War Room Lounge v63

[Anung Un Rama]

Uh, yes.

Wait, what was the question again?

So just overall social decline?

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

I don't get it. That guy has his views. You have yours. The platform should censor him, but not you? Spamming is one thing (and I can understand why you would want to remove spammers, although the "ignore" feature does work ), but I think all views should be welcome even if some posters want to label them (whatever)-ist.

That's not the situation though, and I think you know that. It would be a better use of your time not typing out entire paragraphs solely for the purpose of being disingenuous.

 

[Andy Capp]

Nice try, but no. You found an easy solution when the challenge was to find a difficult one.

Spoiler

Therefore, your solution is clearly simplistic as in "treating complex issues and problems as if they were much simpler than they really are".

Dude, don't take a bit of fun and turn it into something contentious. Besides, it is clearly a bunny rabbit.

 

[JDragon]

Dude, don't take a bit of fun and turn it into something contentious.

I did not think I did

 

[Falsedawn]

Anyone here play Kenshi?

I just discovered the Skin Bandits faction in my quest for crab battles. I think that was one of the weirdest experiences I've ever had in a game.

 

[waiguoren]

That's not the situation though, and I think you know that. It would be a better use of your time not typing out entire paragraphs solely for the purpose of being disingenuous.

How is that "not the situation"? Some people don't like RIPWarrrior's views and want him banned for posting them, right?

Again, if he's spamming threads (i.e., post count/time above a certain threshold) then I can understand the desire to do something on the moderation side. Even there though, you have the ability to ignore his posts. It just seems like people want to silence views they can't handle.

 

[Prokofievian]

How is that "not the situation"? Some people don't like RIPWarrrior's views and want him banned for posting them, right?

Again, if he's spamming threads (i.e., post count/time above a certain threshold) then I can understand the desire to do something on the moderation side. Even there though, you have the ability to ignore his posts. It just seems like people want to silence views they can't handle.

I don't like a lot of what you have to say. I've also never once called for you to be banned. How does your theory explain this?

 

[Chesten_Hesten]

So just overall social decline?

Generational decline as well maybe.

I remember right after this film came out in 81-82(?) Military type guns started to become chic in America.



More made their way into gun shops and more started showing up at gun shows.

To be clear though, you'd maybe see 15% of that kinda thing at gun shows in the late 80s. Everything else was expensive shotguns for skeet. International target rifles, fancy hunting guns. Etc.. Revolvers, shiny collector shit..

By the 90s there were a lot more "assault" guns in movies, getting more press, etc.

AR15s seemed more abundant. You have survivalist types buying them up. Or speculative investors riding the highs and lows of political speak at the time.

Odd, I started shooting high power rifle competition in 1989. It was full of engineers, some lawyers, some college professors, lots of former and present service men and some women. Lots of regular professional type goons. I was the young guy. Last time I visited a match a few years ago, I was still moreless the young guy! The same old guys are now that much older, like 60s and 70s now.

My point here is shooting as a sport is a discipline, and attracts certain types. Seems there used to be more of that type last generation. Less nowadays.


I think many who buy ARs nowadays do so more for the 'cool' factor, or because it feels taboo, or something. Or because it's the gun in the game they shoot "people" with.

And then unfortunately you have a percentage of weirdos and psychopaths that buy them too.

Disturbed people reinforcing negative stuff.

In short I blame the Brits and the SAS!

 

[Fawlty]

How is that "not the situation"? Some people don't like RIPWarrrior's views and want him banned for posting them, right?

Again, if he's spamming threads (i.e., post count/time above a certain threshold) then I can understand the desire to do something on the moderation side. Even there though, you have the ability to ignore his posts. It just seems like people want to silence views they can't handle.

Maybe the company doesn't want to promote white supremacy.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Oh look, @waiguoren is white knighting racist posting lol

 

[Jack V Savage]

No pretending going on here. I think your "disruption" looks like a euphemism for "disagreement".

No you don't.

You have already put over 80 posters on "ignore", last I checked. If that guy's posts disrupt or distract you so much, you can ignore him too.

More than 80. And it's all people who are disruptive rather than people I disagree with. Note, for example, that you're not on the list.

 

[Limbo Pete]

More than 80. And it's all people who are disruptive rather than people I disagree with. Note, for example, that you're not on the list.

Oof

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

It makes sense that an AR would be able to be purchased as its just a hunting rifle.
And it makes sense that people could still own the weapons after the ban on sales.

How would you explain the differences in gun related deaths since the ban was lifted?
Personally, I think its a reflection of the downfall of America on many, many levels, so I don't blame guns (I do think we should get rid of the gun show loopholes), but I would like the opinion of a strong 2A guy.

@Cubo de Sangre @Chesten_Hesten (others) please chime in on this.

Is there any area where tech has been in the hands of the people and then successfully removed from those hands?

Do a better job not raising psychos and not glorifying murderers.

