maybe we should take a look at the people who accuse others of being racists, simply because of their political party.
Actually we're still taking this out of context. EnjoyIt wasn't calling anyone r*, but he was putting hateful words into someone else's post. That's actually something he did quite a bit of and I would suspect that has more to do with his banning than anything.
If the democrats keep throwing out racism and misogyny as their #1 tactic I do not think they will succeed.
Did you typo that sentence? Racism and misogyny are the republican platform, not the democrat's. That's been the GOP's #1 tactic for years now, and Trump just finally manged to make it a winner by turning it up to 11. Who would have thought that the only reason republicans couldn't win the presidency for so long was because they weren't racist and misogynist enough?
Do you really believe that 46% of Americans are racist, misogynist, retards?
He asked this question as if this was something sol had said, but clearly sol did not. He claimed that the Republican party uses these things tactically. Politicians have used fear mongering since politics began and the Republican party tends to favor race and gender based fear mongering. While I don't 100% agree with sol's wording here, it's definitely not what Enjoyit made it out to be. And if it was simply a misunderstanding, Enjoyit could have acknowledged that. But instead he dug his heals in, tried to explain sol's own opinions to him, and defended his use of the r word.
*I'm going to limit the use of that word. We don't want MMM forums showing up when someone does a google search for it :)
-
I'm wondering if I have the wrong definition of troll. I find that word thrown around here and I've seen it only used on conservatives-to ? delegitimize whatever it is they are saying. If you have someone like Enjoy it, voicing his conservative views, why is he a troll, when he's obviously contributed a lot to this site in regards to mustachianism? I thought a troll was someone who came on a site solely to cause trouble.
-
I can attest to the false banning thing. There was a period of time where I couldn't visit the site from work and got the "you're banned" message. Apparently, part of their IP range had been banned for some random reason, unrelated to my actions.
I wonder if this is what happened to me? I had a notice of banning once after what I thought was light-hearted bantering. Next time I tried to log in...notice of being banned. There's no way to tell if it's real or fake
Things that worked for me to identify it was an unintentional ban:
Check if able to log in on different networks (home, office)
Use incognito mode for browser (cache problems)
turn on/off VPN
Each time I was "banned", one of these methods led me to discover it was some other issue.
-
I'm wondering if I have the wrong definition of troll. I find that word thrown around here and I've seen it only used on conservatives-to ? delegitimize whatever it is they are saying. If you have someone like Enjoy it, voicing his conservative views, why is he a troll, when he's obviously contributed a lot to this site in regards to mustachianism? I thought a troll was someone who came on a site solely to cause trouble.
I think unfortunately 'trolling' is often taken as any repeated or vehement expression of opinion that contradicts the usually accepted opinion.
-
This entire thread makes me think of this (wipes away tear): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33izVlIOgnQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33izVlIOgnQ)
-
I'm wondering if I have the wrong definition of troll. I find that word thrown around here and I've seen it only used on conservatives-to ? delegitimize whatever it is they are saying. If you have someone like Enjoy it, voicing his conservative views, why is he a troll, when he's obviously contributed a lot to this site in regards to mustachianism? I thought a troll was someone who came on a site solely to cause trouble.
I think unfortunately 'trolling' is often taken as any repeated or vehement expression of opinion that contradicts the usually accepted opinion.
I suspect that it was when he contradicted forum rules rather than opinion that he ran into trouble:
Do you really believe that 46% of Americans are racist, misogynist, retards?
[edited for brevity]
There's a lot to unpack in your question. First is your wholly inappropriate use of the word "retard". Next time you can just write "nigger-lovers, cucks, and retards" and only be marginally more offensive than you were the first time.
[edited for brevity]
@sol,
[edited for brevity]
Yup I have the freedom to use the word retard to describe someone with a lower level of intelligence just like you have the right to call me an asshole or ignorant for doing so.
MOD NOTE: You do have the freedom to do it. Just not here. Using "retard" as a slur breaks our forum rules.
-
I'm wondering if I have the wrong definition of troll. I find that word thrown around here and I've seen it only used on conservatives-to ? delegitimize whatever it is they are saying. If you have someone like Enjoy it, voicing his conservative views, why is he a troll, when he's obviously contributed a lot to this site in regards to mustachianism? I thought a troll was someone who came on a site solely to cause trouble.
I think unfortunately 'trolling' is often taken as any repeated or vehement expression of opinion that contradicts the usually accepted opinion.
I think you're wrong. I think people are not generally unjustly accused of trolling just because they have a strong contrary opinion, I think it generally also has to include several of these attributes:
1) Repetition without really responding to what other people said.
2) Repeatedly (and/or intentionally) mischaracterizing what other people said.
3) Repeatedly (and/or intentionally) engaging in dishonest debate techniques (logical fallacies, whataboutism / constantly changing the subject, Gish Galloping, etc).
I think one can behave like a troll in particular areas while acting like a normal person in others. I also think that people behaving like trolls often posit a "they hate me because of my opinions" defence (without evidence of course) when they are called out for it.
Debating honestly is hard, especially when issues get emotional and/or personal. But I think one can see a clear difference between people who are trying and people who are not.
-
Using the word 'retard' in a derogatory way is fundamental to conservative belief....
In case anyone doubted the presence of anti-conservative propaganda....
it's a joke. I guess it is true that you cannot detect humor in conservatives (see Pence).
-
I'm wondering if I have the wrong definition of troll. I find that word thrown around here and I've seen it only used on conservatives-to ? delegitimize whatever it is they are saying. If you have someone like Enjoy it, voicing his conservative views, why is he a troll, when he's obviously contributed a lot to this site in regards to mustachianism? I thought a troll was someone who came on a site solely to cause trouble.
I think unfortunately 'trolling' is often taken as any repeated or vehement expression of opinion that contradicts the usually accepted opinion.
I think you're wrong. I think people are not generally unjustly accused of trolling just because they have a strong contrary opinion, I think it generally also has to include several of these attributes:
1) Repetition without really responding to what other people said.
2) Repeatedly (and/or intentionally) mischaracterizing what other people said.
3) Repeatedly (and/or intentionally) engaging in dishonest debate techniques (logical fallacies, whataboutism / constantly changing the subject, Gish Galloping, etc).
