War Room Lounge v63

[waiguoren]

@method115 I don't think Sanders ever regained his second place position.


Still offering bet: Bernard Sanders will surpass Elizabeth Warren in national polling average within the next three weeks.

 

[senri]

I love you too my tight flesh...

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Bernie tackling the big issues.



Doo u thiink its gon be possibbllee to eeliminate student debt?

"We are going to cancel all student debt in America"

$1.52T in debt is a big issue.

 

[Prokofievian]

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

Gosh, it sure is a lot easier to argue against what you think ''some people'' want. Maybe you need a new theory to explain what you actually see. That's what a careful thinker would do.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

@Jack V Savage @deviake


If You're Looking for Evidence of WaPo Media Bias Against Bernie Sanders, Here It Is

https://www.commondreams.org/views/...GKVk0TyfVpVULO9kL1FFk112aOKKxEXmo3V00tcwCJOl0

And the lack of coverage of their bias by the other major outlets of the MSM, in fact the deflection of their obvious bias by other major MSM outlets, independent of all their own obvious examples of bias, is evidence of the entire MSM's bias.

 

[Prokofievian]

Kill them. Kill them all.
European wasps are an invasive pest here. No natural predators, and the lack of cold winters to seasonally wipe out most of the nest, means they've spread fast despite our efforts to eliminate them.
Maybe we could import European youtube weirdos to try and wipe them out... like we did with the cane toads.

Indeed, fuck wasps.

 

[waiguoren]

Gosh, it sure is a lot easier to argue against what you think ''some people'' want. Maybe you need a new theory to explain what you actually see. That's what a careful thinker would do.

I saw multiple posters encourage the banning of a someone at least in part because those posters accused the person of posting "racist" statements.

 

[Prokofievian]

I saw multiple posters encourage the banning of a someone at least in part because those posters accused the person of posting "racist" statements.

Oh I have no problem with that. Not all views that people disagree with are racist statements, though. So, again, how do you explain this reality? I doubt that every single poster with whom you are interlocuting wants every single poster with whom they disagree banned, and there is no textual evidence to support that. So, how does your theory explain this?

 

[waiguoren]

Oh I have no problem with that.

No problem with banning people whose posts you think are "racist"? Well, at least we identified our disagreement.

Not all views that people disagree with are racist statements, though. So, again, how do you explain this reality? I doubt that every single poster with whom you are interlocuting wants every single poster with whom they disagree banned, and there is no textual evidence to support that. So, how does your theory explain this?

Again, the theory is that some posters want other posters banned for some of the content of some of the posts of the latter posters. The evidence (e.g., your first statement above) seems to fit the theory.

 

[Prokofievian]

No problem with banning people whose posts you think are "racist"? Well, at least we identified our disagreement.

Correct. Like I said, I don't believe that every place on the internet must become 8chan, and I don't think that places that are like 8chan are better by any metric other than by volume of racist content.

This is also different than saying that I want people banned because I ''disagree'' with them. That was quite a dishonest swipe.

Again, the theory is that some posters want other posters banned for some of the content of some of the posts of the latter posters. The evidence (e.g., your first statement above) seems to fit the theory.

This is your motte, but it's quite different from the bailey of ''you just want people banned because you disagree with them.''

There is obviously some other criterion at play here than ''disagreement.'' You should brainstorm it so that your theory could explain the opinions of your interlocutors, not just what you think of them.

 

[waiguoren]

This is also different than saying that I want people banned because I ''disagree'' with them. That was quite a dishonest swipe.

It's not dishonest. Assuming the "racist" poster was posting his actual opinion/viewpoint, you would want him banned for a posting a viewpoint that you disagreed with.

This is your motte, but it's quite different from the bailey of ''you just want people banned because you disagree with them.''

I don't think I used the word "just", and otherwise how is that not a fair shorthand for "you want people banned who post particular views that you disagree with"?
========



@Limbo Pete listen to the beautiful music.

 

[Prokofievian]

It's not dishonest. Assuming the "racist" poster was posting his actual opinion/viewpoint, you would want him banned for a posting a viewpoint that you disagreed with.

No, I could agree with it for all you know and still support his being banned. Or, perhaps someone could post something with which you could not even meaningfully agree or disagree that would justify a banning.

There is obviously some other criterion than ''disagreement'' at play here.

