TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 112

Thread: Ongoing Terror Attacks

  1. #76
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Kolya View Post
    You are not born with a religion.
    You're born into it. See, though? That's the sort of silly semantic quibbling we should be having. Not the "tolerate my intolerance" rubbish right-wingers try to promote. Renz wants higher quality right-wing posters, but where would they even come from? That wing jumped the shark. Too many of them are just uninterested in making any sort of sense, and they're hard at work cleansing their ranks of those who try to.

  2. #77
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2002
    Location: Cologne
    I agree on the latter part, but you may also be born into an inhuman and intolerant world view. It's not something you couldn't change, if you wanted to.

    https://aeon.co/essays/why-religious...bust-criticism

  3. #78
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    Quote Originally Posted by Fafhrd View Post
    Renz. Renz. They're the same fucking thing. "America First" is a neo-nazi dogwhistle with its roots in the nazi sympathizer America First Committee of the '40s.
    I'm sure the Neo-Nazis took it that way, and I'm equally sure some certain people in Trump's campaign planted that dogwhistle on him, but there are quite a few people in the country who take it by its surface meaning, entirely unaware of the baggage attached to the phrase.

    I'm still of the opinion that Trump himself isn't racist, at least not in an actively hateful sense, so much as stupid and opportunistic. He definitely surrounded himself with some racist people. Bannon and Gorka are, at the very, anti-semites. But the man himself? He'll pretty much do anything for money and constant positive reinforcement. He doesn't care what color you are, as long as you pay him, and/or like him.

    There isn't much in his past that points towards him being abjectly racist. Remember, he was a northern Democrat at one point in his life. That he dips his toes into alt-right territory isn't due to any unspoken sympathies, so much as he love the neverending praise they lavish upon him (he's playing 4D chess!), and he knows he has their vote come 2020.

    ...not that this is more excusable in comparison, either way you cut his, his actions have all but brought the ugly side of America directly into the limelight, but I do think this better explains his actions and attitudes than a curt "he's racist".

  4. #79
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Left-wing discussion: "Should we criticize them?"
    Right-wing discussion: "Should we allow them to exist here?"

  5. #80
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: Sulphur, whatever
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    I'm sure the Neo-Nazis took it that way, and I'm equally sure some certain people in Trump's campaign planted that dogwhistle on him, but there are quite a few people in the country who take it by its surface meaning, entirely unaware of the baggage attached to the phrase.

    I'm still of the opinion that Trump himself isn't racist, at least not in an actively hateful sense, so much as stupid and opportunistic. He definitely surrounded himself with some racist people. Bannon and Gorka are, at the very, anti-semites. But the man himself? He'll pretty much do anything for money and constant positive reinforcement. He doesn't care what color you are, as long as you pay him, and/or like him.

    There isn't much in his past that points towards him being abjectly racist. Remember, he was a northern Democrat at one point in his life. That he dips his toes into alt-right territory isn't due to any unspoken sympathies, so much as he love the neverending praise they lavish upon him (he's playing 4D chess!), and he knows he has their vote come 2020.

    ...not that this is more excusable in comparison, either way you cut his, his actions have all but brought the ugly side of America directly into the limelight, but I do think this better explains his actions and attitudes than a curt "he's racist".
    I'm sort of amazed that you've taken a clear call to disregard obfuscation and slathered your own dollop of untethered waffle onto it. Trump isn't the subject here. If you've got nothing to say, don't say anything.

  6. #81
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Qantas
    Quote Originally Posted by Pyrian View Post
    Left-wing discussion: "Should we criticize them?"
    Right-wing discussion: "Should we allow them to exist here?"
    Left-wing discussion of right wingers in this thread: "Should we allow them to exist here?"

    This thread just drips with irony.

    We started by criticizing Krush and a few others here for trying to paint all Muslims with the terrorism brush, and now a few of you guys are trying to paint all righties with the Nazi brush. Both just stereotyping people to the point of demonization. IMO this thread should probably just be shut down because I don't see much room for on-topic conversation anymore. It's descended into verbal stone throwing.
    Last edited by heywood; 8th Sep 2017 at 07:51.