I think one can behave like a troll in particular areas while acting like a normal person in others. I also think that people behaving like trolls often posit a "they hate me because of my opinions" defence (without evidence of course) when they are called out for it.
Debating honestly is hard, especially when issues get emotional and/or personal. But I think one can see a clear difference between people who are trying and people who are not.
yes. I don't include Enjoyit in this grouping, but there was a couple very vocal posters with a socially conservative outlook (i.e. sexism isn't a thing. Racism is no longer a problem- but reverse racism is a severe threat to this country) who were guilty of the above. In particular ignoring the posters actual argument, and then saying it was stupid, illogical, and making a personal attack on the person.
I don't lump all conservatives in with those two people though.
So, I don't think there is a witch hunt for conservatives, but there is one for jack asses to other people on the forum message boards. If you are in that category your status is not protected, sorry.
The way I feel there are plenty of places on the internet forum for people to get nasty. I enjoy and get a lot out of this forum; both financial advice as well as sense of community, personal support, and sometimes the needed face punch for being fiscally non-optimal. I would hate to lose that because a few bad actors poison the well.
-
In any case, if this was a false banning, I'd really like to know because I do blame someone on these forums for reporting whatever the comment was to the mods. And if I'm carrying around a grudge for no reason, then I'm willing to drop the grudge. On the other hand, this member is unpleasant and disagreeable to me quite often so I'll probably keep disliking the member.
I probably wouldn't be a better person but ya gotta admit -- this is pretty funny.
It is actually funny! Sometimes I egged that person on because I know some of my opinions run counter to his/her opinions and the interactions entertained me while at work. But I think the statement that got me banned was one where I said something to the effect of "I'm just trolling you now" (which was meant to lighten things up). But I'll never know for sure. I never thought it went TOO far because at some point, I DO have to get back to work so I can't spend ALL DAY bickering.
Anyway, rest assured, I don't really spend a lot of time thinking about it, but I do still engage from time to time.
Is there some way to know how many strikes you have? I really don't want to be banned forever, but at least one moderator may be reading things without full context. [Don't BAN me for saying that!]
-
I do love a dramatic exit flounce.
and conservatives proving that they really are precious snowflakes!!
-
I'm wondering if I have the wrong definition of troll. I find that word thrown around here and I've seen it only used on conservatives-to ? delegitimize whatever it is they are saying. If you have someone like Enjoy it, voicing his conservative views, why is he a troll, when he's obviously contributed a lot to this site in regards to mustachianism? I thought a troll was someone who came on a site solely to cause trouble.
I think unfortunately 'trolling' is often taken as any repeated or vehement expression of opinion that contradicts the usually accepted opinion.
I think you're wrong. I think people are not generally unjustly accused of trolling just because they have a strong contrary opinion, I think it generally also has to include several of these attributes:
1) Repetition without really responding to what other people said.
2) Repeatedly (and/or intentionally) mischaracterizing what other people said.
3) Repeatedly (and/or intentionally) engaging in dishonest debate techniques (logical fallacies, whataboutism / constantly changing the subject, Gish Galloping, etc).
I think one can behave like a troll in particular areas while acting like a normal person in others. I also think that people behaving like trolls often posit a "they hate me because of my opinions" defence (without evidence of course) when they are called out for it.
Debating honestly is hard, especially when issues get emotional and/or personal. But I think one can see a clear difference between people who are trying and people who are not.
This sums it up pretty well, but I would add that the perceived bias of the moderators may actually be a bias of the members who happen to be engaging in a given conversation. Moderators don't know what's being said unless it gets flagged and someone who is arguing with 5 others at once is more likely to get flagged. Personally I try to treat everyone the same and I have made it a point to flag rude comments even if I tend to agree with that particular user, but it's difficult to see the poor etiquette when it's someone on your side and I'm sure I overlook it sometimes.
So in other words it's not that certain users are called out too often, it's that others aren't called out enough.
I don't think anyone should take away from this that there is a liberal bias, rather that the dissenting opinion in any conversation is more likely to get flagged, it's just simple statistics and human nature. Add to that, the person with a dissenting opinion is also more likely to get frustrated if they have 5 people disagreeing with them and when people get frustrated they aren't their best self.
-
I'm wondering if I have the wrong definition of troll. I find that word thrown around here and I've seen it only used on conservatives-to ? delegitimize whatever it is they are saying. If you have someone like Enjoy it, voicing his conservative views, why is he a troll, when he's obviously contributed a lot to this site in regards to mustachianism? I thought a troll was someone who came on a site solely to cause trouble.
I think unfortunately 'trolling' is often taken as any repeated or vehement expression of opinion that contradicts the usually accepted opinion.
I think you're wrong. I think people are not generally unjustly accused of trolling just because they have a strong contrary opinion, I think it generally also has to include several of these attributes:
1) Repetition without really responding to what other people said.
2) Repeatedly (and/or intentionally) mischaracterizing what other people said.
3) Repeatedly (and/or intentionally) engaging in dishonest debate techniques (logical fallacies, whataboutism / constantly changing the subject, Gish Galloping, etc).
I think one can behave like a troll in particular areas while acting like a normal person in others. I also think that people behaving like trolls often posit a "they hate me because of my opinions" defence (without evidence of course) when they are called out for it.
Debating honestly is hard, especially when issues get emotional and/or personal. But I think one can see a clear difference between people who are trying and people who are not.
yes. I don't include Enjoyit in this grouping,
Were you a part of some of his more recent conversations? I thought there was a very stark contrast between his older posts and the posts after his hiatus. I honestly considered that it might be someone else on the account.
I think all 3 of these points could have been written specifically about Enjoyit's more recent conversations.
-
Actually I have not been participating in couple of the more infamous threads in past week? or so. So maybe I missed something if it was very recent.
-
Were you a part of some of his more recent conversations? I thought there was a very stark contrast between his older posts and the posts after his hiatus. I honestly considered that it might be someone else on the account.
I think all 3 of these points could have been written specifically about Enjoyit's more recent conversations.
I agree, it's like he became a whole different person. I even remember commenting on the apparent transformation back when it first happened.
Remember the days before calling people "retards", when EnjoyIt used to post things like this?
Judging others accomplishes nothing but disdain.
