More childish leftism
-
Blindly following me around the forums downvoting/angry facing all of my posts, regardless of content/subject, isn't speech.
If he grows some balls and engages in actual speech, then we wouldn't be here.
We could view his recent targetting of you and me as spam, considering how it's extremely clear that he didn't take the time to know what he was downvoting and angry facing.
-
Blindly following me around the forums downvoting/angry facing all of my posts, regardless of content/subject, isn't speech.
People are entitled to their feelings and can express them however they like, apart from violence or enticement thereof.
That's freedom of speech and expression.If he grows some balls and engages in actual speech, then we wouldn't be here.
Hear, hear!
We could view his recent targetting of you and me as spam, considering how it's extremely clear that he didn't take the time to know what he was downvoting and angry facing.
Really! And you're going to tell me that's not censorship!?
You're going to find any loophole to get him blocked, aren't you?
Notice you said: "we could view his recent targetting of you and me as spam". Not subjective at all.I personally do not care if he's downvoting me, my purpose here is not to be liked
-
I'm not trying to find a loophole to block or mute him. If that was my intent then I could have done it 3 years ago.
-
I have a theory about it.
When people's beliefs are based on simple emotions like fear and gratification.
Then when you question those beliefs they can only respond with emotion instead of thinking.
So you see childish behavior and there is no way to convince that person. -
Most leftist don't have the ability to discuss things, at least not in a rational way. I have zero respect for these people.
I love discussion and respect those that engage in it.
-
I have a theory about it.
When people's beliefs are based on simple emotions like fear and gratification.
Then when you question those beliefs they can only respond with emotion instead of thinking.
So you see childish behavior and there is no way to convince that person.So true!!
I have zero respect for these people.
You sound like Ana Kasparian when she ranted about women who voted for Trump!
Not a good look… -
Ana doesn't like non-leftist, no matter what.
I don't like leftists that refuse to have a proper discussion. Not quite the same.
If you (generic) can't defend your beliefs in a proper manner, then I have no respect for you.
If you forget about the violence part, then my little bitch stalker is just like the bike lock professor. Neither will have a discussion, they just react to shut up any descent.
-
Ana doesn't like non-leftist, no matter what.
Not sure.
What do you think she'd say about libertarians (or others) who voted for Hillary?I don't like leftists that refuse to have a proper discussion. Not quite the same.
If you (generic) can't defend your beliefs in a proper manner, then I have no respect for you.Who gets to define "proper manner"? You?
As long as violence or infringement on free speech aren't involved, I don't care. People can react however they like.If you forget about the violence part, then my little bitch stalker is just like the bike lock professor. Neither will have a discussion, they just react to shut up any descent.
They are not even remotely close!!!
-
Ana doesn't like non-leftist, no matter what.
Not sure.
What do you think she'd say about libertarians (or others) who voted for Hillary?That people have a right to "burn" their vote in effigy however they please?
I don't like leftists that refuse to have a proper discussion. Not quite the same.
If you (generic) can't defend your beliefs in a proper manner, then I have no respect for you.Who gets to define "proper manner"? You?
As long as violence or infringement on free speech aren't involved, I don't care. People can react however they like.
As a "Mod", yeah he has pretty much that power, however you will note he has not "banned" the individual in question. I think the point Raph is trying to make is that using the upvote/downvote system as a sort of cyber vandalism is not free speech. Much like the bands of thugs who over turn cars and set things on fire during a protest it contributes nothing to a conversation.If you forget about the violence part, then my little bitch stalker is just like the bike lock professor. Neither will have a discussion, they just react to shut up any descent.
They are not even remotely close!!!
When said party pretty much just relents, and instead of continuing a debate backed with fact and an opposing argument in favor of a blanket statement flatly denouncing his/her opponent without ever presenting a cohesive opposing argument then yes, it is the equivalent of saying shut up, the party in question has on more than one occasion done exactly that.