  7. #82
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Iacon
    I don't think wanting someone thrown out of a forum is quite equivalent to wanting someone else thrown out of a country.

  8. #83
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2001
    Location: Switzerland
    Plus no one is talking about throwing everyone with certain political leanings out, and you're pretty disingenuous to say so, heywood. This is about behaviour, about the ongoing tarring of certain religions and ethnicities with one broad brush. Not individuals but huge groups of people. You're grossly misrepresenting what is going on, to my mind, if you can't see the difference between Krush being called out and Muslims, Mexicans or whatever other group being treated as basically all the same.

  9. #84
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2005
    Location: Not Kansas
    Quote Originally Posted by bassoferrol View Post
    Let´s get down to it: *Long list*
    You may (more like probably won't even bother to read it) find this article interesting. Gee, it seems radical Islamists don't actually have the market cornered when it comes to committing atrocities in the name of their God. (In a nutshell: 'How many people have died in the name of Christ, Christianity and Catholicism? VICTIMS OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH') (Subtitle: 'WONDERFUL EVENTS THAT TESTIFY TO GOD'S DIVINE GLORY') The '20th Century Church Atrocities' gave me a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach; just sayin'.

    http://www.truthbeknown.com/victims.htm

    And what Chimpy said.

  10. #85
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    We started by criticizing Krush and a few others here for trying to paint all Muslims with the terrorism brush, and now a few of you guys are trying to paint all righties with the Nazi brush. Both just stereotyping people to the point of demonization. IMO this thread should probably just be shut down because I don't see much room for on-topic conversation anymore. It's descended into verbal stone throwing.
    Who is trying to paint all righties with the Nazi brush? Is Krush representative of all right wing people? Krush is not getting flak because he's right wing, he's getting flak because of his bigoted views and because he provokes the comparison himself. If your main objection to Nazis is that they are too socialist, what do you expect?

    If you meant alt right, then fine, not all alt right people are Nazis, but you have to admit that a lot of them sympathise or flirt with it, whether it's the "ironic" "Hitler did nothing wrong" kind or the unironically white supremacist kind. And that's all without considering where the movement originated and what it looks like. When these people chant "Blood and soil!" and "Heil Trump!" and throw Nazi salutes, I don't think the comparison is unwarranted.


  11. #86
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Qantas
    This talk about banning Krush et al is not about his behavior at all. As far as I can see, the guy hasn't broken any forum rules, hasn't harassed anyone or called anyone names, hasn't filled up threads with annoying meme pics, etc. People are proposing to ban him because of his politics, not his behavior. Krush isn't being "called out". He is being branded.

    Throwing someone out of a forum and throwing someone out of a country is different in scale, but the motivations behind doing it are the same in principle. The problem I have with Krush and some others is that they're ignoring the diversity of views and motivations among the Muslim population, and stereotyping them all as Islamists because that makes it easy to dismiss their views and declare them incompatible with Western society. But I see some of other posters here trying to do a similar thing with the right wing. Didn't you know they're all just closet Nazis and anything they say that sounds reasonable is actually coded with white supremacist dog whistles? What's going on in both cases is using stereotypes and branding to dehumanize a group so you can feel justified in depriving them of rights. The talk of banning people from this forum is a microcosm of the wider debate of limiting speech and symbols that are incompatible with a politically correct world view.

  12. #87
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    I don't think it's just politics. When he does things like defend the Charlottesville driver, I think that people are genuinely disgusted, and not just because they disagree with his politics.

  13. #88
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: Sulphur, whatever
    No one's proposing that the entire right needs to be sucked out an airlock. That would be categorically stupid from any logical rationale. Disagree on things and talk about them reasonably regardless of where your political stance lies -- that's fine.