-
I'm wondering if I have the wrong definition of troll. I find that word thrown around here and I've seen it only used on conservatives-to ? delegitimize whatever it is they are saying. If you have someone like Enjoy it, voicing his conservative views, why is he a troll, when he's obviously contributed a lot to this site in regards to mustachianism? I thought a troll was someone who came on a site solely to cause trouble.
I think unfortunately 'trolling' is often taken as any repeated or vehement expression of opinion that contradicts the usually accepted opinion.
I suspect that it was when he contradicted forum rules rather than opinion that he ran into trouble:
Do you really believe that 46% of Americans are racist, misogynist, retards?
[edited for brevity]
There's a lot to unpack in your question. First is your wholly inappropriate use of the word "retard". Next time you can just write "nigger-lovers, cucks, and retards" and only be marginally more offensive than you were the first time.
[edited for brevity]
@sol,
[edited for brevity]
Yup I have the freedom to use the word retard to describe someone with a lower level of intelligence just like you have the right to call me an asshole or ignorant for doing so.
MOD NOTE: You do have the freedom to do it. Just not here. Using "retard" as a slur breaks our forum rules.
There are far too many unarmed opponents in this battle of wits. That's ultimately the case that I'll make for a lack of concerted effort to attack conservatives on this forum . . . it would simply be unsporting.
It's open to interpretation, but I could interpret this as breaking forum rules. 1, 2, 4, and it even falls near the bottom of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement. And you're specifically targeting people on this forum. You used lots of word in a sentence, but it could have been summed up in one word. Whats the difference?
-
It's open to interpretation, but I could interpret this as breaking forum rules. 1, 2, 4, and it even falls near the bottom of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.
Legitimately, you have a point there. I apologize for being a jerk, and will remove the message.
And you're specifically targeting people on this forum.
While I didn't specifically target anyone on this forum (beyond the amorphous 'conservatives' group in this thread) I do apologize to any conservative forum member who was deeply disturbed by my comments. I'll try to remember the need to create a safe space for conservatives going forward.
You used lots of word in a sentence, but it could have been summed up in one word. Whats the difference?
I tend to think that there's a large difference in both tone and acceptability between calling an amorphous group of people 'witless' and using a slur associated with mental disability.
-
I'm wondering if I have the wrong definition of troll. I find that word thrown around here and I've seen it only used on conservatives-to ? delegitimize whatever it is they are saying. If you have someone like Enjoy it, voicing his conservative views, why is he a troll, when he's obviously contributed a lot to this site in regards to mustachianism? I thought a troll was someone who came on a site solely to cause trouble.
I think unfortunately 'trolling' is often taken as any repeated or vehement expression of opinion that contradicts the usually accepted opinion.
I think you're wrong. I think people are not generally unjustly accused of trolling just because they have a strong contrary opinion, I think it generally also has to include several of these attributes:
1) Repetition without really responding to what other people said.
2) Repeatedly (and/or intentionally) mischaracterizing what other people said.
3) Repeatedly (and/or intentionally) engaging in dishonest debate techniques (logical fallacies, whataboutism / constantly changing the subject, Gish Galloping, etc).
I think one can behave like a troll in particular areas while acting like a normal person in others. I also think that people behaving like trolls often posit a "they hate me because of my opinions" defence (without evidence of course) when they are called out for it.
Debating honestly is hard, especially when issues get emotional and/or personal. But I think one can see a clear difference between people who are trying and people who are not.
I was called a 'troll' in my "Investor Safe Space" thread even though I did none of the above. I simply stated that I felt investors don't get enough sympathy and empathy and that I had more empathy for the successful than the unsuccessful - and that got me a lot of negative labels. To be clear, you can negatively label the thread, but to attack the bona fides of the poster is another thing entirely.
-
I'm wondering if I have the wrong definition of troll. I find that word thrown around here and I've seen it only used on conservatives-to ? delegitimize whatever it is they are saying. If you have someone like Enjoy it, voicing his conservative views, why is he a troll, when he's obviously contributed a lot to this site in regards to mustachianism? I thought a troll was someone who came on a site solely to cause trouble.
I think unfortunately 'trolling' is often taken as any repeated or vehement expression of opinion that contradicts the usually accepted opinion.
I think you're wrong. I think people are not generally unjustly accused of trolling just because they have a strong contrary opinion, I think it generally also has to include several of these attributes:
1) Repetition without really responding to what other people said.
2) Repeatedly (and/or intentionally) mischaracterizing what other people said.
3) Repeatedly (and/or intentionally) engaging in dishonest debate techniques (logical fallacies, whataboutism / constantly changing the subject, Gish Galloping, etc).
I think one can behave like a troll in particular areas while acting like a normal person in others. I also think that people behaving like trolls often posit a "they hate me because of my opinions" defence (without evidence of course) when they are called out for it.
Debating honestly is hard, especially when issues get emotional and/or personal. But I think one can see a clear difference between people who are trying and people who are not.
I was called a 'troll' in my "Investor Safe Space" thread even though I did none of the above. I simply stated that I felt investors don't get enough sympathy and empathy and that I had more empathy for the successful than the unsuccessful - and that got me a lot of negative labels. To be clear, you can negatively label the thread, but to attack the bona fides of the poster is another thing entirely.
In this case you were probably unfairly called a troll. I've disagreed with a fair number of your positions and agreed with others but I haven't seen any of your posts as rude or intentionally inciting conflict*. I also think a number of posters in that thread failed to understand your tax situation is quite different in Australia.
*except for that one about your food budget. $260/week! That's bound to bring out the mustaches and pitchforks :)
-
Maybe one thing we could all do to make these discussions a little more friendly and productive is to flag rude comments even if we agree with someone's position in the debate. I'll admit there's been more than a few times where I've seen personal attacks but I was in agreement with the person saying it so I thought "hey, you shouldn't say that..." and moved on.
-
And you're specifically targeting people on this forum.
While I didn't specifically target anyone on this forum (beyond the amorphous 'conservatives' group in this thread) I do apologize to any conservative forum member who was deeply disturbed by my comments. I'll try to remember the need to create a safe space for conservatives going forward.
