Should able2know ban people for having untoward opinions?

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

Setanta wrote:

So, no, i don't see why i should be restricted, and see no reason not to point out that political rectitude is a tool which people across the political spectrum use to sneer at those with whom they disagree, and in an attempt to flay those who stray from accepted doctrine.

Since you don't name the posters (or non-posters, as your tirade extends beyond A2K), there's no telling if those alternative-PCers can come up with whatever is the correct terminology for their concepts. Simple observation on this thread will show that the PCers here cannot.

'Correct' is not for you to unilaterally determine. Don't know where you got that silly idea.

Like others have said; ignore our advice, please, and see how well it works out for you! Let us know if using terminology that others consider bigoted helps you advance your goals in life, helps you clinch that top client, really seals the deal in the board-room, or helps you make friends and influence people.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Butrflynet,

The exchange you quote is along the lines of a dialogue that reportedly took place between Winston Churchill and some lady who disagreed with his politics: "Mr Churchill, if I were your wife I would poison your tea", which got the reply "Madam, if I were your husband, I would drink it". Humor, it's called Smile

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

You're crackin' me up now, Bubba. I think she should head on down to East St. Louis on Saturday night, enter a bar on the levee and ask the patrons what colored people think of the President.

0 Replies

@Arella Mae,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_%28Internet%29

Quote:

A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception within an online community. In its earliest usage, a sockpuppet was a false identity through which a member of an Internet community speaks with or about himself or herself, pretending to be a different person,[1] like a ventriloquist manipulating a hand puppet.

0 Replies

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

Since this thread has gone right off track with what to call people who are not white...

On the contrary, PC avoidance is on the thread's main track - and please recall, we're looking for a one-word designation....

Are you still looking for a "one-word" designation? A2K has game threads for that.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

'Correct' is not for you to unilaterally determine.

Quite right. Instead of "correct" alternative, I asked for "PC-compliant" - and got no answers. None. 00.00. Got it now?!

2 Replies

@Arella Mae,

We used to have a thread about sock puppets :

http://able2know.org/topic/158419-1

0 Replies

@High Seas,

Given that there is no reason to assume that anyone in this thread is the arbiter of political rectitude, i can't see why you would expect anyone here to provide you "PC-compliant" terms.

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

On the general scientific principle that the simplest solution fitting all the facts is to be preferred over the complex ones.

What's known in mathematics as an "elegant" solution - though so far not even "trivial" "PC-compliant" solutions are to be found here.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

True - but that's not for lack of wannabe "arbiters of political rectitude" starting with those who jumped on the term I used.

1 Reply

@High Seas,

High Seas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

'Correct' is not for you to unilaterally determine.

Quite right. Instead of "correct" alternative, I asked for "PC-compliant" - and got no answers. None. 00.00. Got it now?!

In the post I replied to, you wrote:

Quote:

Since you don't name the posters (or non-posters, as your tirade extends beyond A2K), there's no telling if those alternative-PCers can come up with whatever is the correct terminology for their concepts.

Reading posts carefully before you reply is important.

I and others already informed you what the 'correct' terminology is. I even gave you a small sample of the logic supporting it.

But you ignored that, just like you ignored everyone else, because you aren't really searching for an answer, but instead just trolling the thread. Poking the liberals to see if you can get a rise out of them. Do you believe that people are unaware of your motives, Helen?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

this is why you should always remove yourself from the threats directly

take the Howard Stern approach, pray to god that the person gets cancer, then it's in gods hands what happens after that

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

And if you actually read all the words in all the posts here you'll notice I did reply to you, explaining why "minority" doesn't fit the specs, even giving the absurd (but common) example of "majority minority". Sorry, but I really think I couldn't have been more clear and precise - while from the PC contingent only the most unrelenting obfuscation and evasion have been forthcoming. Got to run or will end up like this cartoon character I posted earlier on Wandel's evolution thread in connection with US government finances - bye, have good day.

http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/everett_newsci3.gif

2 Replies

@High Seas,

You've got me humming a specific Carly Simon song now.

Can we get back to the thread topic?

0 Replies

@High Seas,

What an idiot . . . who are the "PC contingent," and how were you able to identify them?

You really want to pick a fight, don't you? And you've chosen the most idiotic right-wing propaganda as your basis.

What a clown.

0 Replies

@OCCOM BILL,

Occom Bill wrote:

If BBB suffered one iota more because of my reference to RM’s despicable treatment of her, for that I am truly sorry. Any damn fool would realize that was certainly not my intent,

Well, that's nice. But enough about your intent. How about BBB's? Did you ask her back then what she wanted you to do about it? Does it occur to you now that asking beforehand might be better than feeling "truly sorry" afterwards? Just look at how you're trying to frame the issue: it's all about what disgusts you, what your intentions are, and so forth. What exactly gives you standing to push a case for defending other people, none of which asked you to defend them? A case for censorship that everybody except you in this thread opposes? A case that the owner of this site has decided long ago in your disfavor? Instead of proclaiming what disgusts you and what your intentions are, why not listen to other people's interests for a change?

1 Reply

By the way, the cartoon is a complete non sequitur, and many of us saw your use of it in another thread, earlier today. It just makes you look loony.

0 Replies

@High Seas,

Quote:

And if you actually read all the words in all the posts here you'll notice I did reply to you, explaining why "minority" doesn't fit the specs, even giving the absurd (but common) example of "majority minority". Sorry, but I really think I couldn't have been more clear and precise - while from the PC contingent only the most unrelenting obfuscation and evasion have been forthcoming.

Nah; I did read the words in all your posts. You ignored several salient points that I made in favor of tossing off a pat response.

I think my judgment in the last post was essentially accurate, and you just don't want to admit that you've been caught fishing. Not very much fun when people won't play along, is it?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Robert has some very loyal friends indeed.

Nonsense. This ad hominem you repeat is just an insult to the intellects of people who independently reach the same conclusions.

Full disclosure: This allegedly "loyal friend" has been banned by Robert from The Raven's Realm, the site he ran before A2K. The reason was that I had behaved in a fashion he considered disruptive to the site at the time. (I'm probably banned to this day there if the site still exists.) It's a long story, not worth re-telling here. The only reason I even bring it up is to give evidence for two points: (1) Robert never had a problem evicting posters he considered disruptive. He's been doing it since before he started A2K. (2) My somewhat rocky history with Craven isn't stopping me from taking his side on this issue. Not because I am a "loyal friend", not because I find Occom Bill's point of view unworthy of considering. It's because I have considered it, and have concluded that Robert is right on the merits.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I don't really think there's a problem. You jumped on comments i made in regard to Abuzz. I was saying that Abuzz went to hell because there was no moderation at all. That's not the case here.

You err in assuming that Abuzz after the NYT pullout was entirely without moderation. Before the pull-out, one of their moderators slipped the moderator password to a handful of respected community members, who went on moderating in stealth. I know because one of those community members offered me the moderator password. (I declined.) On the strength of the evidence I see, I'm inclined to find Robert's no-influx-of-new-blood explanation more plausible than your lack-of-moderation explanation. Not that they're mutually exclusive.

0 Replies

Should able2know ban people for having untoward opinions?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know