In short, the up vote/down vote function really never had a place in a debate forum as debate is not a popularity contest, rather a place to present ideals and promote open discussion. Whether one opinion rises or falls over another's opinion should be based on presentation and fact, not some little red thumb in the corner of the page. Furthermore, certainly not as a tool to stalk someone in an attempt to do some perceived damage to his/her reputation out of frustration that you bit off more than you could chew.
-
As a "Mod", yeah he has pretty much that power, however you will note he has not "banned" the individual in question. I think the point Raph is trying to make is that using the upvote/downvote system as a sort of cyber vandalism is not free speech. Much like the bands of thugs who over turn cars and set things on fire during a protest it contributes nothing to a conversation.
Cyber vandalism is another term for defacement. That's not what's happening here?
Did you mean abuse of the upvote/downvote system. If so are you sure you are able to contribute to the conversation when you're conflating that with the destruction of other people's property?
Just like when social justice warriors say freedom of speech means death for minorities because feelings… and offence... and stereotypes... and death. You fill in the gaps!When said party pretty much just relents, and instead of continuing a debate backed with fact and an opposing argument in favor of a blanket statement flatly denouncing his/her opponent without ever presenting a cohesive opposing argument then yes, it is the equivalent of saying shut up, the party in question has on more than one occasion done exactly that.
Freedom of speech and expression is also the freedom to express yourself the way you want (or not to express yourself). So if they want to downvote, so be it.
Personally I think it's cowardly and stupid but not everyone has the capacity to express themselves in a clear and coherent way.In short, the up vote/down vote function really never had a place in a debate forum as debate is not a popularity contest, rather a place to present ideals and promote open discussion. Whether one opinion rises or falls over another's opinion should be based on presentation and fact, not some little red thumb in the corner of the page. Furthermore, certainly not as a tool to stalk someone in an attempt to do some perceived damage to his/her reputation out of frustration that you bit off more than you could chew.
So what will it be? Banning the "stalker", the downvote part of the system or the system altogether?
Also allow me to remind you where you are: this is a gay porn torrent website where people can talk about men and their body parts, jokes or films. This is NOT the US Supreme Court's blog. So this is why the voting system is in place. -
As a "Mod", yeah he has pretty much that power, however you will note he has not "banned" the individual in question. I think the point Raph is trying to make is that using the upvote/downvote system as a sort of cyber vandalism is not free speech. Much like the bands of thugs who over turn cars and set things on fire during a protest it contributes nothing to a conversation.
Cyber vandalism is another term for defacement. That's not what's happening here?
Did you mean abuse of the upvote/downvote system. If so are you sure you are able to contribute to the conversation when you're conflating that with the destruction of other people's property?
Just like when social justice warriors say freedom of speech means death for minorities because feelings… and offence... and stereotypes... and death. You fill in the gaps!LOL Okay, perhaps flaming over turned cars was an extreme example, but to follow someone out of "Politics and Debate" all over every area of the forum down voting and mad facing everything they write is exactly that, a form of vandalism. You are attempting to deface that party via what ever means available.
When said party pretty much just relents, and instead of continuing a debate backed with fact and an opposing argument in favor of a blanket statement flatly denouncing his/her opponent without ever presenting a cohesive opposing argument then yes, it is the equivalent of saying shut up, the party in question has on more than one occasion done exactly that.
Freedom of speech and expression is also the freedom to express yourself the way you want (or not to express yourself). So if they want to downvote, so be it.
Personally I think it's cowardly and stupid but not everyone has the capacity to express themselves in a clear and coherent way.Again, you are entitled to your opinion. My opinion is that up/down votes really never should have been part of this particular area of the forum.
In short, the up vote/down vote function really never had a place in a debate forum as debate is not a popularity contest, rather a place to present ideals and promote open discussion. Whether one opinion rises or falls over another's opinion should be based on presentation and fact, not some little red thumb in the corner of the page. Furthermore, certainly not as a tool to stalk someone in an attempt to do some perceived damage to his/her reputation out of frustration that you bit off more than you could chew.
