Xooxer wrote:

See, therin lies the rub. I don't know what qualifies as flamey anymore. Disagreeing on politics? Not conforming to other's notions of sexuality? Talking about the sexualization of children? These seem to me to be fairly mundane, but when I attempt to broach these topics, I get shut down and censored.

No one has censored you, dude. People have disagreed with you, yes, but there's been no censorship going on here. The only moderation being done has been to pull down the temperature and nix obvious personal attacks.

I'm still really scratching my head as to how all of these political issues came up in the first place in the context of a misunderstanding about moderation policy. I certainly don't feel like any of them were brought up in a constructive or respectful way, but again I want to remind you those posts are still up.

Fine. I'll be the villain. It's not my first time. I have no illusions of acceptance here.

And this, I think, is the crux of the problem. You're interpreting disagreement as attacks on you, and your responses as a result haven't been great. This is a framing problem.

When in doubt, and in charged topics there's plenty of doubt, just try to keep the temperature down and be respectful. That's what keeps flame wars from spreading.

Ter13 wrote:

Correction: I pointed out the dangerous rhetoric that is popular on the topic of LGBTQI inclusivity in public spaces, and how it is going to get people killed.

Precisely. Thank you for saying it out loud.

Definition of dangerous
adjective
1. full of danger or risk; causing danger; perilous; risky; hazardous; unsafe.
2. able or likely to cause physical injury: a dangerous criminal.

rhetoric
[ ret-er-ik ]
See synonyms for rhetoric on Thesaurus.com
noun
1. (in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast.
2. the art or science of all specialized literary uses of language in prose or verse, including the figures of speech.
3. the study of the effective use of language.
4. the ability to use language effectively.
5. the art of prose in general as opposed to verse.
6. the art of making persuasive speeches; oratory.

In a nutshell: Speech that is likely to cause harm.

In other words: Nonsense. Words do not cause harm. Actions cause harm. We do not police words. We police actions. You have a fundamental flaw in your ideology right here, and you're blind to it. You start from a position of censorship. A position that must necessitate you being above others. You have granted yourself the title of arbiter of truth. You proclaim prophesy. This speech will lead to violence. So it is written. So shall it be. Auuuummmm na va shiva.


What do you call it? Ah yes. Incitement. Words are violence. If I don't refer to you as queer, that's the same as punching you in the face. Don't bother to consider the fact that you're compelling a free human being, with inalienable rights to free speech, to mimic you for the sake of personal comfort. That is tyranny of expectations.\

This is not rhetoric. This is the truth:

I own my self. You do not own me. This is my speech, not yours. It belongs to me and I will not allow you to claim it. It's mine. I use the word gay to refer to gay people because they are gay. This is a very simple and rational reason. There's no bias or hate or violence in the word gay. You may think of yourself as anything you like. You can't compel me to do so. You have no right to trample on my rights. You have no right not to be offended. You have no right to proper pronouns or a specific gender identity. You have the right to be alive. To be a free person not in bondage to another. To have goals and the freedom to work to achieve them. So long as you do not infringe on others who also have these rights. You have the right to express yourself. You do not have the right to force expression in others.

Words are not violence. Violence is violence. The notion that words need to be regulated violates the fundamental human rights of free human beings that you have absolutely zero authority over. No. I do not think I will call you queer. I don't like the way it sounds, and it's always been a slur for gay people in the past. I'm not comfortable saying it, so I choose not to. As is my right. Respect it. I don't owe your identity a damn thing. Your personal comfort is not a right. I don't owe you obedience or servitude. Not to your fears, your delusions, or your personal image of yourself. Even if all three intersect with your skin tone and whatever other minority badge you want to adorn your self-righteous authority cloak with. I don't care, and I will not comply. Thank you very much.

Never accused you of homophobia, just trafficking in rhetoric that is charged with violence and malice.

Not directly, no. That would be too bold.