I don't think I used the word "just", and otherwise how is that not a fair shorthand for "you want people banned who post particular views that you disagree with"?

This is the view you ascribed to me

You mean moderation to remove views you don't like and leave views that you do like.

At this point it is obvious that it is without evidence, but you have yet to retract it. That's dishonest. This is a view that you can only ascribe to ''some people'' about whom you ''think.'' In other words, the refuse bin in the corner of your mind. It's a failed idea.

 

[Limbo Pete]

I saw multiple posters encourage the banning of a someone at least in part because those posters accused the person of posting "racist" statements.

Lol at "racist"
White knighting Ripwarrior ffs lmao

 

[waiguoren]

No, I could agree with it for all you know and still support his being banned.

Ok, this is getting interesting. Could you give an example of such a scenario? Like, "Prokofievian identifies that as a 'racist' post, agrees with the content of the post, but supports the banning of the person who made the post because...."

Strictly speaking, you did find a hole in my theory (good job). However, it doesn't seem to be of any practical importance?

Or, perhaps someone could post something with which you could not even meaningfully agree or disagree that would justify a banning.

Remember that I already excluded "spam". Could you give an example?

This is the view you ascribed to me

I don't think I used the word "just".

At this point it is obvious that it is without evidence, but you have yet to retract it.

If you're labeling a view as "racist", I think it's basically a sure thing that you don't "like" that view. In my many years on earth, I've never encountered someone who claimed to "like" something that he also claimed to be "racist". For example, I spent some time listening to interviews with self-described "black nationalists" with nasty views and even they didn't seem to accept the "racist" term.

Lol at "racist"
White knighting Ripwarrior ffs lmao

I was speaking in the abstract with "racist", not attempting to characterize that guy's views or posts (except to the extent that other posters claimed his posts were "racist") since I don't know him.

BTW, was the ACLU "white knighting for racists" when it supported the right of anti-Jewish groups to march through Jewish neighborhoods? (No chief, I'm not comparing myself to the ACLU.)

 

[Fawlty]

Jesus it's a good thing you're already a grownup, because getting you to tie your shoes or use the toilet would be a goddamn nightmare.

 

[Prokofievian]

Ok, this is getting interesting. Could you give an example of such a scenario? Like, "Prokofievian identifies that as a 'racist' post, agrees with the content of the post, but supports the banning of the person who made the post because...."

Strictly speaking, you did find a hole in my theory (good job). However, it doesn't seem to be of any practical importance?

It's of great practical importance. There's a big assumption that you're making here, in that all dialogue is or promotes rational dialogue. You at least strongly imply this by imploring that RIP warrior not be banned so that you can attempt to ''reason'' with him if you wish. But what if what someone is saying had the effect of derailing rational dialogue, even if you agreed with it?

Let's say that I didn't like black people, and wanted to come here to rationally advance my views that they're just no good. I might post a study by JP Rushton or Arthur Jensen. Many people have done so here over the years, and not been banned for so doing. But then RIP comes along and never rationally argues about anything, and instead posts invective against black people (whom in this hypothetical I don't like) that completely derails the conversation? I would support him being banned.

Remember that I already excluded "spam". Could you give an example?

Now, why did you do that? Why do you get a criterion beyond disagreement, but your interlocutors don't?

Why is it that whatever is disruptive about spam (volume) cannot be also disruptive about the content of certain posts? This requires a lot of fleshing out, IMO.

Here's what I'm referring to with ''cannot be meaningfully agreed or disagreed with": jews are maggots in the rotting corpse of germany. It's a metaphor, jews are literally not maggots, and germany is not literally a rotting corpse. As such it is contentless invective designed to short circuit rational dialogue, and interact with the base animus of certain people. It is an aesthetic judgement against which you can say ''no,'' and the author of the statement can say ''yes'' and that will be that. The content free nature of the statement is the point, in fact.

I don't think I used the word "just".

You didn't, but you did ascribe to me something I didn't say either, so here we are.

If you're labeling a view as "racist", I think it's basically a sure thing that you don't "like" that view. In my many years on earth, I've never encountered someone who claimed to "like" something that he also claimed to be "racist". For example, I spent some time listening to interviews with black nationalist types with nasty views and even they didn't seem to accept the "racist" term. You're right though, it's possible that you like some "racist" views but still want people banned for posting them.