 

[Fawlty]

You mean RIPWarrior, the batshit crazy dude that's been stalking me with PMs for the last week? No forum needs that weirdo shit man, is this dude like famous or something? It's like Vox Day has taken a personal interest in me because apparently I remind him of someone.

BatDad?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

This band crushed.

 

[The Diplomat]

Anyone here play Kenshi?

I just discovered the Skin Bandits faction in my quest for crab battles. I think that was one of the weirdest experiences I've ever had in a game.

Is that the open world rpg? Was open access for awhile

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

How is that "not the situation"? Some people don't like RIPWarrrior's views and want him banned for posting them, right?

Wrong, and poorly thought out. The proximal connection between "want someone banned" and "don't like his views" is speculative. You don't seem to have considered all the possibilities.

I don't get it. That guy has his views. You have yours. The platform should censor him, but not you?

Also wrong. If I posted that way then I should be "censored" too.

I can understand the desire to do something on the moderation side. Even there though, you have the ability to ignore his posts. It just seems like people want to silence views they can't handle.

Again, the connection between "want to silence views" and not be able to "handle" them is speculation only, since there's no necessary connection between them. Speculation that you post without analysis or qualification in order to disparage the position of another. Does that strike you as honest behaviour? Is it leap that you'd accept from say, @Jack V Savage, on one of your characteristic streaks of pedantry?

Here's an example of a full range of logical possibilities: either you know that you're disingenuously speculating in these posts, or you don't. If you don't, then you're not as familiar or adept with the reasoning process as you've been attempting to project throughout these threads. If you do, then you must be posting this way for a reason other than accurately portraying the truth of a situation, which is the definition of dishonesty.

Those are pretty crappy options. You should have heeded my advice and stopped wasting your time after the last post.

 

[waiguoren]

I don't like a lot of what you have to say. I've also never once called for you to be banned. How does your theory explain this?

Again, I think that some people here want to ban posters who post some views they disagree with.

Maybe the company doesn't want to promote white supremacy.

Oh look, @waiguoren is white knighting racist posting lol

Fawlty, I can understand why the company would view it as a smart strategy given the loud anti-free speech views of people like Limbo Pete, who are likely to whine to no end in response to posts they perceive to be "(whatever)-ist" . Too much risk and too little reward for Crave. OTOH, I can't understand how it's possible for certain posters to claim to support "free speech" on a forum with an ignore feature while simultaneously calling for people to be banned for the ideas those people are promoting.

Limbo Pete, was the ACLU "white knighting for racists" when it supported the right of anti-Jewish groups to march through Jewish neighborhoods?

You mean RIPWarrior, the batshit crazy dude that's been stalking me with PMs for the last week?

I meant in general. Why can't you ignore PMs?

No forum needs that weirdo shit man, is this dude like famous or something? It's like Vox Day has taken a personal interest in me because apparently I remind him of someone.

I don't see the problem.

No you don't.

Yes I do.

More than 80. And it's all people who are disruptive rather than people I disagree with. Note, for example, that you're not on the list.

You're helping to make my point. The existence of the "ignore" feature allows you to hide from those posts you find "disruptive". So by all means, hide from that RipWarrior guy, and let the rest of us try to reason with him if we choose to do so, instead of banning him. Also, for some of the crazier people, you're denying an outlet that could prevent them from going postal.

Note, for example, that you're not on the list.

You claimed not too long ago that you were planning to put me on the list. I think you have a problem with dissent.

Wrong, and poorly thought out. The proximal connection between "want someone banned" and "don't like his views" is speculative. You don't seem to have considered all the possibilities.

It's not speculative. There were people earlier in the thread implying strongly that the guy should be banned for his "racist posts".

If I posted that way then I should be "censored" too.

What way?

 

[Limbo Pete]

Again, I think that some people here want to ban posters who post some views they disagree with.



Fawlty, I can understand why the company would view it as a smart strategy given the loud anti-free speech views of people like Limbo Pete, who are likely to . Too much risk and too little reward. OTOH, I can't understand how it's possible for certain posters to claim to support "free speech" on a forum with an ignore feature while simultaneously calling for people to be banned for the ideas those people are promoting.

Limbo Pete, was the ACLU "white knighting for racists" when it supported the right of anti-Jewish groups to march through Jewish neighborhoods?


I meant in general. Why can't you ignore PMs?

I don't see the problem.


Yes I do.


You're helping to make my point. The existence of the "ignore" feature allows you to hide from those posts you find "disruptive". So by all means, hide from that RipWarrior guy, and let the rest of us try to reason with him if we choose to do so, instead of banning him. Also, for some of the crazier people, you're denying an outlet that could prevent them from going postal.


You claimed not too long ago that you were planning to put me on the list. I think you have a problem with dissent.

Did you just compare yourself to the ACLU omuhgaaaaaawd
MY SIDES

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Is there any area where tech has been in the hands of the people and then successfully removed from those hands?

Do a better job not raising psychos and not glorifying murderers.