The statement "Trafficking in rhetoric that is charged with violence and malice" is itself rhetoric that is charged with violence and malice. Trafficking is accusatory. It implies nefarious criminal smuggling of harmful contraband. Rhetoric seems to be used as a synonym for lies or false claims in much of the narratives I hear coming from the left, and "charged with" just brings to mind criminality again. "Charged with burglary." "Charged with a felony." Seriously. Search the two words quoted together. See what comes up. Lots of criminal reports using the phrase to describe criminal convictions. Violence and malice are just more accusatory libel. So, we have the idea of a convicted criminal smuggler who's using lies as a weapon with ill intent. That's what malice is. A thunderstorm can be violent, but only a living creature be malicious.

It's all just so much bombastic exaggeration, carefully designed by a mind with ill intent to harm the character of another, wouldn't you agree? My my.

Is that ice cold enough for you, Lumms? Shall I ... take off the gloves? Get a real chill in here? Hmm?

For reasons that defy self awareness,

*cough* I'll just leave that one be. I mean, you stuck your chin right out there, but no. I won't go for such easy pot shots. This one's going platinum. Gotta class it up. Are you ready kids?

you took this as an attack,

Yeah, about that. Your whole position is that my words are incitement. That what I say can directly lead to getting people killed. Got any basis for that? Because I do. Turns out, it's the left that actually incite violence. Drop a name. Go on. Who did we kill? Who died at the hands of a MAGA republican? Name one person at all. I can name several that died at the hands of a liberal for being the wrong color, or for not being liberal. Want to play this game? Okay. Let's play.

Cayler Ellingson. 18 years old. Ran down by a 41 year old man because the man thought he had ties to a right wing extremist group. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ us-politics/north-dakota-run-over-car-teenager-b2172662.html

Darrell Brooks Jr. 40, drove his SUV through a Christmas parade in Waukesha, WI, killing 6 and injuring nearly 50 children and elderly for the sin of being white. Radicalized by rampant anti-white racism broadcast daily all across liberal media.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/ victims-ready-speak-christmas-parade-crash-sentencing-933140 64

How about the BLM riots? Yes. Riots. Not protests. Riots. Do you know how many people were killed by so-called "mostly peaceful protesters"? Dozens. https://www.voanews.com/a/ usa_death-toll-grows-national-protests/6190342.html

And who can forget our boy Kyle? You know. That absolute unit who survived the protests only because he was armed and knew how to defend himself from killers who literally chased him down to kill him because he was defending the area from them? Yeah. That was glorious. The way the media painted him as such a villain, only to have our sweet boy demolish every last lie in court and emerge as the boss and supreme champion that he is. A true legend. Genuflect, my guy.
https://www.npr.org/2021/11/19/1057288807/ kyle-rittenhouse-acquitted-all-charges-verdict

Seems to be a trend.


Now you go. Show. Don't tell. Make me care. Make me believe your concerns are valid. Convince me you aren't just being fed lies to radicalize you.

and chose to double down by kinda validating that by becoming increasingly aggressive and accusatory.

Hrm, yes. I did use a lot of words, and as we know, those are the exact same as a bullet. It must have been horrible for you to endure all that violence. Opps. I did it again. So many words in this reply. So much violence. How do you go on?

If you look back at my original post that you chose to personally attack me for, insinuating that I was a pedophile in response to,

Allow me to quote a man.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

you'll see that I spoke generally about the far right media ecosystem, and did not nod to you once.

Oh, you mean this diatribe?
Ter13 wrote:

It's really hard to watch you salivate over the idea of lynching pedophiles, and then have you tell me I have nothing to fear if I'm not a pedophile, after dismissing that I'm saying the people you call "we" have been coming into where I work, freaked out about all the internet bullshit y'all jerk off to 32/8, and call me a pedophile.

Yes.

"hard to watch YOU", "have YOU tell me" "the people YOU call "we"", "Y'ALL jerk off to".

Very general. I can't find me in there at all. It's like a magic trick. How do you do it? All I see is YOU.

Shall we move on?

I do not see you as homophobic,

You can lie to yourself. You can't lie to me.

so much as being dragged down an increasingly dangerous antisocial rabbithole through social media programming whose endgame coincides with the goals of white nationalists.

Ah, so I'm not a bad guy. I'm just stupid. I get it. Very insightful.

