*

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Chaos Undivided

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 30
91
Confidential Confessions / Responses to my apologies
« on: 24 May 2019, 11:46:18 »
Yeah, I'm seriously considering leaving for real. 'Cause if we can't or won't stop being ugly to each other, and the mods can't or won't get us to talk more constructively, what's the point of me being here?

repeatedly throwing the "you meanies who accurately called me out on my shite views and on being Paragon are making me leave! you HAPPY!" guilt-trip attempt and then staying anyway, apparently

dude either put your money where your mouth is or develop a capacity for conversation that isn't emotional manipulation

Look at my posting history. I already have.

also people are talking pretty reasonably to people who aren't you, the problem is you

Well, you're partly right. My conduct wasn't consistently good, as I've admitted. That being said, I was never the only one at fault. You have to acknowledge that part of the problem lies with some of the other users. There are people who, for some goddamn reason, can't or won't engage with me constructively. Not sure if this is something about me specifically or they'd do this to anybody who disagrees with them, but either way, it's a problem.

This doesn't really work because we still remember everything you said in the previous threads. In order to be able to start from a clean slate you'd have to make a new account and pretend to be a different person...

Seriously though, there's only so many times that we can let bygones be bygones and let someone get a fresh start. If you keep doing shady stuff you will eventually be remembered for that and treated as appropriate.

What "shady" stuff have I done? Other than what I've mentioned, of course. I suspect I might know what you're talking about, but I'd just like to make sure.

And while you're here, I'd like to reiterate that I want to talk to you and the other mods about the rules and how they're enforced.

Yeah, I'm seriously considering leaving for real. 'Cause if we can't or won't stop being ugly to each other, and the mods can't or won't get us to talk more constructively, what's the point of me being here?

We?  Nah bro.  Just you.

Ironbite-but do please leave because we're never ever gonna stop holding your paster arguments against you.

Maybe you're not. But that says a hella lot more about you than it does about me.

92
Confidential Confessions / Re: Can we just talk?
« on: 24 May 2019, 11:35:21 »
OK I left this for a while because I was busy. But now things are done, I should address it.

Firstly, your whole premise is that your arguments are so cogent and forceful that we can only dispute them in bad faith by accusing you of being a sock-puppet rather than to engage squarely with your super powerful ideas. That was the whole point of your complaint.

Well, you're partly right. But of course, you had to put your own spin on it to imply I'm an egotist.

I said I haven't argued with you. And to be frank dredging up that comment as your best shot is fucking laughable. Again you have never engaged with my statement about feminism/ fascism. So there's no fucking argument cracker. You can put as much context in it as you want and there is still no argument. There can't be until you have engaged with the idea and you won't because you know you'll look silly(er).

What the fuck are you talking about? I did engage, you fucking liar.

And what makes you think that's a weak example?

One reason you may not have engaged with it then or now, is that it's a pretty fucking moderate statement which is hard to dispute. You talk about good/bad faith but you never try to engage in good faith cracker and only proffer subsequent apologies, usually in a separate thread. Probably with the hope that it is forgotten and you can take the cudgels up much later.

Yes, I do. Maybe not always, but I've generally at least tried to engage in good faith.

This is one of the things that I've noticed the new darlings of the right and the intellectual dark web do. Like Jordan Peterson, challenge norms that have been fucking accepted now. Such as women at work. Then when challenged about it retreat and say that's not what I am saying.

OK, TBH, I think you might be partly right about this. I can believe I've challenged accepted norms. Think I'll check.

So no I don't feel I have to apologise, nor fess up to a lie. The fact that you have tried so hard to characterise it as a lie (which is such a stronger term than a mistake and contrary to Occam's razor) is probably telling about your own good faith.

The fact that you refuse to admit you've had arguments with me, even when shown proof, and shifted the goalposts to "substantive disagreement" just shows that it can't be brushed off as a simple mistake. I can admit that maybe my initial accusation was made out of more anger than reason, but your continued doubling down really didn't help your case.

Also it is entirely clear you are a sock as really who else would give a fuck about our abandoned corner of the interwebs.

...You realize you just implied you're a sock, right?