    However: don't be a morally contemptible waste of skin whilst doing it. When you've got someone who's repeatedly called an entire ethnic group as murdering savages, and shows zero restraint or logic in their rationale besides xenophobia and racism, and it's continued for months on end with zero let up, that's very simply hate speech. We've done well to not raise much of a stink despite the ugliness of the views we've seen, but continuing to allow the toxicity does no one any favours (apart from the bigots and the racists), and it doesn't bode well for the atmosphere here. TTLG's rules call out that hate speech isn't entertained: so don't entertain it. It's not a morally complex situation.
    Last edited by Sulphur; 8th Sep 2017 at 10:43.

  14. #89
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2001
    Location: Somewhere
    forum needs new mods, I vote for me cos I will get the job done

  15. #90
    Gah. I'm beginning to hate this topic because the amount of stupid that crops up from all sides is amazing. It never ceases to amaze me how otherwise intelligent people(literally everywhere, not just here) will drop all critical thinking and reasoning skills in favor of ascribing universal traits to all members of the group.

    No, Muslim are not all a homogenous group of victims/terrorists. And now the causes of the current "terrorism" problems are far more complex than any click-bait analysis will tell people.

    I'll add my take, but keep in mind that this resembles the truth in the same way that a child's drawing could be taken for an airplane: it's recognizeable as one for a distance, but nobody in their right mind would think that thing can actually fly.

    Here's a few complicating key causes:

    1) Western foreign policy: The actions of Western nations( and to some extent, China/Russia) have systematically destabilized many governments in the region. In cases where we haven't instituted weak regimes or directly facilitated terror and extremist groups(as the US did in Syria and Libya), they've taken out secular dictators who kept extremists in check. Many foreign policy/economic analysts said as much at the time and warned what was going to happen.

    It doesn't help that the biggest US "allies" in the region make an active effort to keep their neighbors destabilized since that prevents any competing power blocs from emerging.

    2) The political situation there: The single biggest problem in most traditional Islamic nations is that they do not have a coherent rule of law in the way that Westerners understand it. For example, any kind of permit usually requires a bribe to the local official, and there aren't any real checks on what local/officials warlords can do and they effectively treat people in their land like serfs. Coupled with a Theocratic, fuedal system it means that the best chances (and the closest thing to a meritocracy) that smart, aggressive, freethinkers have for improving their own status are joining a paramilitary organization or turning to crime. This is also a primary cause of the lack of education: no local leader in these countries has anything to gain by spreading literacy.

    3) Islamists actually are correct in their belief that Western culture is a huge threat to their culture. Culturally, they have an extremely traditional background where they believe that family comes first, that women should stay in the household and take care of children/serve the man, that public expression of sexuality is wrong, and people should follow a highly respectable pattern of behavior in public. Similarly conservative cultures that live within the West have largely been destroyed by Western pop culture and they don't want to see the same thing happen to their faith and culture.

  16. #91
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Qantas
    Quote Originally Posted by Sulphur View Post
    No one's proposing that the entire right needs to be sucked out an airlock. That would be categorically stupid from any logical rationale. Disagree on things and talk about them reasonably regardless of where your political stance lies -- that's fine.

    However: don't be a morally contemptible waste of skin whilst doing it. When you've got someone who's repeatedly called an entire ethnic group as murdering savages, and shows zero restraint or logic in their rationale besides xenophobia and racism, and it's continued for months on end with zero let up, that's very simply hate speech. We've done well to not raise much of a stink despite the ugliness of the views we've seen, but continuing to allow the toxicity does no one any favours (apart from the bigots and the racists), and it doesn't bode well for the atmosphere here. TTLG's rules call out that hate speech isn't entertained: so don't entertain it. It's not a morally complex situation.
    There are several members here who post blatantly stereotypical and racist views about Muslims. But those views are unfortunately common in the West and it seems impossible to have a discussion after a terrorist attack without bringing them in. I've argued with Krush about Muslims, know his views, made my points, and moved on because there's no point in debating it further. But if Renzatic wants to continue debating him, that should be his prerogative. In my opinion, we're adults here and don't need CommChat to be a heavily moderated politically correct "safe space" where you won't be tempted to read posts that may offend you. If you don't want to read his posts, why can't you put him on your ignore list, or just avoid these terrorism threads which are inevitably going to go there?