So what will it be? Banning the "stalker", the downvote part of the system or the system altogether?
Also allow me to remind you where you are: this is a gay porn torrent website where people can talk about men and their body parts, jokes or films. This is NOT the US Supreme Court's blog. So this is why the voting system is in place.LOL as you pointed out this is a porn sharing site, not the Supreme Court's blog, this SECTION of the forum is for members who wish to discuss/debate current affairs. Obviously Raph has chosen not to ban the stalker, rather it is pretty obvious at least to me he is trying to bait him into a battle of wits. If this were an old movie these two would wind up fucking for sure. ;D THAT is conjecture on my part of course. As for the banning - if it were going to happen I suspect it would already have been done - as a Mod he has that authority. The little red thumb? Also his call. Personally I won't miss it.
-
LOL Okay, perhaps flaming over turned cars was an extreme example, but to follow someone out of "Politics and Debate" all over every area of the forum down voting and mad facing everything they write is exactly that, a form of vandalism. You are attempting to deface that party via what ever means available.
Once again I don't condone the "stalker's" behaviour. All I'm saying is your conclusion is far-fetched!
Again, you are entitled to your opinion. My opinion is that up/down votes really never should have been part of this particular area of the forum.
I don't necessarily agree with you here but I can begrudgingly accept they remove the system for that part of the forum…
Also you said this earlier:
@Gianni89:In short, the up vote/down vote function really never had a place in a debate forum as debate is not a popularity contest,
In theory you're right and I wish it were still the case but the public debate has become more or less a popularity contest. Were you sleeping during the 2016 presidential race!?
**_LOL as you pointed out this is a porn sharing site, not the Supreme Court's blog, this SECTION of the forum is for members who wish to discuss/debate current affairs. Obviously Raph has chosen not to ban the stalker, rather it is pretty obvious at least to me he is trying to bait him into a battle of wits.
Calling people names is baiting him into a "battle of wits" to you!? Not sure if we've got the same meaning of the term.
If this were an old movie these two would wind up fucking for sure. ;D THAT is conjecture on my part of course.
Conjecture, perhaps. Unlikely, maybe not. Who knows. ;D
A very hackneyed ending though.As for the banning - if it were going to happen I suspect it would already have been done - as a Mod he has that authority. The little red thumb? Also his call. Personally I won't miss it.
I know he has the authority, my problem is the matter is up for debate.
But I have an idea, instead of getting rid of the system what about not linking the votes to the reputation? At least for this section of the forum.
I'd be totally on board with that!_** -
LOL Okay, perhaps flaming over turned cars was an extreme example, but to follow someone out of "Politics and Debate" all over every area of the forum down voting and mad facing everything they write is exactly that, a form of vandalism. You are attempting to deface that party via what ever means available.
Once again I don't condone the "stalker's" behaviour. All I'm saying is your conclusion is far-fetched!
Again, you are entitled to your opinion. My opinion is that up/down votes really never should have been part of this particular area of the forum.
I don't necessarily agree with you here but I can begrudgingly accept they remove the system for that part of the forum…
Also you said this earlier:
@Gianni89:In short, the up vote/down vote function really never had a place in a debate forum as debate is not a popularity contest,
In theory you're right and I wish it were still the case but the public debate has become more or less a popularity contest. Were you sleeping during the 2016 presidential race!?
**_LOL as you pointed out this is a porn sharing site, not the Supreme Court's blog, this SECTION of the forum is for members who wish to discuss/debate current affairs. Obviously Raph has chosen not to ban the stalker, rather it is pretty obvious at least to me he is trying to bait him into a battle of wits.
Calling people names is baiting him into a "battle of wits" to you!? Not sure if we've got the same meaning of the term.
If this were an old movie these two would wind up fucking for sure. ;D THAT is conjecture on my part of course.