93
Politics and Government / Theresa May to resign
« on: 24 May 2019, 11:27:19 »
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/24/world/europe/theresa-may-resignation.html

Hope she's properly planned this out. After all, no resignation is better than a bad resignation.

94
The Lounge / Re: The Funny/Stupid Pics Thread
« on: 23 May 2019, 10:24:06 »


This is about what I'd expect from Alabama, but the way this is worded made me laugh.

95
Confidential Confessions / Re: Can we just talk?
« on: 21 May 2019, 22:00:09 »
Except I've never made any bones of what I am. Whereas you calculatedly conceal your real loyalties, and everyone can see it. I am amoral, and I've never pretended to be anything but. You on the other hand, along with other "secret" altright / "classical liberals" love to cloak yourselves in acceptability and try to seem like anything but what you really are.

That's a bold claim. Why don't you let me examine your evidence?

And that is far less of an argument about Sargon and Shapiro when Andrew Anglin endorsed Sargon, and explicitly called him a gateway to the alt-right, with numerous other gross little creatures voicing similar opinions, and a number of people testified that they fell into the alt-right, wouldn't you know it, starting via Shapiro and Sargon's youtube videos.

Yes, and I'm sure a number of people started with weed before moving on to something more serious, like meth or heroin. Does that mean anybody who smokes marijuana will start using harder drugs? No. Hell, it doesn't necessarily mean they wouldn't have used hard drugs if they hadn't smoked pot.

And have you considered the possibility that these alt-right figures were lying in an attempt at accelerationism (for lack of a better word)? There are plenty of alt-righters who've admitted they want to increase tensions, if not outright start a conflict. Not necessarily saying they were, just that it's a possibility given what we know about the alt-right.

You were the one who first linked to the Kiwifarms wiki. That's on you. Don't try and deflect it on Skybison.

Oh, so now I just linked to the wiki! Well, that's not what you claimed I did earlier:

He quite openly referenced a Kiwifarms trans conspiracy theory, didn't see anything wrong with it for the longest time, and only retracted when it was brought to the forum's attention much later.

Ref?



Thank you

Not liking the movie is a problem issue because you kept trying to shift the discussion to "is there not a good reason to dislike it?" When the discussion topic was about the various alt-right trolls and agents bombarding the flick with negativity.

No, the discussion topic was about Russian bots allegedly stirring up hatred against TLJ. I did some digging and proved that the narrative was based on a very flawed study and said study's conclusions were greatly exaggerated. And you're the one who shifted the discussion to whether there were good reasons to dislike it with this:

The backlash primarily came from literal human garbage that has no business in prominence.

But then, we've dealt with guys who carry water for salty, bigoted nerdwads before.

Why don't you join dave in the liars' corner? Then again, I should've expected dishonesty from a sociopath.

And wouldn't you look at THAT - the website you trust and linked to was, on a little trip to Rationalwiki, easily proven to be a libertarian rag. They've hosted holocaust deniers, reconstructionists like Gary North, and supporters of Apartheid. Not exactly a reasonable website. They deny climate change, and have quite a loathsome crowd of readers. Ergo, they have quite a vested interest in protecting the esteem of a right wing indoctrination center like Covington Catholic. It honestly wouldn't surprise me if that school made being a Democrat an expellable offense.

Giving someone a platform isn't endorsing their views. MSNBC had Pat Buchanan on its payroll for years. You know, the same "paleoconservative" asshole left-wingers and right-wingers alike have repeatedly denounced as an anti-Semite? Should we say MSNBC hates Jews as much as he does? And why would a climate-change denying outlet publish an article like this?

No doubt Reason has its biases. I'd be (pleasantly) surprised if they didn't. But so does Rational Wiki and just about every other publisher (for want of a better term). Rejecting everything Reason says just because of its biases is downright fallacious.

Even if your characterization of Reason is right, that doesn't mean the article is wrong. Have you watched the full video?

David Hogg never tried to intimidate a Native American veteran and has been nothing but peaceful, while that vile little cretin has gone about suing just about everyone who published a nonflattering account of his aggressive actions. Sounds like he'll be a new Trump in a few years.

Neither did Sandmann. Smiling at somebody beating a drum in your face is not "trying to intimidate" them. And he's suing them for defamation. Was it wrong for Richard Jewell to sue the outlets that almost ruined his life over something he never did?