You shouldn't rely on the philosophical commitment of others, either in a negative or positive sense. In the one sense, they will always let you down. In the other, they may just decide to surprise you.

 

[waiguoren]

It's of great practical importance. There's a big assumption that you're making here, in that all dialogue is or promotes rational dialogue. You at least strongly imply this by imploring that RIP warrior not be banned so that you can attempt to ''reason'' with him if you wish. But what if what someone is saying had the effect of derailing rational dialogue, even if you agreed with it?

I think this is an important part of our disagreement. I don't really believe in "derailing". I think if two or more people are interested in having discourse, another person posting porn or whatever doesn't do anything to stop that. I can understand that it causes scrolling to take longer, but we have an ignore feature. I guess it can be a big issue for promoting the forum to new users though, so that's another reason I can see for Crave Media or whoever to be strict on that point.

Let's say that I didn't like black people, and wanted to come here to rationally advance my views that they're just no good. I might post a study by JP Rushton or Arthur Jensen. Many people have done so here over the years, and not been banned for so doing. But then RIP comes along and never rationally argues about anything, and instead posts invective against black people (whom in this hypothetical I don't like) that completely derails the conversation? I would support him being banned.

Thanks for spelling that out, and I think my response above addresses it. Never heard of those two researchers either. I'll try to find time to check them out.

Why is it that whatever is disruptive about spam (volume) cannot be also disruptive about the content of certain posts? This requires a lot of fleshing out, IMO.

I think it's just the issue from above: it causes readers to have to take much longer to scroll. The "ignore" feature makes this much less of a potential issue.

Here's what I'm referring to with ''cannot be meaningfully agreed or disagreed with": jews are maggots in the rotting corpse of germany. It's a metaphor, jews are literally not maggots, and germany is not literally a rotting corpse. As such it is contentless invective designed to short circuit rational dialogue, and interact with the base animus of certain people. It is an aesthetic judgement against which you can say ''no,'' and the author of the statement can say ''yes'' and that will be that. The content free nature of the statement is the point, in fact.

I think my original statement was something like, "you want to ban some of the posters who post content with which you disagree". I think a broad construal of "disagree" gets you to aesthetic "disagreement", as you indicated yourself here. So what's the issue with what I wrote originally?

You shouldn't rely on the philosophical commitment of others, either in a negative or positive sense. In the one sense, they will always let you down. In the other, they may just decide to surprise you.

Meh. I think we are empirical beasts, and that's fine. No one in this thread is going to be calling out "racist posts" and also expressing explicit agreement with them.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Gawd almighty
Blehhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[Limbo Pete]

It's of great practical importance. There's a big assumption that you're making here, in that all dialogue is or promotes rational dialogue. You at least strongly imply this by imploring that RIP warrior not be banned so that you can attempt to ''reason'' with him if you wish. But what if what someone is saying had the effect of derailing rational dialogue, even if you agreed with it?

Let's say that I didn't like black people, and wanted to come here to rationally advance my views that they're just no good. I might post a study by JP Rushton or Arthur Jensen. Many people have done so here over the years, and not been banned for so doing. But then RIP comes along and never rationally argues about anything, and instead posts invective against black people (whom in this hypothetical I don't like) that completely derails the conversation? I would support him being banned.



Now, why did you do that? Why do you get a criterion beyond disagreement, but your interlocutors don't?

Why is it that whatever is disruptive about spam (volume) cannot be also disruptive about the content of certain posts? This requires a lot of fleshing out, IMO.

Here's what I'm referring to with ''cannot be meaningfully agreed or disagreed with": jews are maggots in the rotting corpse of germany. It's a metaphor, jews are literally not maggots, and germany is not literally a rotting corpse. As such it is contentless invective designed to short circuit rational dialogue, and interact with the base animus of certain people. It is an aesthetic judgement against which you can say ''no,'' and the author of the statement can say ''yes'' and that will be that. The content free nature of the statement is the point, in fact.



You didn't, but you did ascribe to me something I didn't say either, so here we are.



You shouldn't rely on the philosophical commitment of others, either in a negative or positive sense. In the one sense, they will always let you down. In the other, they may just decide to surprise you.

You gotta realize, bud, that Wai doesn't care what he's arguing about
It's e-intellectual penis pumping.

 

[JDragon]

It's e-intellectual e-penis pumping.

Fixed