Scratch off white nationalists and replace it with global elites, and you have a perfect description of yourself. I am not spouting rhetoric when I say the things I say. These are things that actually happen in the real world. These are factual statements with no emotional tag along. What I said about muslim men is factually correct. It's not racist. It's reality. Is it wrong to notice things? To observe events? Reporting an event that involves a certain group of people is automatically racist? Answer me. Is it racist to notice a black man robbing a white woman? To say to the guy next to you. "That black man is robbing that white woman." Is it racist to judge that individual for his actions? Is it? Then why did you call my statements racist? Why? I want to know how you justify that. I really do, because that's just lunacy. That's tyranny of thought. You, using racism to control others. Labeling me, vilifying me. Libeling me. As you continue to do.

That's it. I'm done. It's way too late and I have to work. Stay frosty.

Ter13 wrote:

I will remind you again that I am not gay, but queer, and would appreciate if you would stop calling me gay.

I will remind you again that you don't get to dictate the words that come out of my mouth. I am a human being with rights that you have no business violating with compelled speech demands, requests, suggestions, appeals or mandates.

Now, answer the questions. Defend your position. Justify your accusations against me, or bow out of my thread and admit that you are wrong. I won't comply with your authoritarian nonsense.

I bet he would appreciate my obedience and servitude. I would appreciate it if he did not attempt to lay claim to my speech. I would especially appreciate it if he addressed the questions posed to him and justified his libel of me.

I'm not a jerk for defending myself against authoritarian "appreciation". Doll it up all you like, imposing your will on others is being a jerk. His self image is not my concern. His accusations are. It's telling that he completely ignored everything I said to double-down on his tyranny of expectations. I will not comply. That is not mean, that is reasonable. There is no malice in the word gay, and I will not accept any assertions to the contrary.

Answer the questions Ter13. I'm not here to play the name game with you. It's tangential and derailing. I don't care what you are. I care what you did.

So, you openly refuse to engage in good faith. You can't answer my questions, so you refuse to. You claim my dismantling of your position validates your position. I would like to hear you explain that in detail. You claim my "dangerous rhetoric" will lead to "getting people killed." I've just shown that has no factual basis, and you have reinforced that by not refuting it with the actual incidents that incline you to believe it does.

Your strawman is in flames, my friend. Will you not even bother to spit on it to save face? Shall we conclude, then, that you are not here to communicate, but to attack? You claim I am using dangerous rhetoric. How is it dangerous? What evidence do you have to support this assertion? None? You have given none. We must conclude that your refusal to give any is an admission that you have none to give.

Baseless accusations confirmed.

For the sake of our audience, would you mind restating your points? It would help to clarify your position. After all, clear language leads to proper understanding which dispells ignorance that fuels mistrust and hate. I'm down for some clarity and understanding.

Also, two posts, one to you and one to Lummox, are not several. Again, you claim to have special prophetic knowledge while also painting me as an unhinged troll who will act out. If you refuse to reply and justify your claims, then I am free to dismiss your claims as baseless and unjustified. In that case, there is no victory, because you have failed to even enter the ring and challenge me. I win by default because you refuse to engage. That's good enough for me.

I have not been idle these past decades. I am not the young man you knew 20 years ago. I have been deep in the tenches, fighting exactly the type of baseless claims you parrot here. I am seasoned and well equipped to dismantle your arguments and expose the absurdity and prejudice inherit in your words. You can not win by any means you have been handed by the media. I have destroyed them all. Your only option is to falsely claim victory and ignore any and all evidence to the contrary. Exactly as you have done.

You may not be wrong, but you refuse to prove yourself right. A very bold strategy for someone who claims to be victorious.

Dude, the only reason this thread was left open when the others were closed was that it had not degenerated into a dumpster fire, and we were still ostensibly on the original topic. Turn down the temperature and be respectful, I said. That was all I asked. That means stop posting unhinged 9-page replies dissecting each and every word you want to fight about.

A lot of people are unhappy this thread went on so long and that the others were left up. At the very least it's time to close this one now. I'm done dealing with it.