  17. #92
    Chakat sex pillow
    Registered: Sep 2006
    Location: Sulphur, whatever
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    There are several members here who post blatantly stereotypical and racist views about Muslims. But those views are unfortunately common in the West and it seems impossible to have a discussion after a terrorist attack without bringing them in. I've argued with Krush about Muslims, know his views, made my points, and moved on because there's no point in debating it further. But if Renzatic wants to continue debating him, that should be his prerogative.
    It should be, but the magical thing about being a mod is that you represent the place at large. If you, heywood, have already realised there's no point arguing with a racist, having a mod continue the conversation makes it look like we're willing to entertain these views as a community, or at the very least draw them out for so long that it becomes a Sisyphean exercise in pointlessness. Either way, the takeaway is: be as shitty as you want to [group of choice], we're okay with devolving into a marginally more polite version of 4chan.

    In my opinion, we're adults here and don't need CommChat to be a heavily moderated politically correct "safe space" where you won't be tempted to read posts that may offend you. If you don't want to read his posts, why can't you put him on your ignore list, or just avoid these terrorism threads which are inevitably going to go there?
    This isn't about making this a safe space. I'd like to believe the place I've been posting in for the past ten years has a set of values that, if not completely in sync with my own, are at the very least something we can agree on. Should we tolerate hate speech? I believe the general consensus should be, 'no, we shouldn't'. The forum's rules say, 'no, we shouldn't'.

    So, playing the devil's advocate, the question becomes: well, should we? Well, we tried it. If there's one good thing Renz's ongoing policy of giving people enough rope has shown, it's that they'll take more than you ever thought you'd need, and they'll keep going. And for what utility? From what broader views were we enriched? None, sir. My observation is that we're the poorer for having allowed it, for actively having lowered our level of discourse to reactionarism via fearmongering.

    I don't see why instituting a one- or two- or three-strike rule of mods rebutting people who're not actually worth engaging with is a problem. I take issue with me being told to not not engage with people in the threads where this sort of thing happens, as it's a stark dismissal of the values we purportedly have as a community.

    And if the reality is we don't actually have those, well, I'm not too fussed about finding somewhere else that does. Maybe that place doesn't actually exist, but hey, if I find a bunch of people who care, those are the people I'd prefer talking to.
    Last edited by Sulphur; 8th Sep 2017 at 12:32.

  18. #93
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Iacon
    I'm not sure Krush should be banned.

    But I do worry that every time he sees a muslim, in his head he starts hearing scary "call to prayer" music and ululating battle cries.

  19. #94
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2002
    Location: Cologne
    I really admire Renz for continuously and smartly rebutting the blatant right-wing propaganda on this forum. But to tell the truth, it hasn't become any less because of these efforts.
    I think people like Krush feel validated, by getting the platform and the attention. But I don't come here to read their elaborate hatespeech.
    I respect the decision not to ban Krush. But this is my free time and I really got better aliens to shoot than this shit.

  20. #95
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    The way I like to moderate is to take a rather hands-off approach to any heated political discussion. I'll step in when people are being outright annoying for the simple sake of it, starting idiot arguments that entirely derail a topic of conversation over petty bullshit that isn't productive in any way whatsoever. But in threads like this, I have a tendency to let things go, provided they remain relatively civil. Yeah, some here are going to have some fairly reprehensible opinions on things, and some people are going to get snarky in response to these reprehensible opinions, but this is the state of our politics these days. There's lots of fury, emotion, and jerking of knees out there.

    I, personally, believe it's better to address things head on, rather than ignore them. Everyone is, to some extent, stuck in their own ruts of personal opinions, and none of us are likely to change our minds on certain issues. That said, I believe we should all at least make the attempt to engage in discourse, rather than dismiss our opposites as brainwashed and/or too stupid to be convinced otherwise. If we reach the point where we immediately assume those who don't share our opinions are lost causes to be fought against and ultimately cast aside, we've lost something of ourselves. Yeah, there does come a point where you do have to write some people off, but it should take a serious amount of time and evidence to reach that conclusion. It's a stance that should only be reached as a last resort.

