I actually prefer he stays and moderates his behavior to forum norms. He is a smart guy who isn’t devoid of some good points.
2 Likes
I always hated that out and is one of the reasons ive never liked the no insults rules. Hiding an insult in the argument does not make it not an insult.
If I say “I think your argument is bad because of x” that is literally one of the main reasons this place exists.
If I say “Fuck you you shitty scumbag bitch. You are a non-entity person and a complete fraud” that is abusive and shouldn’t be tolerated.
Those things aren’t remotely the same thing right?
I’m also on the record repeatedly in this thread stating that I would not lead the charge for those things, and don’t think it’s appropriate for me to be the one calling for those things given my history with nunnehi. I have said I support containment, and don’t think he should be banned.
Yeah anyone who goes back needs to look at the insults being thrown at nunnehi which are mostly insulting his arguments or what his arguments say about his character. I’ve called him some names related to intelligence level before, and while I won’t say I’m proud of it, given the provocation and back and forth that led up to it, I don’t think it’s that bad. I’ve frequently said I think his heart is in the right place or he’s not a bad person.
Then contrast that with his attacks on myself and others - monsters, goons, grotesque, incapable of empathy, rooting for suffering, etc… They’re horrible character attacks. You’re going to find this pattern with most people he’s argued with. They attack his ideas, challenge him on his record, and at worst attack what his arguments/ideas/record say about his intelligence and ability to prognosticate future events. His attacks are far more personal and character-oriented.
Thing is, most people he does this to do not flag posts for it, because we have thicker skin. He can’t even handle being called wrong.
I would prefer this as well, although I don’t think he’s capable. He has made good contributions in the COVID-19 threads, and when he’s not prognosticating or analyzing political strategy, he can provide value to the forum. But unless he can at least occasionally admit he’s wrong, take an L, or handle criticism, I think he needs to be contained.
Like if he just gave a mea culpa on the whole impeachment/Mueller thing, or admitted in a recent argument that yeah his track record on predicting future political events is pretty shitty and maybe some others are better at that and should be listened to, none of the rest would have led us here.
1 Like
I think if i look up some of the old stuff you went harder then that.
And no that is not what i meant. Replace bad with dumb or dimwitted or your asinine argument type stuff.
Are you really saying you never hit him too?
I get your point but no one ever posts like this. A typical exchange starts more like
“Its hilarious you think that, while you …”
or
“LOLOLOLOL give me a fucking break”
which aren’t exactly abusive but are inflammatory.
This is where I stand. Nunn, there is nothing wrong with taking a L here or there.
2 Likes
I mean if you can’t insult an argument, than what are we even doing here? Let’s take it to an extreme. If someone says that it’s a great idea to give women in detention centers involuntary hysterectomies, can we insult their argument? Can we impugn their character for making such a detestable argument?
If so, then the question is where the line should be, not whether there should be a line.
In the example given you have someone who spent months lecturing us on how Nancy Pelosi and Jerry Nadler were brilliantly strategizing on impeachment over the Mueller Probe, would 100% impeach him, and we were wrong to doubt that. This was argued for months. He argued about how court cases would play out. There are tons of examples, he was wrong each time. Now we get into a new debate over something, he is predicting future events that numerous people tell him are absolutely not going to play out how he predicts, and he is talking down to several posters and saying they need to listen to him because he knows what he’s talking about and they don’t, and the future is uncertain and they cannot predict it accurately, thus his take is correct.
Now if that’s not a time when a track record of wrongness should be thrown in someone’s face, then such a time does not exist. Good ideas and bad ideas must sort themselves out in a free marketplace of ideas. Good and bad track records must sort themselves out.
1 Like
Never said you cant. Only said if someone does to me, i take it as a personal insult sometimes depending on what is said and how it is said.
Are we really going to say you cant hide insults in an argument…
And yet 99% of us can handle this. I mean, I got into a bit of a heated back and forth with suzzer in the COVID thread. I think he’s been wrong a lot on that stuff, and I dunked on him about it. I was pretty sure he wouldn’t take it personally. He dunked on me about something else, I laughed, replied with some kind of a joke, and we moved on. I’m pretty confident he doesn’t think I hate him or dislike me, and I think he’s a great poster even if I think his work in that thread has been subpar. He passes my “would you grab a beer with him” test with flying colors.
To my knowledge there is precisely one poster here who routinely dishes it out, routinely cannot take it, and routinely finds himself in this situation.
Of course you can. Do you think this is remotely comparable to calling someone’s argument dumb?
He hasn’t just done that to me. He takes personal details we share here and uses them to shit on us. Show me where I have done that to him.
What about this to catface:
Or this:
Or the compilation from the last month I already posted. I’m sure it’s fine though.
Well I don’t really know about nun but I’ll look at the evidenc of his gratuitous abuse when you’ve compiled it for us to see.
I mean on the evidence I’ve seen so far nuns only unique crime seems to be against brevity.
2 Likes
Aren’t you literally suggesting that we shouldn’t be allowed?
I mean if someone posted that about ICE giving detainees hysterectomies, they would deserve all the personal insults they got. Some arguments deserve to be insulted, so it’s about where the line is. But if insulting an argument insults a person, that’s sort of unavoidable on a political forum. Most attacks on nunn are at least related to his posts and I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone question his personal morals/character. He routinely does that to numerous others.
While this has been discussed a lot ITT, it’s not even the problem. None of us are bothered enough by it to have brought it up on its own. We’re only bringing it up because we are being accused of bullying him.
Once again, I don’t plan on compiling his insults and abuse. Wichita has already pulled up several examples, though. We’ve already referenced the recent thread in which he called us gross, monsters, grotesque, etc.
So what is your problem with people allegedly attacking him then. Certainly no one has called him a non-entity bitch, grotesque a goon and all the rest. It seems like a bit of a double standard. After all if you don’t like it then just ignore it right? What would he have to say to make you think it wasn’t ok?
You guys enjoy the slap fights. Just admit it.
2 Likes
No i think insults and hiding insults in arguments should both be allowed.
The reason i dont like no insult rules is the insults just hide themselves in arguments.
I do admit it but I am also sick of this shit. You guys are simultaneously telling people to stop engaging with nun while giving nun the green light to say whatever he wants. If you can explain how that makes any sense I will shut the fuck up.
1 Like
OK, I have no problem with that viewpoint although I don’t agree. But then why are you telling us we should leave him alone and not insult his arguments or him?
No one is saying that. He should stop too.