Speaking of... that was a pretty backhanded apology
-
Speaking of... that was a pretty backhanded apology
I don't believe that part was an apology. The previous two "I apologize" parts where apologies. That "safe space" comment was just highlighting conservative hypocrisy in demanding an apology (which was given) because someone treated them the same way they treated him.
-
I'm wondering if I have the wrong definition of troll. I find that word thrown around here and I've seen it only used on conservatives-to ? delegitimize whatever it is they are saying. If you have someone like Enjoy it, voicing his conservative views, why is he a troll, when he's obviously contributed a lot to this site in regards to mustachianism? I thought a troll was someone who came on a site solely to cause trouble.
I think unfortunately 'trolling' is often taken as any repeated or vehement expression of opinion that contradicts the usually accepted opinion.
I think you're wrong. I think people are not generally unjustly accused of trolling just because they have a strong contrary opinion, I think it generally also has to include several of these attributes:
1) Repetition without really responding to what other people said.
2) Repeatedly (and/or intentionally) mischaracterizing what other people said.
3) Repeatedly (and/or intentionally) engaging in dishonest debate techniques (logical fallacies, whataboutism / constantly changing the subject, Gish Galloping, etc).
I think one can behave like a troll in particular areas while acting like a normal person in others. I also think that people behaving like trolls often posit a "they hate me because of my opinions" defence (without evidence of course) when they are called out for it.
Debating honestly is hard, especially when issues get emotional and/or personal. But I think one can see a clear difference between people who are trying and people who are not.
I was called a 'troll' in my "Investor Safe Space" thread even though I did none of the above. I simply stated that I felt investors don't get enough sympathy and empathy and that I had more empathy for the successful than the unsuccessful - and that got me a lot of negative labels. To be clear, you can negatively label the thread, but to attack the bona fides of the poster is another thing entirely.
I think that the numbered list above is excellent, but it's tricky to apply. I thought the Investor Safe Space thread was fascinating. While participating in it, I thought at the time that MikeBT in fact did items 1 and 2 from the list. Personally I think there's an element of intentionality to trolling, and while it appeared to me that MikeBT did do 1 and 2, I didn't think he was trolling because I don't think he intended to annoy or bait people.
That said, obviously there is room for debate as to when a person is "really" responding, for example. Perhaps I am wrong in the interpretation I had. My opinion doesn't mean that MikeBT did any of the actions on the list, just that someone thought he did even while he felt he didn't. I probably look like I do the same things sometimes. How do we recognize our own boundaries?
-
Speaking of... that was a pretty backhanded apology
I don't believe that part was an apology. The previous two "I apologize" parts where apologies. That "safe space" comment was just highlighting conservative hypocrisy in demanding an apology (which was given) because someone treated them the same way they treated him.
I actually thought GuitarStv's comment was funny, so was his rebuttal.
No one demanded an apology, nor am I conservative. Merely pointing out the similarities in the two situations.
-
So this is a really textbook example of why it is important for everyone to be conscious of (and practice) distinguishing between individuals and the groups those individuals are affiliated with.
And you're specifically targeting people on this forum.
While I didn't specifically target anyone on this forum (beyond the amorphous 'conservatives' group in this thread) I do apologize to any conservative forum member who was deeply disturbed by my comments. I'll try to remember the need to create a safe space for conservatives going forward.
Speaking of... that was a pretty backhanded apology
I don't believe that part was an apology. The previous two "I apologize" parts where apologies. That "safe space" comment was just highlighting conservative hypocrisy in demanding an apology (which was given) because someone treated them the same way they treated him.
So let's go through this step by step:
1) EnjoyIt insults GuitarStv* and is banned for this and presumably a series of prior incidents in the same vein.
2) GuitarStv insults a large group of people of which EnjoyIt is apparently a member.
3) Cromacster points out that GuitarStv just insulted a large group of people on this forum.
4) To his or her credit, GuitarStv recognizes this and apologizes.
5) Sol states that this is hypocritical. A person (who belongs to group X) insulted GuitarStv, so why should different members of that group (edit: or people who aren't part of that group at all, like Cromacster**) have any right to cry foul if GuitarStv says something insulting about everyone who belongs to that group? Also note the use of "they" and "them" in sol's post which makes it sound like it wasn't EnjoyIt (an individual) who insulted GuitarStv but conservatives as a group who committed the offense.
In short: it's fine, and in fact good, to judge individuals for their actions and hold them accountable for those actions. But when a person cannot or will not distinguish between the actions of different people who happen to share a group affiliation, we have a serious problem. This tends to happen with groups a person is already predisposed to dislike. So for a racist "this black person was rude to me" becomes "black people are rude", to a Hillary Clinton support "this bernie sanders supporter said something sexist" can become "Bernie Sanders supporters are sexist" and to the Raiders fan "That Chiefs fan punched me at the bar" becomes "Chiefs fans have it coming!"
TL;DR (even shorter): Don't be this guy:
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/how_it_works.png)
*At the same time EnjoyIt uses a term that is offensive not just to his intended target but to a large group of people who that term was previously used to describe. This presumably also factored into the banning and is a sin that thankfully hasn't been replicated by anyone in this thread.
**Completely unrelated, but as I had to type your name out a couple of times in this post I've just now realized that I've been incorrectly reading it as Crocmaster (as in a person who controls an army of crocodiles) in my head for years.
-
Enjoy it didn't insult me. At least to the best of my knowledge.
-
Also note the use of "they" and "them" in sol's post which makes it sound like it wasn't EnjoyIt (an individual) who insulted GuitarStv but conservatives as a group who committed the offense.
I only sloppily intended my pronouns to be gender neutral, not inclusive of a group, but I can see why there was misunderstanding.
But since we're on the topic, I think it's more than fair in this case to assume EnjoyIt was deliberately speaking on behalf of the group of self-identified conservatives, as were several other people in this thread. I suppose I should ask each poster to clarify in the future, but since this rapidly became a thread about perceived persecution of a group, not an individual, members of that group chiming in to share their stories in support of that narrative probably aren't entirely devoid of responsibility, either.
Are we even sure that EnjoyIt was legitimately banned? Has any moderator chimed in to confirm or deny? Has anyone asked?