    Krush, for all his rabid reactionary isolationism, has shown he's been willing to engage in honest discourse on rare occasion, and does contribute elsewhere on the forum. His stances on things, and his petulant replies to criticism, have earned him some derision, but, to me, hasn't quite risen to the level of banworthy just yet. He's someone you can choose to engage with, or ignore.

    Though, with that said, I also realize that I have a much, much higher tolerance for bullshit than most, and I'm starting to come to the conclusion that being a moderator isn't so much about doing things the way I'd like to have them done, as much as regulating a community based upon its own wants and needs. Krush's tirades have bothered a lot of people here, rightfully so, and it's not my place to say that you should all just debate him, ignore him, but leave him be. I've been assuming for too long that everyone here looks at political discourse through the same lens I do, and only respond when someone makes a rare complaint. Apparently, people are loathe to hit the report button, and I need to be more proactive. Not to the point where I'm banning people for every off color remark, but I need to do more than the previous laissez-faire approach I've been taking.

    I think the best way to do this is not to regulate opinion, but to regulate the quality of discourse in political threads. If you come in posting a bunch of meme-level arguments you picked up off some website with freedom or truth or heritage in the name that told you how Group A are a bunch of subhuman savages, monsters of the worst sort, because IT'S, LIKE, THEIR CULTURE, MAN! RACIALISM FTW! you're gonna get an moderator response. All you're doing is exposing your own mindless biases, showing us all how big of an idiot you are. That's not worthy of discussion, worthy of being entertained, worthy of being on the board. You will get the boot for being an annoying asshole. You're free to feel victimized by the mean SJWs elsewhere.

    But if you at least make the attempt to engage in an honest discussion, and can back up your opinions with verifiable, sane, and arguable facts, you're allowed to say what you want to say, even if it makes people uncomfortable. Just keep in mind that if you're gonna be edgy, and disparage a whole group of people for their race or beliefs, you damn well better hope that the sources you're citing are worthy of being cited.

    I don't want to create an environment where some people are afraid to voice an unpopular opinion for fear of backlash, but I also don't want to create an environment where every political thread devolves into a chaotic verbal fist fight for the sake of FREEDOM, YALL!

    ...and the last thing anyone should do is cop an attitude with another forum member in a thread you've stirred up copious amounts of drama in while I'm actually going out of my way to somewhat defend your position, if not your actions.
    Last edited by Renzatic; 8th Sep 2017 at 15:21.

  21. #96
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2005
    Location: swimming in pickled herring
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    If we reach the point where we immediately assume those who don't share our opinions are lost causes to be fought against and ultimately cast aside, we've lost something of ourselves.
    I don't want to create an environment where some people are afraid to voice an unpopular opinion for fear of backlash
    I support this 100%

    OK Renz, I backed you up as per our PM, now can I have my Alt-troll account "TartDankTant" greenlighted?

  22. #97
    Moderator and Priest
    Registered: Mar 2002
    Location: Dinosaur Ladies of the Night
    I don't see why not!

  23. #98
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2005
    Location: swimming in pickled herring
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    I don't see why not!
    You have entered an invalid username or password. Please enter the correct details and try again. Don't forget that the password is case sensitive.

    I take it back, you are a horrible mod, I nominate PigLick as new mod, cause he would clearly support TartDankTant as per our PM's. Unlike you, he is a man of his word, and a suave and sober fellow.

  24. #99
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Melbourne, Australia
    Just remember that Christian's aren't saints by any sense of the word either on this though. How many millions were slaughtered during the holy crusades of medieval times? All in the aim of securing Jerusalem from those pesky Muslims.

    Far likely to have a much higher death count, then that of current times with Al Qaeda.

  25. #100
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2008
    Location: in your second eyelids
    Yeah, but we desperately need immigrants. Who else will replace Europe? Not the nihilistic-minded europeans.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •