This is all coming down to fucking semantics. Draft should have been a draft of worst politicians. Who can argue with that. But it was guillotine draft.
Ugh it should have been fun, but semantics ruined it.
1 Like
and yes it shouldn’t have been a guillotine draft
it should have been a worst people in politics draft
1 Like
My thing is that if this semantic point hasn’t been hammered out after four (?) threads and is a big catalyst of this kerfuffle, my mind is gonna be blown.
2 Likes
How are we so fucking bad worst politician draft vs guillotine draft is causing this. God damn it.
3 Likes
lol
It’s DodgerIrish’s fault obv:
His posting didn’t seem that much worse than when people start talking about guillotines, tbh.
Most of it seemed like stuff you’d hear on Chapo.
8th post in the NBZ thread
I’m not pro guns, I’m for a significant amount of gun control and very rarely advocate for others to buy guns. In extreme cases it makes sense. That thread was an extreme case. My general stance is to allow shotguns and bolt action hunting rifles and ban semi-automatic weapons, while allowing for a very narrow program for concealed carry with extensive background checks and training.
If you can’t see a difference between being okay with a milkshake dumped on someone’s head and like actual violence, I don’t know what to tell you. Being okay with milkshaking is not being pro violence by any definition used in rational society.
Meanwhile you somehow take issue with me and others calling Trump and the cabinet officials literally responsible for separating families and inflicting suffering upon women and children monsters, because you think we should have empathy for the Trump administration people, but you have a problem with me being ok with a protester milkshaking the people inflicting suffering? God forbid a rich dude making children suffer gets his shirt stained.
As for your comment about micro, he’s a good poster, but like it’s pretty easy not to piss anyone off on this subject matter when your position is that it’s cool if we just say anything goes. No kidding nobody is pissed about micros posting on this: he hasn’t posted anything that people who agree with me find reprehensible as far as I know, and he doesn’t have a problem with a no holds barred approach to the discourse here, so the people who want to use violent rhetoric are not arguing with him either. It’s easy not to piss people off by being Switzerland. And that’s not intended as a shot at micro, he’s following what he’s comfortable reading and associating with and he hasn’t made any bad posts as far as I know.
I still find it amusing that I’m the one being blamed for people leaving when a) I’m not the only reg who has expressed a big issue with this/NBZ/etc and who may leave over it, probably 4-5 of the 10-12 best/highest volume posters are not cool with it and jman is probably gone already over it, and he was for sure in that top 10-12 over the last few years if not on the new site and b) we’ve had posts on this site fantasizing about ways the president could get killed by the secret service, contemplating the merits of using ethnic cleansing rhetoric toward right wingers, and suggesting that another 9/11 wouldn’t be a bad thing.
But somehow I’m the problem for speaking out passionately and angrily about that stuff. For fucks sake, read that back again.
We’ve had posts on this site fantasizing about ways the president could get killed by the secret service, contemplating the merits of using ethnic cleansing rhetoric toward right wingers, and suggesting that another 9/11 wouldn’t be a bad thing.
God you are dramatic it’s like 3am go to bed
2 Likes
Can’t wait to find out why there are another 144 new posts since yesterday.
Are you really both-sidesing actual fucking Nazis killing people with a silly thread?
2 Likes
You have it backwards. Milkshaking someone is infinitely more violent than a guillotines thread.
8 Likes
I’m going to attempt to make a positive suggestion here to you. If you want to make your position intelligible, you need to clarify what kind of violence y/o talk of violence, in what particular circumstances, you object to.
- You are a self-identified US liberal. That makes you a pro-capitalist. Rent, the wage system, loans at interest (aka capitalism) require institutional and systematic and constant applications of violence to continue existing. It’s patently absurd you to claim you are against violence… flat out.
1a. Some questions: what are your opinions regarding cops using violence to do evictions? How about people advocating that the cops continue using violence while doing evictions? What about somebody saying, in apparent seriousness, that absentee landlords who order up violent evictions should suffer the same? What about someone, in an obvious joke, saying that such landlords should be evicted? Also, above ITT you made a claim that violence is generally against whatever your internal morality might happen to be. How consistent is this internal morality you speak of… does it reject violence by absentee landlords equally with the other examples of violence it rejects?