-
TL;DR (even shorter): Don't be this guy:
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/how_it_works.png)
except how it really works is more like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/u60eJDE.png)
please please please be careful before assuming someone is being discriminatory, it is usually very hard to tell for sure and if you don't see it you are most likely wrong
-
I'll try to remember the need to create a safe space for conservatives going forward.
I'm sorry. Is this line sarcasm, or did you write conservatives when you meant snowflakes?
You used lots of word in a sentence, but it could have been summed up in one word. Whats the difference?
I tend to think that there's a large difference in both tone and acceptability between calling an amorphous group of people 'witless' and using a slur associated with mental disability.
[/quote]
-
But when a person cannot or will not distinguish between the actions of different people who happen to share a group affiliation, we have a serious problem.
I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you there. If you're speaking of involuntary group affiliations, sure, 100%. If you're speaking of voluntary affiliations, then I would have to disagree. What groups a person chooses to affiliate themselves with says a lot about that person. It is reasonable and ethical to have different priors for people because of their known or implied voluntary group affiliations.
For example, if I'm a person who regularly attends church, it would not be unreasonable for you to assume that I believe in some kind of deity. Moreso if I make oblique references to such a being, even if I don't explicitly come out and say that I believe in it. That is, a little extra evidence can be combined with known priors to produce strong, justified beliefs. Of course, strong evidence contradicting those priors should diminish my belief in them.
More specific churches might yield more specific priors. For example, it would be reasonable to assume that I'm kind of a jerk if I'm known to be a member of Westborough Baptist Church, even if you haven't seen me specifically be a jerk up until that point. And so on.
-
TL;DR (even shorter): Don't be this guy:
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/how_it_works.png)
except how it really works is more like this:
(https://i.imgur.com/u60eJDE.png)
please please please be careful before assuming someone is being discriminatory, it is usually very hard to tell for sure and if you don't see it you are most likely wrong
To derail this further, the context missing in the second image is that when you are the only fucking woman in the room, you are shouldering the weight of representing all womankind, whether you want it or not, whether the people around you openly acknowledge it or not. Same thing happens all the time with muslims, blacks, gays, whatever. When some religious nut job declares death to the infidels and tries to bomb america, somehow all muslims are expected to stand up and denounce the attack and assure us that islam isn't synonymous with religious extremism and violence. And yet when yet another right-wing, disenfranchised white man commits an atrocity (rape, kidnap, mass shooting, bombing) you don't see normal Joe Shmoe's under the limelight, having to stand up for white dudes everywhere. No, white men are perceived as individuals, so don't always appreciate that society doesn't afford the same privilege necessarily to the rest of us.
-
I don't know how anyone expects to win others over to their ideas when their default response to anyone with differing political opinions is to insult them. It doesn't create an environment conducive to the exchange of ideas. Like a body of water with no inlet or outlet, it becomes stagnant, and nothing productive results from that.
-
But when a person cannot or will not distinguish between the actions of different people who happen to share a group affiliation, we have a serious problem.
I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you there. If you're speaking of involuntary group affiliations, sure, 100%. If you're speaking of voluntary affiliations, then I would have to disagree. What groups a person chooses to affiliate themselves with says a lot about that person. It is reasonable and ethical to have different priors for people because of their known or implied voluntary group affiliations.
For example, if I'm a person who regularly attends church, it would not be unreasonable for you to assume that I believe in some kind of deity. Moreso if I make oblique references to such a being, even if I don't explicitly come out and say that I believe in it. That is, a little extra evidence can be combined with known priors to produce strong, justified beliefs. Of course, strong evidence contradicting those priors should diminish my belief in them.
More specific churches might yield more specific priors. For example, it would be reasonable to assume that I'm kind of a jerk if I'm known to be a member of Westborough Baptist Church, even if you haven't seen me specifically be a jerk up until that point. And so on.
Oh so you must discriminate against gay people? see what I did there?
But more seriously, I think a bigger problem I see in forum discussions is when someone voices an opinion and then someone else assumes that they identify with a particular group because they hold that one opinion. That's not voluntary or involuntary affiliation, it's non-existent affiliation.
In addition to that, I would say even if it is voluntary affiliation, we still shouldn't make too many assumptions. Like you said, to assume a churchgoer believes in a deity is pretty reasonable and not likely to offend anyone. To assume they believe in a literal interpretation of the old testament and that they're anti science would be much different.
I think conversations would be more productive if we would stop assuming what other people's thoughts are and respond to what they said. Making accurate assumptions about someone is more difficult than our animal brains realize and when we communicate through text with a lack of body language, doubly so.
-
In addition to that, I would say even if it is voluntary affiliation, we still shouldn't make too many assumptions. Like you said, to assume a churchgoer believes in a deity is pretty reasonable and not likely to offend anyone. To assume they believe in a literal interpretation of the old testament and that they're anti science would be much different.
If someone says that they belong to a Christian fundamentalist or evangelical church it's pretty safe to assume that they believe in a literal interpretation of the bible. That is after all a tenant of the faith. Given that so many parts of the bible when taken literally contradict known science, it's not much of a stretch to assume that they will be (at least somewhat) anti-science. It also is extremely likely that the person will be against gay rights (and even the legality of having gay sex) as this is a commonly accepted tenant of the faith. Certainly, not all Christian churches are as intolerant . . . that's one of the points that obstinate was making.
By the same token, belonging to or supporting a neo-nazi group is an obvious indicator of intolerance and prejudice. Belonging to a group of conservatives is not. Unless that group of conservatives supports neo-nazis and racists.
I think conversations would be more productive if we would stop assuming what other people's thoughts are and respond to what they said.
I would agree with you if people always told the truth. Racism is publicly seen to be unacceptable these days . . . so people who act racist will often loudly claim their love of all people (or whatever the minimum is to achieve some kind of semi-plausible deniability) while simultaneously working as hard as possible to achieve their racist agenda. That's why it's more important to look at what they say in the context of their actions and associations, not just at what is said.
-
I'll try to remember the need to create a safe space for conservatives going forward.
I'm sorry. Is this line sarcasm, or did you write conservatives when you meant snowflakes?
You used lots of word in a sentence, but it could have been summed up in one word. Whats the difference?
I tend to think that there's a large difference in both tone and acceptability between calling an amorphous group of people 'witless' and using a slur associated with mental disability.