Since we're on the topic, I have a direct question. Were the death threats Sandmann received wrong?

Also, can I talk to the mods? Publicly?

one more for the paragon pile: that same "chop up my opponent's post and respond to each section individually" style. one, maybe two, paragon bells can be chalked up to coincidence but at this point, nah

In fairness, that's how I reply to a lot of posts.

Wait, am I Paragon?


Nah, I'd say the real Paragon was the friends we made along the way.

96
Confidential Confessions / Re: Can we just talk?
« on: 21 May 2019, 00:53:53 »
Why don't you answer the question? What part of what I said do you disagree with?

But yes I do think you're a sock that's what I keep saying. However I don't think you're a sock because your stated position is otherwise intellectually unassailable. I mean you are talking about good faith and bad faith but you can't answer a simple direct question?

And just to be clear the last time I agreed with you was the Weinstein Lawyer hoojah.

C'mon cracker, answer the question.

Alright, I guess I can be the bigger person.

The reason I refused to answer the question was because I knew you weren't being honest with me. You were asking because, out of context, it looked like a statement we agreed on. However, in context, your statement reflected a difference in opinion about violence and ideology, something I made clear in my original reply to this. You were trying to strip this context away to make it look like I was making shit up.

Whether this disagreement was substantive is subjective, and also irrelevant, since you claimed you'd never argued with me and didn't give a qualifier until later. So you lied whether this disagreement was substantive or not. Now fess up.

I'd like to point out this all fits with the profile of someone trying to put his actions and opinions within a "new acceptable". He quite openly referenced a Kiwifarms trans conspiracy theory, didn't see anything wrong with it for the longest time, and only retracted when it was brought to the forum's attention much later.

No, Skybison was the one who brought it up. Twice. And I made it clear that I was skeptical of the theory from the beginning.

He made reference to the 4Chan NPC meme...https://forums.fstdt.net/index.php?topic=8169.msg323798#msg323798 and defending Ben Shapiro and others who are part of the "alt-lite" who basically function to funnel people to the alt-right. It does not matter if people like Sargon or Shapiro have a supposedly antagonistic relationship with the alt-right - they're doing their part to send people to the alt-right by desensitizing them to alt-right ideas.

First, way to ignore the context. This is what I said:

It's easy to dismiss people you disagree with by lumping them in with some box of undesirables, but it's also profoundly lazy and dishonest. And more important, it doesn't refute them. I could call you an SJW NPC until the day I died, but what would that accomplish?

I was explicitly rejecting calling people NPCs. The statement proves nothing except an awareness of the NPC meme. Since you made a thread calling Jacob an "ugly cuck", this is a pretty big case of throwing stones from a glass house.

And there are plenty of people who follow Shapiro, Sargon or both without going alt-right. Saying they "function to funnel people to the alt-right" is a gross exaggeration at best. You remind me of the assholes who say supporting a minimum wage increase is a gateway to communism.

He covered for the people who disliked The Last Jedi by insisting we find if there's a legitimate reason to dislike it, when what was being discussed was the alt-right using that as their latest cause de jure.

Why is not liking a movie a problem? Why does the alt-right disliking it mean it's not kosher to dislike it? Or do you really think the movie was entitled to positive reception?

He repeatedly brings up the drag kid as if that's a creeping issue becoming more widespread and a couple times insinuates the religious right would have a point if they talked about that - thus shifting the discussion (again).

Oh, you mean this?

Quote
Thank you for understanding what I was saying. 

I was saying this boy’s abuse is born out of and a continuation of the “sexual revolution" and, more specifically, its child the “homosexual rights" movement.  This child’s abuse is achieving all of the political and social aims of those movement and will be defended along the same lines as those other movements.

Seems like even when authoritarian trad douches complain about things worth complaining about, they just can't resist getting cracks in at their favorite punching bags.

Yeah, pretty different from what you were saying I said.

He makes a few token left-seeming posts, but by and large his posts are directed to either covering for or defending bad actors.

He stepped in for Sandmann and that school of Trump Supporters - alleging this portrayal only existed due to journalist bias. Or as his intellectual cohorts would call it "FAKE NEWS!!!11!!"