Conjecture, perhaps. Unlikely, maybe not. Who knows. ;D
A very hackneyed ending though.As for the banning - if it were going to happen I suspect it would already have been done - as a Mod he has that authority. The little red thumb? Also his call. Personally I won't miss it.
I know he has the authority, my problem is the matter is up for debate.
But I have an idea, instead of getting rid of the system what about not linking the votes to the reputation? At least for this section of the forum.
I'd be totally on board with that!I am not sure if you can set features by section I suppose it must be possible, however that still leaves him only one option in dealing with his would be nemesis. I don't think you can remove the option by user. De-linking it to reputation would seem to sort of disable the reputation "feature" all together. The obvious "grown up" answer to this is that said party historically known as "wafflez" just quit behaving like a 14 year old school girl. <–- NOTE: Nothing sexist in that comment, if you know any ACTUAL 14 year old girls you know that is a statement of relevant fact. I have a little sister, I have seen first hand.
The mere fact I felt compelled to add that last part. :-X_**
-
Disabling it by section would be better otherwise it'd kill the reputation feature as you said.
The obvious "grown up" answer to this is that said party historically known as "wafflez" just quit behaving like a 14 year old school girl.
Well, in a perfect world you also wouldn't need keys, alarms, passwords or the police. Unfortunately some people will abuse their freedoms.
<–- NOTE: Nothing sexist in that comment, if you know any ACTUAL 14 year old girls you know that is a statement of relevant fact. I have a little sister, I have seen first hand.
The mere fact I felt compelled to add that last part. :-X
Don't get me started, please
-
Post owner could be able to respond by neutralizing incoming smiles into something like below.
So there is a simple way to respond to that behavior in the right spirit :).
-
If my stalker has the right to stalk me and down vote/angry face all of my posts, regardless of content, then I have the right to call him a brain dead, dickless, loser.
As I said before, if I was looking for an excuse to ban him, I could have done that back in 2015 and pretty much any day since.
-
Did I say you didn't have the right to call him names?
I meant you can't call someone names and then expect them to turn up for a debate!!
I also meant both behaviour are childish. What happened to being the bigger person!?But raphjd, you didn't answer the question: is there a way to un-link the upvote/downvote system from the reputation feature for this section of the forum?
I think it'd be a happy medium: it's not censorious and somebody's reputation can't be abused. -
The forum software isn't very user friendly on the admin side. The stuff it built in and not a plug in.
For 3 years I've tried to get my stalker to debate, rather than hide in the shadows being a typical leftist loser. He stopped stalking me for a while but fairly recently something crawled up his vag and he started again. Eventually I changed my signature and started treating him like he deserves to be treated.
I mean, how fucking mental do you have to be to angry face a post where I condemn genocide?! He pathological.
He's also a liar. He said he was gonna stop stalking me, but less than 2 hours later he was back doing it and hasn't stopped.
-
Has anyone noticed that leftists never engage in actual debate but attack me personally?
They angry face my posts condemning like genocide, Facebook wanting your banking details, etc.
Or they write a post to personally attack me for saying sweatshops and child labor is evil.
Not surprisingly, these are things they wanted others banned for. Even then they were too stupid to realize that they were violating the same rules they demand I enforce on others.
It's as if it's their version of the bike lock of peace.
-
Hypocrisy is real. It isn't always easy to look at the dark side of a story that has been thoroughly whitewashed for their consumption. From what I have seen of your stalker, if they can't put the subject to rest in one easy package, they fall back on a lot of canned diatribe - then resort to calling YOU a child when you point out the flaw in the approach. To put it simply, it takes effort to actually debate something. That party has zero interest in actual debate.
I would suggest they simply stick with threads that only require simple answers, like "The biggest dick you have ever taken". Just sayin. Although I expect if "said party" is only interested in instant gratification that may also be an issue, cuz someone has ALWAYS ridden a bigger dick, but DID they know how to use it?! :cheesy2: :cheers:
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login