Hey, Can A Woman "Ask To Get Raped"?

Misogyny is not a cause, you demented piece of ****.

the sanctity and the sovereignty of the individual....is. How normal for you to avoid the point though, that it appears for you peace trumps truth as well as long term best interests.

I know it's really hard stuff to deal with, but putting them on ignore really helps.

Often the thing that makes it hardest, at least for me, is the people who can't/won't do that, and engage in similarly obsessive battle with them.

Such is human nature.

That's how I feel about it.

What "raw data"? I am not talking about votes. You repeatedly demand that we ban certain specific members who you label "trolls" or "trash" and I am asking you to come up with something more objective (as in a policy we should apply) than your lynching shortlist. I think it would be an illuminating exercise for you to try to come up with a fair rule to apply instead of just a hit list of "****" you want taken out.

See, what I'm hoping you quickly realize is that the bulk of your objection with them is not in the manner they go about posting but the content of their posts: their opinions. And it should be clear to you that we should not be censoring those, no matter how reprehensible they may be.

The opinion alone isn't it, of course, they also lack basic social skills and are annoying. The thing is, hawkeye is a lot more civil than you. And if you try to come up for objective rules on behavior (not just an ick factor on what opinions are so deplorable to you) you should note that there really isn't much in way of an objective distinction between you obsessively insulting hawkeye and hawkeye obsessively grinding his misogyny axe.



You are maddeningly obdurate in your refusal to acknowledge that trolling is in the eye of the beholder. To me you are a bigger troll than hawkeye, even though I like you a lot more. Others have pointed out to you that they find your over-the-top insults to hawkeye more objectionable to his nonsense. But you don't let that stop you and self-righteously justify your boorish behavior on his boorish opinions.

But you act like yours is the only important opinion around, and who you find irritating is a troll, it doesn't much matter if someone like me finds you far more boorish and disrupting because you are simply unwilling to consider the legitimacy of any other viewpoint in your crusade.

I find hawkeye's opinions and worldview disgusting, but when comparing forum behavior I think you are much worse. His opinions are that of a caveman, but your forum behavior is that of a troglodyte in comparison to his behavior on the forum. He's certainly more irritating, but that has a lot (not all) to do with his opinions themselves being objectionable. In terms of forum behavior you engage in far more "trolling" (deliberately insulting people) than he does.



I don't consider them equal. I have repeatedly said I consider you worse. BillRM and hawkeye have shown remarkable patience with your over-the-top obsession with their misogyny. You can't bring yourself to disagree with them with logic, you just emote all over the place and call them horrible names like "rapist". It's no way to argue, it's just boorish insults. You repeatedly refuse to consider that there may be more than one opinion on what is more disruptive behavior and what constitutes trolling.



I find them annoying, but I don't think there's an objective distinction between the ways they try to annoy you and your penchant to become a boorish with them and insult them. You fit the definition of a troll too when you go around calling them idiots, demented and rapists. You just find enormous self-justification that makes you think it's justified due to the righetous cause.

It's stupid, you are much much more boorish than hawkeye ever is, even if you happen to not be as wrongheaded in your worldview. He went months with you calling him idiot rapist every day before beginning to insult you back. Now he's playing the same childish game calling you idiot Bill and you are completely deluded to pretend that it's all his fault.

So again, I put it to you: what is your rule. Stop acting so damn flabbergasted that I compare your inability to be civil with theirs. Take personality out of it entirely: what is your rule? What behavior should result in a ban?

When you provide such objective criteria I'd be happy to discuss it. But thus far all you offer is foaming at the mouth about how they are "demented" and "****" and how we just must ban these obvious "trolls".

All you have established is that you can insult people, we already knew that. But what is your proposed policy? Do you even have one? I really don't think so, you just have your hit list to lynch and no thought at all about objectivity in running a site and no thought at all as to whether your own boorish behavior is any better.

Our rules are politics agnostic. We can't ban people because their opinions suck, that is not a free marketplace of ideas. We will ban people for trying to have a greater say than they deserve by monopolizing conversation (flooding) and being disruptive. We prohibit behavior, not ideas.