So not liking teenagers getting death threats is wrong now? Is that what you're saying? Should I be OK with David Hogg getting death threats from conspiracy theorists?

What do you have against them, anyway? It's been long proven that the initial reporting about what happened was untrue. So why the hateboner for these kids?

With just about every component of your little rant debunked, I can safely say your judgment is severely flawed. Even ignoring the fact that your opinions on morality hold about as much weight as a deaf person's opinions on music, you've completely misinterpreted what I've said multiple times. Why don't you go do something more productive? Like try and prove it's totally possible to divide by zero?

By the way, mods, where you at? I wanna talk to you openly.

97
Confidential Confessions / Re: Can we just talk?
« on: 20 May 2019, 02:10:53 »
Really you get all of that out of this? Fuck you're better than I thought.

Seriously though this would appear to be completely in accord with 'I don't give much of a fuck about you, occasionally I even agree with you.' The example of that is more recent.

No seriously though what part of the quote do you substantively disagree with?

Why are you asking this? It's clear from the context that you posted that because you favored niam's position over mine, and when I asked him to show examples of me being a "bloviating centrist", you responded by insinuating I was a sock. So just admit you lied and stop trying to fudge the issue.

98
Confidential Confessions / Re: Can we just talk?
« on: 19 May 2019, 18:39:00 »
No I was just wondering whether that was your best example of us disagreeing on substantive issues?

*sigh*

You know, if you'd acknowledged what you said was wrong and apologized when I proved it, I'd probably have let this slide. I might've also been willing to accept an explanation that you'd just forgotten. But your constant grasping at straws to avoid admitting you fucked up mean I can only assume you're not just a liar, but a liar without the good sense to know when he should give up and save at least some face.

So what other bullshit have you been spewing? And when are you going to address my concerns about bad faith allegations?

99
Confidential Confessions / Re: Can we just talk?
« on: 19 May 2019, 18:11:26 »
Ok so what part of:

"Quakers are a good example. While you may have some violent quakers, violence is not part of their ideology.  The same is true with feminists. There is nothing inherently violent about their ideology. The same cannot be said about Nazis or fascists, whose ideology is inherently violent.

Also my impression was that innuendo studios was talking about the prevalence of violence as a response on the basis that Nazis are much more likely to respond violently than feminists. The fact you are going back 50 years to the attempted murder of Andy Warhol, whereas 50 people were shot (and killed) a few weeks ago by a fascist, indicate the relative threat levels."

Do you disagree with cracker.

Quit trying to shift the discussion. I quoted that to prove that you have disagreed with me on substantive issues, and therefore this defense:

I haven't been having any arguments with you cracker. So that kind of does away with my motivation.

was based on a lie. The longer you delay addressing the fact that you lied, the worse it makes you look.

100
Confidential Confessions / Re: Can we just talk?
« on: 19 May 2019, 17:54:57 »
No cracker, you're point was that I disagreed with your substantive points and that accusing you of a sockpuppet is a cheap and dirty way of winning the argument without coming to grips with your substantive contention as in:"I can only assume you're just saying I'm a sock to try and discredit my arguments"

The examples you raise are me suggesting that you are a reincarnation, or a sockpuppet. Even your characterisation is that I 'repeatedly butted into disputes just to accuse me of being a sock' - which is not having an argument about the point.

So no lie. Not even dishonest. I am not about to play your stupid, liar liar pants on fire game, but I would suggest that wasn't a very honest position you just took. I have suggested that you are a sockpuppet. Because you are.

Most of the time I don't give a fuck about what you say, and occasionally I agree with you, not often. But that's mainly because you suck. Whereas I am fucking awesome.

Edited: Because English. Do I even speak it.

Second Edit: Also why don't you think Lana Reverse (which is kind of the most obvious one) was proven to be the same person.

Oh, now you're just saying you didn't dispute my substantive points. Not only does that contradict what you said earlier:

I haven't been having any arguments with you cracker. So that kind of does away with my motivation. My point is that it was so thinly veiled a disguise even a guy who creams himself at the thought of tight jeans spotted you.

Edit: Also which was the incarnation which wasn't proven to be the others?