I guess my issue is throwing out insults in general. It doesn't further the conversation. It creates more divide. Hell, theres 8+ pages of a post discussing why there is such a divide between the left and right. It got swampy within the first page because it seems peoples initial reaction is to insult eachother, even if under the guise of a joke.
I don't know the whole story. Do I think he should be banned for saying the word retard in the way he did? No, but there might be other issues that were going on and I'm not a mod on this fourm. If it's true that he was banned without warning or had any previous bans, the mods do not appear to be following their own rules.
Enjoyit came here and had a nice goodbye to the forum and brought up some issues he sees in the community. We could have used this thread for some consturctive discourse. But, honestly GuitarStv has done some masterful trolling in this thread. His comments are funny, they're just backhanded enough where you're not sure if it's an insult or just a comment, and they are mostly within the rules of the fourm.
-
I don't think it's necessary to inject personal asides at all, especially when they're derogatory.
Whatever you're debating, whether it's economics, socio-politics or conservatism, there's always room for politeness and detachment. At the end of the day we are all intelligent people and should respect each other accordingly.
-
**Completely unrelated, but as I had to type your name out a couple of times in this post I've just now realized that I've been incorrectly reading it as Crocmaster (as in a person who controls an army of crocodiles) in my head for years.
Oh the things I would do if I had an army of crocodiles. Alas, CroMacster is just something I made up when I was 10 or 11 years old. This is a common mistake people make with this name.
-
**Completely unrelated, but as I had to type your name out a couple of times in this post I've just now realized that I've been incorrectly reading it as Crocmaster (as in a person who controls an army of crocodiles) in my head for years.
Oh the things I would do if I had an army of crocodiles. Alas, CroMacster is just something I made up when I was 10 or 11 years old. This is a common mistake people make with this name.
Ha! I had been reading it as Crom Caster, as in someone who casts croms. Darn mild dyslexia acting up.
-
**Completely unrelated, but as I had to type your name out a couple of times in this post I've just now realized that I've been incorrectly reading it as Crocmaster (as in a person who controls an army of crocodiles) in my head for years.
Oh the things I would do if I had an army of crocodiles. Alas, CroMacster is just something I made up when I was 10 or 11 years old. This is a common mistake people make with this name.
Ha! I had been reading it as Crom Caster, as in someone who casts croms. Darn mild dyslexia acting up.
I usually read it as Cromacaster. That sounds like a thing, right?
-
I have been banned from the forum, both intentionally and accidentally, on multiple occasions.
Intentional bans are usually temporary for a first offense, unless it's obvious to everyone ahead of time what's about to happen.
But then you reached the pinnacle of banning when our Dear Leader MMM made a very rare appearance to the forum to personally ban you. That's like worthy of 10,000 mod bannings. Glad the "Save @sol" appeals worked.
I've never been banned or even received a reprimand. But the how offensive can I be with only 17 posts ;-).
I haven't read much of enjoyits posts but I stay out of the long political rants...er...threads.
link? inquiring minds want to know
-
I have been banned from the forum, both intentionally and accidentally, on multiple occasions.
Intentional bans are usually temporary for a first offense, unless it's obvious to everyone ahead of time what's about to happen.
But then you reached the pinnacle of banning when our Dear Leader MMM made a very rare appearance to the forum to personally ban you. That's like worthy of 10,000 mod bannings. Glad the "Save @sol" appeals worked.
I've never been banned or even received a reprimand. But the how offensive can I be with only 17 posts ;-).
I haven't read much of enjoyits posts but I stay out of the long political rants...er...threads.
link? inquiring minds want to know
Link to thread. (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/messages-from-the-community/)
Sol's first message. (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/messages-from-the-community/msg1938251/#msg1938251)
MMM's first response. (https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/forum-information-faqs/messages-from-the-community/msg1938720/#msg1938720)
-
Oh the moderating you people make me do.
It's Welcome and General Discussion, not Goodbye and General discussion.
Moving to Off Topic.
-
All viewpoints are welcome as long as you can express them without breaking the forum rules or trolling.
This list was good:
[Trolling] generally also has to include several of these attributes:
1) Repetition without really responding to what other people said.
2) Repeatedly (and/or intentionally) mischaracterizing what other people said.
3) Repeatedly (and/or intentionally) engaging in dishonest debate techniques (logical fallacies, whataboutism / constantly changing the subject, Gish Galloping, etc).
I think one can behave like a troll in particular areas while acting like a normal person in others. I also think that people behaving like trolls often posit a "they hate me because of my opinions" defence (without evidence of course) when they are called out for it.
Debating honestly is hard, especially when issues get emotional and/or personal. But I think one can see a clear difference between people who are trying and people who are not.
As they noted, it's hard when it gets heated. Sometimes it's good to walk away.
Plenty of both liberals and conservatives find themselves banned, with the overlap in their Venn diagram being "can't post without being rude or trolling." Plenty of people who we have no idea of their political bent get banned, because they're jerks in other areas of the forum. Again, same overlap.
Be a person people want to debate with, not get frustrated debating with. And don't use offensive slurs.
Cheers!
-
I'm not even following this thread, but how can this be off topic? It seems pretty on topic for general discussion.
-
I'm not even following this thread, but how can this be off topic? It seems pretty on topic for general discussion.
Too much politics I reckon
-
I'm not even following this thread, but how can this be off topic? It seems pretty on topic for general discussion.
On what topic of Mustachianism is it related to?
It seems more like a personal note, to me.
-
Too much politics I reckon
[line delivered by a cowboy puffing a hand-rolled cigarette on a horse overlooking washington dc]
-
Too much politics I reckon
[line delivered by a cowboy puffing a hand-rolled cigarette on a horse overlooking washington dc]
Hahaha, I lol'd.
-
I'm not even following this thread, but how can this be off topic? It seems pretty on topic for general discussion.
On what topic of Mustachianism is it related to?
At the very least it seems related to appropriate behavior on the forum. At least to me, that seems very much on topic.
-
Using the word 'retard' in a derogatory way is fundamental to conservative belief....
In case anyone doubted the presence of anti-conservative propaganda....
'Twas clearly a joke, MDM. Deliberate satire, to highlight the absurdity of the argument, and only made funnier by the fact that you actually took it seriously.
Based on historical posts, it isn't at all clear it was meant as a joke. See Poe's law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law).
Based on Sol's posting style, you have to assume that 3/4 of what is posted might be extreme satire / dry wit.
-
But when a person cannot or will not distinguish between the actions of different people who happen to share a group affiliation, we have a serious problem.
I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you there. If you're speaking of involuntary group affiliations, sure, 100%.
Oh so you must discriminate against gay people? see what I did there?
I see that either you did not read carefully, or you believe that homosexuality is voluntary. That would be pretty retrograde, so I'm assuming you just didn't read my post thoroughly.
Ohhh, now I see. You took a subjunctive phrase from my post ("if I'm a person who regularly attends church") and acted as if I had made a declarative statement about myself. I'm not a person who regularly attends church.
But let's say I were. I think, again, depending on the region, you could be forgiven for that inference. At a minimum, it would not be unreasonable of you to expect me, a southern churchgoer, to be at least mildly opposed to gay rights until I demonstrated otherwise. (BTW, once upon a time, I was a southern, churchgoing fundamentalist, and was indeed opposed to gay rights.)
But more seriously, I think a bigger problem I see in forum discussions is when someone voices an opinion and then someone else assumes that they identify with a particular group because they hold that one opinion. That's not voluntary or involuntary affiliation, it's non-existent affiliation.
In addition to that, I would say even if it is voluntary affiliation, we still shouldn't make too many assumptions. Like you said, to assume a churchgoer believes in a deity is pretty reasonable and not likely to offend anyone. To assume they believe in a literal interpretation of the old testament and that they're anti science would be much different.
I think it would not be unreasonable to assign better than even odds to that latter belief, depending on the denomination and region of the country. But I agree that we should believe this about a churchgoer less strongly, because a smaller fraction of churchgoers have those beliefs. Probably still far more than 50%, though.
But it's kind of beside the point, since we can just ask them.
I think conversations would be more productive if we would stop assuming what other people's thoughts are and respond to what they said. Making accurate assumptions about someone is more difficult than our animal brains realize and when we communicate through text with a lack of body language, doubly so.
Unfortunately, there's far more that makes up a person's belief system than what can be communicated in reasonably-sized forum posts. So unfortunately some inference has to go in there. Especially when you suspect your interlocutor holds a belief that they're not going to just come out and say (perhaps because it is unpleasant or unpopular), but which nevertheless is implied by the policy positions they do and don't favor, and is consistent with their group affiliation's predominant viewpoint.
-
But when a person cannot or will not distinguish between the actions of different people who happen to share a group affiliation, we have a serious problem.
I'm gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you there. If you're speaking of involuntary group affiliations, sure, 100%.
Oh so you must discriminate against gay people? see what I did there?
I see that either you did not read carefully, or you believe that homosexuality is voluntary. That would be pretty retrograde, so I'm assuming you just didn't read my post thoroughly.
In my hypothetical the group with which one is voluntarily affiliated with is "churchgoer". The belief is "discriminates against gays". I'm not sure where you're getting the bolded from.
Ohhh, now I see. You took a subjunctive phrase from my post ("if I'm a person who regularly attends church") and acted as if I had made a declarative statement about myself. I'm not a person who regularly attends church.
I understood you, but whether I'm referring to you or hypothetical you is irrelevant to the point I was making, which is that assuming someone discriminates against gays because they go to church would be unfair or at the very least not conducive to healthy conversation. Do you disagree with this point?
But let's say I were. I think, again, depending on the region, you could be forgiven for that inference. At a minimum, it would not be unreasonable of you to expect me, a southern churchgoer, to be at least mildly opposed to gay rights until I demonstrated otherwise. (BTW, once upon a time, I was a southern, churchgoing fundamentalist, and was indeed opposed to gay rights.)
-
So, is EnjoyIt banned or not?
-
I do love a dramatic exit flounce.
and conservatives proving that they really are precious snowflakes!!
#youkindofhavetolovethedrama
-
So, is EnjoyIt banned or not?
Yes, EnjoyIt was banned. I think it's scheduled to last another few weeks, but I'd have to check.
As others noted up thread, the moderator note about his comments about being "retarded" crossed a line.
Feel free to PM me with any further questions.
Cheers!
-
I can cope with differing political and religious beliefs, and shrug off much of the abuse that ends up flying. What gets me foaming at the mouth and demanding draconian sanctions is people who consistently use 'tenant' when they mean 'tenet'!
-
My brain automatically converts tenet and tenant into 'telnet' no matter how much care I take in the reading . . . so the distinction is kinda meaningless from my side. :P
-
I can cope with differing political and religious beliefs, and shrug off much of the abuse that ends up flying. What gets me foaming at the mouth and demanding draconian sanctions is people who consistently use 'tenant' when they mean 'tenet'!
Since we are off topic anyway....
I just finished grading final major assignment papers for my project management class. Students had to manage a project of their choosing and submit the full 100% PM paperwork on it, like the project was a major one for a client, and get marked.
One student, working as a interior designer / architect was completing a renovation of space into classroom space for a private university. She did a great job on the project execution, not so much on the paperwork. Normally, when the professional style of the report is not up to standard, I just mention that it was lower and that the writer should use software and grammar reviews in future. Sometimes if it is a signicant ESL issue I just tell them flat out to get an assistant or project coordinator to write their reports while they manage the project directly. (It is possible to not write well in English and be a fantastic PM).
Anyway, this one student, I could not help it, or keep it low key "nice" generic. (It is not nice to pick on someone trying to learn their 3rd or 4th language, you know?! Just mark them and move on.) She, an english speaker, kept writing about the HVAC duck work.. Over and over again. How it needed to be installed, inspected, procured through approved subcontractors. Quack quack quack. I would have been ok if this was a student attempting an industry project for the very first time, but she was an interior design professional! In charge of construction Project Management!
I ended up red-circling every damn duck in the report and sufficiently peeved that the only explaination I gave on the "writing quality" feedback was a question mark. (Yes, there was other lazy grammar, and double yes, my writing on this forum is exceptionally lazy for grammar as well, but I do ramp my quality up for work)
-
I can cope with differing political and religious beliefs, and shrug off much of the abuse that ends up flying. What gets me foaming at the mouth and demanding draconian sanctions is people who consistently use 'tenant' when they mean 'tenet'!
She, an english speaker, kept writing about the HVAC duck work..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnq7n8cOEb0
-
I can cope with differing political and religious beliefs, and shrug off much of the abuse that ends up flying. What gets me foaming at the mouth and demanding draconian sanctions is people who consistently use 'tenant' when they mean 'tenet'!
She, an english speaker, kept writing about the HVAC duck work..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnq7n8cOEb0
There is a brand of duct tape called Duck tape. And Wikipedia is legitimizing it "Duct tape, also called duck tape" Sigh. Next thing we know, the air in our buildings will be moving through ducks instead of ducts. Poor ducks.
You are going to post this on Words/phrases I wish would go away, aren't you?
-
Lol.
How dramatic.
-
I can cope with differing political and religious beliefs, and shrug off much of the abuse that ends up flying. What gets me foaming at the mouth and demanding draconian sanctions is people who consistently use 'tenant' when they mean 'tenet'!
She, an english speaker, kept writing about the HVAC duck work..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnq7n8cOEb0
There is a brand of duct tape called Duck tape. And Wikipedia is legitimizing it "Duct tape, also called duck tape" Sigh. Next thing we know, the air in our buildings will be moving through ducks instead of ducts. Poor ducks.
You are going to post this on Words/phrases I wish would go away, aren't you?
Consultant to the plant manager. Look at all this waste. We have to improve your process to eliminate this raw materials waste. Plant manager to the consultant, "That's not waste, it is offal." Consultant, "It isn't awful, its a damn crime!"
-
I can cope with differing political and religious beliefs, and shrug off much of the abuse that ends up flying. What gets me foaming at the mouth and demanding draconian sanctions is people who consistently use 'tenant' when they mean 'tenet'!
She, an english speaker, kept writing about the HVAC duck work..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnq7n8cOEb0
There is a brand of duct tape called Duck tape. And Wikipedia is legitimizing it "Duct tape, also called duck tape" Sigh. Next thing we know, the air in our buildings will be moving through ducks instead of ducts. Poor ducks.
You are going to post this on Words/phrases I wish would go away, aren't you?
Consultant to the plant manager. Look at all this waste. We have to improve your process to eliminate this raw materials waste. Plant manager to the consultant, "That's not waste, it is offal." Consultant, "It isn't awful, its a damn crime!"
Eewwwww, or is that oooooh?
-
My brain automatically converts tenet and tenant into 'telnet' no matter how much care I take in the reading . . . so the distinction is kinda meaningless from my side. :P
Sorry if I seemed to be having a go at you, but I have history with this one. The major global project which I OLYed to avoid has a couple of key slides included in every presentation to every group around the world. They set out the 'key tenants' of the new system. I pointed out the error a couple of years ago, but it never got fixed - I believe because they were written by someone very high up and everyone is too scared to tell them.
But enough of this and back to the more important work of raising awareness of the wholesale mistreatment of ducks in the HVAC industry!
-
My brain automatically converts tenet and tenant into 'telnet' no matter how much care I take in the reading . . . so the distinction is kinda meaningless from my side. :P
Sorry if I seemed to be having a go at you, but I have history with this one. The major global project which I OLYed to avoid has a couple of key slides included in every presentation to every group around the world. They set out the 'key tenants' of the new system. I pointed out the error a couple of years ago, but it never got fixed - I believe because they were written by someone very high up and everyone is too scared to tell them.
But enough of this and back to the more important work of raising awareness of the wholesale mistreatment of ducks in the HVAC industry!
A tenet of building codes specifies that tenants have high quality HVAC ducks and ducking. :P
-
I can cope with differing political and religious beliefs, and shrug off much of the abuse that ends up flying. What gets me foaming at the mouth and demanding draconian sanctions is people who consistently use 'tenant' when they mean 'tenet'!
She, an english speaker, kept writing about the HVAC duck work..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnq7n8cOEb0
There is a brand of duct tape called Duck tape. And Wikipedia is legitimizing it "Duct tape, also called duck tape" Sigh. Next thing we know, the air in our buildings will be moving through ducks instead of ducts. Poor ducks.
You are going to post this on Words/phrases I wish would go away, aren't you?
And to make it SUPER confusing, there's also a popular brand of tape called *Tuck* tape, which is nothing like Duct tape or Duck tape but is ubiquitous at construction sites (it's used to seam-seal house wrap).
-
I can cope with differing political and religious beliefs, and shrug off much of the abuse that ends up flying. What gets me foaming at the mouth and demanding draconian sanctions is people who consistently use 'tenant' when they mean 'tenet'!
She, an english speaker, kept writing about the HVAC duck work..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnq7n8cOEb0
There is a brand of duct tape called Duck tape. And Wikipedia is legitimizing it "Duct tape, also called duck tape" Sigh. Next thing we know, the air in our buildings will be moving through ducks instead of ducts. Poor ducks.
You are going to post this on Words/phrases I wish would go away, aren't you?
And to make it SUPER confusing, there's also a popular brand of tape called *Tuck* tape, which is nothing like Duct tape or Duck tape but is ubiquitous at construction sites (it's used to seam-seal house wrap).
I am quite glad it is not used for tucking, given that it is a construction site.
-
I can cope with differing political and religious beliefs, and shrug off much of the abuse that ends up flying. What gets me foaming at the mouth and demanding draconian sanctions is people who consistently use 'tenant' when they mean 'tenet'!
She, an english speaker, kept writing about the HVAC duck work..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnq7n8cOEb0
There is a brand of duct tape called Duck tape. And Wikipedia is legitimizing it "Duct tape, also called duck tape" Sigh. Next thing we know, the air in our buildings will be moving through ducks instead of ducts. Poor ducks.
You are going to post this on Words/phrases I wish would go away, aren't you?
And to make it SUPER confusing, there's also a popular brand of tape called *Tuck* tape, which is nothing like Duct tape or Duck tape but is ubiquitous at construction sites (it's used to seam-seal house wrap).
I am quite glad it is not used for tucking, given that it is a construction site.
No, no, you need duct/duck tape for tucking...lol
-
Tuck tape is amazing stuff. i patched a hole in my winter boot with tuck tape, and it stayed patched for two years.