Their ideas are certainly much more disgusting than yours are to me, and I know that is what sets you off, but the bottom line is that their forum behavior is a world more civil than yours and any kind of behavior rule that would "take out the trash" as you call them would have taken you and many others out long before them.

We do not ban people on the basis of their opinions, no matter how disgusting they are. If there is specific disruptive trolling behavior that you would like to see a policy against feel free to suggest it.

P.S. as an example, you and dlowan often frequently criticize me for not banning certain other members who are even if you both aren't made privy to it. When there is objective ways to proscribe trolling behavior that is a fair thing to act against in the community, but you both also seem to consider trolls to be people with objectionable opinions, which is something we will not censor for reasons that should be obvious.

Helps to keep your life sedate, however at the cost of leaving you disconnected from the world around you. As is argued in "the critical failing of the American elites" thread at the end of the day the result is that you hurt yourself. You end up thinking that you know what the world around you is, and you make choices as if you know, but you don't. It is only after repeated efforts end up in failure and you gin up animosity towards yourself that you will discover your ignorance.

Of course.

It's certainly in MY nature...and once you are kind of obsessed it's really hard to see it for what it is.

Sigh.

Speaking personally, I'd like to be able to turf both sides out of one of my threads where I want less Sturm und Drang.

I think the threaded discussions is what we need. That way all responses are hierarchical children and can be collapsed en masse. This way people can pursue those diversions and flamewars even to their heart's content without bothering others that much, if they don't like it they can just collapse the whole diversion at once.

It would allow for both sides to have more space. Those who want to bicker can, with less nagging about it from those who want to stick to the topic. And those who want to stick to the topic can do so more easily because the different meandering paths of the discussion are organized in threads.

in other words less debate......but then I always did get the impression that you want A2K to be less about the truth and more a social networking place. But we already have facebook that does social better then A2K could ever hope to do, I see no reason to sacrifice debate in order to go in that direction. I think that Robert was listening to you and Thomas amongst others when he designed the new A2K, and listening to you folks accounts for a lot of the mistakes made...the optimization of A2K for personal comfort and popularity at the expense of the free flow of ideas and the truth.

You shouldn't just make stuff up so often. Dlowan was against the direction moderation took with the new software.

Hawkeye for the love of all that's holy! Why on earth should everyone be forced to experience this site like you? I thought you were all about personal choice and separating yourself from the herd? You bluster on about it incessantly.
Change is inevitable, so deal with it. If people want to come here and be all sunshine and roses or piss and vinegar, why do you care?
If someone wants to socialize and another wants to put up their dukes, all the power to them. They're barking up your proverbial tree. They are not the collective.

Becuase there is no community without collective experience, and A2K has value only because of the community.

I like Roberts new idea of using the tree system (is that what he called it?) instead of going even deeper in to the cutomized theory that the New A2K was built upon, or going back to a moderator policed theory.

It's not actually a new idea. I started a topic to introduced the idea back in February and as usual you were against it, claiming dialog would be "further degraded" and that the idea was "nuts".

I point this out in hopes that in the future you won't be so instinctively (and illogically) contrary. The exact same idea months later you are saying is a good one, go figure.

Heh heh...hawk as usual has everything wrong! This time very funnily so.

I was fiercely against said direction.

Still am really...but what is is.

Sounds good.

Your problem is that you are so hell bent on being different than everybody else and in your pompous haste to use your "collective" bullshit, you post without thinking about what you are saying.

You do not appear to be a stupid person, but you post stupid stuff because you put hit the gas on your keyboard without first putting your brain into gear. Your many, many contradictory posts are evidence of that.

I must admit that when I see your avatar, I make the assumption that I will be reading bullshit if I dare to read your post. I am seldom disappointed.

**** you, you douche, you come across as some knight in shining armour, but you you've always seemed a tad creepy yourself, with your smarmy, and in my mind phoney sounding, "hey, i'm just here to save the little ladies from harm" routine


as much as i disagree with the "trolls" ideas, they have the right to them just like you do

Thank God this little girl got away and the perpetrator was caught.

I thought we already had threaded discussions. What is the list of responses which follow the initial post, then?