It's also blatantly untrue:

Quakers are a good example. While you may have some violent quakers, violence is not part of their ideology.  The same is true with feminists. There is nothing inherently violent about their ideology. The same cannot be said about Nazis or fascists, whose ideology is inherently violent.

Also my impression was that innuendo studios was talking about the prevalence of violence as a response on the basis that Nazis are much more likely to respond violently than feminists. The fact you are going back 50 years to the attempted murder of Andy Warhol, whereas 50 people were shot (and killed) a few weeks ago by a fascist, indicate the relative threat levels.

Later that same thread:

Really? Where have I done that? Show me.

Can he show you using your previous user names?

Stop lying to me. I'm not as dumb as you want me to be.

And if it were certain they were the same person, pretty sure Sigma would've said so. AFAIK, she hasn't.

Hey serious and direct question then.  No bullshit whatsoever.

Ironbite-who the fuck are you anyways?

A center-left transport inspector who lives in a major American city. You want more, you can glean it from other posts I've made, because that's all I'm giving you.

Follow-up question: why do you even care, anyway? Isn't what I do more important than who I am behind the screen?

Are you sure you're not a biracial, bisexual female surgical registrar?

Now you're deflecting from the fact that I caught you in a lie.

101
Confidential Confessions / Re: Can we just talk?
« on: 19 May 2019, 15:51:08 »
"To say the right thing. To act the right way. Some already are in ways big and small. But some is not enough."

What is so horrible in this sentence that you've still got your panties in a twist?

What "gets my panties in a twist" is that it says only "some" men (i.e. less than a majority) are doing the right thing. This implies that most men are violent, sexually harassing bullies. Hence the Lord Dampnut comparison; he said that only "some" immigrants from Mexico are good people.

Also, can we please have a conversation about the rules and how they're enforced? That's part of why I started this thread, after all.

102
Confidential Confessions / Some apologies
« on: 19 May 2019, 15:15:35 »
After some arguments and thought, I have a couple things I'd like to apologize for.

First, the Kiwi Farms stuff. I maintain that I wasn't engaging in transphobia when I talked about the allegations of Brianna Wu lying about her gender identity. But I can acknowledge now that my attempted defense of Kiwi Farms was inappropriate. For that, I apologize.

While I'm here, I'd also like to apologize for my spurious accusations of racism against niam, hunter and dave. I shouldn't have jumped to the worst possible interpretation of them calling Noir "the NRA's black friend". That was very ungenerous and lazy of me.

Felt like I should get this off my chest so I don't leave without addressing what I've done. Yeah, I'm seriously considering leaving for real. 'Cause if we can't or won't stop being ugly to each other, and the mods can't or won't get us to talk more constructively, what's the point of me being here?

103
Confidential Confessions / Re: Can we just talk?
« on: 19 May 2019, 15:11:55 »
What's supposed to be so damning about that quote?

Because I still see nothing horrible in it.

OK, who are you talking to and what quote are you talking about?

104
Confidential Confessions / Re: Can we just talk?
« on: 19 May 2019, 13:58:41 »
ahh, demanding examples of behaviour that he already quoted before and wilfully misinterpreting statements to the point of wild false equivalency. in some way, I missed this

not enough to do that whole song and dance again, though. I did my time with you, dude, I'm not interested in banging my head against that brick wall again

Then stop these accusations. Who the fuck are you, anyway?

105
Flame & Burn / Re: Kiwifarms isn't transphobic
« on: 19 May 2019, 13:46:00 »
Really Chaos.  Kiwifarms isn't transphobic.  Kiwifarms.  The website that's sign up page says "autistics will be laughed at. Trannies will be misgendered. People will try to find where you live."  The website famous for doxxing, smearing and cyberbullying trans people, autistic people, the mentally ill, fat people, feminists etc.  The website run by an anti-semite who thinks that refugees should be killed to stop white genocide.  This isn't a hate site.  This is a legitimate source of information.  Just really.

FucK you asshole.

...OK, yeah, that was wrong of me. I shouldn't have tried to say Kiwi Farms wasn't transphobic, no matter how defensive I was feeling. Now that I've cooled off a bit, I can admit it. Sorry about that.

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 30