I’m going to suggest that when you use the term “violence”, you aren’t talking about violence, in general, at all. It seems that what you are talking about would better be described as…
“extra-legal and direct physical harm to people”.
My suggestion is that you start to explicitly use such a qualification when discussing your concerns, and going forward stop describing your concerns as generically regarding ‘violence’, which implies all and every one of it’s various forms and manifestations.
2,3. ITT you claimed have directly claimed that you have no problem seeing certain things outlawing, or advocating that certain things be outlawed. Once again, such laws are only enforced with institutional, systematic, and constant applications of violence. It’s patently absurd you to claim you are against violence… flat out.
- In English, the word ‘violence’ includes breaking things, along with harming beings.
7 Likes
The only intellectually consistent way to ask that your poker politics forum not have a thread about decapitating public figures is to renounce capitalism and embrace anarcho-socialism.
2 Likes
LOL no. That’s gotta be about the funniest thing I’ve heard today. How about this…
Since only a particular subset of violence is under discussion here ITT, let’s not muddy the subject by using the generic term.
Like… Let’s assume football and badminton are sports. Football has significant CTE issues. Badminton does not. OK? If I wanna talk about CTE issues only in football…
I’m much better served by saying “Football needs to be changed because of the CTE issues” -vs- saying “Sports needs to be changed because of the CTE issues”. The reason being is that if I say the more generic term “sports” here, is that other peeps are going to muddy the waters by jumping in and talking about badminton.
Got it?
2 Likes
I think Johnny said the thread was a bad idea and had intellectually consistent reasons without renouncing or embracing capitalism or anarcho-socialism.
CUT!
1 Like
I don’t think consistency is the issue. Does anybody actually believe that a joke Guillotine thread, that any poster can ignore, makes it impossible for people to post here bc of their jobs and somehow all the other stuff on nvg or bbv4l was fine? Manipulation was the word somebody else used to describe this behavior and it seems to fit. Just making up reasons to back up a predetermined view. Doesn’t matter if it makes sense.
3 Likes
No, you’re misreading my post.
I don’t consider milkshaking someone to be violent.
I’m speaking of violence in the terms the average person would speak of violence in if you asked them what was violent. I’m talking about physical harm to others.
I am in favor of capitalism with a strong safety net and strong guardrails.
I don’t consider a properly conducted, lawful eviction to be violent.
This is more or less fine, and it’s how the average person uses the word in conversation. Extra-legal is tricky because I obviously have a problem with cops beating people up or killing unarmed black people, but they routinely legally get away with it even though it’s technically against the law.
Not in conversational American English.
And I think this hits at that heart of a lot of this. The position taken is not flush with others on its face but also drastically inconsistent.
Dumping liquids on people is streets ahead of any intermingle forum rhetoric. One is a physical act of aggression the other is not.
Ranking physical acts of aggression behind violent rhetoric (or in many cases not violent rhetoric) makes no cognitive sense. Then we have to extrapolate this mine field for every single user to find out where all the lines on and what REALLY can’t be crossed.
I know some people think these incidences create a very obvious line in the sand. I am here to say they do not anc they do not come close.
There are tools that allow content to be blocked and hidden to help with these individual processes. However when it comes to a blanket “I can not be associated with any of this” there is only one good, albeit horribly unfortunate and disheartening, solution.
2 Likes
You are conflating their reason for leaving with what you are discussing imo. Those are not the same things.
In my experience, there are two cuses. The one we mostly have today, and the nunnehi 2.0 we got last night.
This is a worthy subject, man. And for all everyone’s complaints ITT, I’m glad you brought it up. This is a good discussion.
Having said that, there are times you make a dialogue with you seemingly impossible in situations where a productive dialogue could easily have contributed to what you hope to achieve.
I’m not the sort who thinks you should always be civil. So these are just my experiences. Who knows? Maybe your topic and the way you brought it up in hindsight will be seen as what was needed.