A last goodbye to the forum

[MDM]

Using the word 'retard' in a derogatory way is fundamental to conservative belief....

In case anyone doubted the presence of anti-conservative propaganda....

[bacchi]

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?

[kingxiaodi]

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.

[sol]

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.

[MDM]

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?

[MDM]

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.

[ender]

'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.

[GuitarStv]

Using the word 'retard' in a derogatory way is fundamental to conservative belief....

I...doubt... the presence of anti-conservative propaganda.

Agreed MDM.  Agreed.

[bacchi]

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.

[MDM]

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. :)

[sol]

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.

[ender]

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?

[GuitarStv]

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.

[MDM]

True, some people actually believe reality has a liberal bias. 

[GuitarStv]

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?

[katsiki]

Here's hoping EnjoyIT is not banned.

[DadJokes]

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.

[MDM]

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.

[Dancin'Dog]

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. 

[Davnasty]

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 :)

[skp]

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.

[Psychstache]

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.

[Bloop Bloop]

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.

[WhiteTrashCash]

This entire thread makes me think of this (wipes away tear): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33izVlIOgnQ

[GuitarStv]

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.

[sherr]

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.

[partgypsy]

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).

[partgypsy]

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.

[BlueHouse]

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!] 

[UnleashHell]

I do love a dramatic exit flounce.

and conservatives proving that they really are precious snowflakes!!

[Davnasty]

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.

[Davnasty]

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.

[partgypsy]

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.

[sol]

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.

[Cromacster]

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? 

[GuitarStv]

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.

[Bloop Bloop]

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.

[Davnasty]

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 :)

[Davnasty]

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.

[Davnasty]

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

[sol]

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.

[BicycleB]

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?

[Cromacster]

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.

[maizefolk]

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:


*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.

[GuitarStv]

Enjoy it didn't insult me.  At least to the best of my knowledge.

[sol]

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?

[gerardc]

TL;DR (even shorter): Don't be this guy:

except how it really works is more like this:



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

[BTDretire]

  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]
 

[obstinate]

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.

[ysette9]

TL;DR (even shorter): Don't be this guy:

except how it really works is more like this:



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.