Kane's bigotry by Niki2

Quote:
I woulda dun it different Particulary if you was the arbitrator.

I might as well be since Niki appointed herself hall monitor.

Quote:
Does that mean no-one can ever discuss the nazis again?

No, read it again. This is the common misinterpretation. Nazis were his example, b
ut it's a good one: Think about tea partiers with signs comparing Obama's healthcare plan to the Nazis. That's absurd. They lose.

So sure, there are a lot of plans that are like the Nazis, our dept of Homeland Security is very Nazi, as is our foreign policy. I just mean, objectively, they're the sort of thing that the Nazis did.

But saying that the invasion of Iraq was like the invasions of Poland is just a logical parallel.

Here's the important part
Quote:
Irrational connections that draw extreme parallels

Comparing CTS's defense of Kaneman's free speech to white supremacist's defend of Nazi genocide is a exactly that. It's an irrational connection that draws an extreme parallel.

That's why you lost this one. Plus, you mentioned Nazis, so even the casual Godwin's law observer would notice.

Godwin's law is probably the most widely followed piece of Netiquette.

Saying "Kaneman has no sense of Netiquette" might be considered a fair criticism.

Quote:
Please tell me that also means you never get to say Socialist New World Order either, and I'll back you 100% up.

No. This is a not a logic or illogical parallel at all, it's that the NWO is comprised of people who are themselves avowed socialists. And always have been. The NWO is socialism.

PN is right about a few things and one of them is that China is the test state for NWO policy. China is NWO utopia. Russia was supposed to be, but they fucked that up somehow.

If you go back and pay any attention to globalists and the origins of neolibs and neocons who are the NWO, use the term NWO to describe what the want to create, they also use the word socialist to describe themselves and their movement.

I do not say "Socialist New World Order" because that's not really communicating, it's PN's propaganda babbling. It's like saying "Jewish Bankster" which is okay if you're talking about criminal bankers who happen to be jewish, but probably not a good idea. "Knight of the British Empire MKULTRA Al Qaeda Jew" is just a string of nonsense made worse by putting it before someone's name.

It's just not how language is constructed. That would be a slut. Like saying "Socialist President Obama."

Saying "President Obama is a Socialist" would not be a slur, it would just be inaccurate.

But the globalists (neocon/neolib) elite call themselves socialists. They do it less now than they did in the 60s and 70s because socialism has become a very unpopular word.

This is because of history. The more people study history, and the more we learn about it through the internet, the more any random person can no more than an expert historian.

This has led us to challenge the conventional wisdom that "German Nationalism" caused WWII and the holocaust. Actually, the Nazis were barely nationalists at all. They only became nationalists to get extra votes, the way republicans became Christians. It's for show. They also thought the use of "Aryan" and the Swastika would get them India as an ally. It almost did, in that it made the question so close that Britain was unable to use India as an ally.

The result was that India ended up nationalist. But not Nazi. Not socialist. And also, it was not a genocidal state. Japan also ended up nationalist, and China almost did. Nationalism could be discussed as a flawed policy in many ways, but it's not what caused WWII.

WWII/Europe was a conflict of the Nazis, who were socialists, not only did they say it themselves, and it was in the name, but they were socialists originally, before they were nationalists. The leadership of the Nazi party was not the members of the nationalist Thule society, it was people from the Socialist Workers Party, which is actually the same party that the NWO derives itself from, as do many bad govts. around the world. Many places the name is still used.

But this is not a godwin. It's a simple stating of facts about Nazis.

Now, to say NAZI NWO is probably also not a godwin, it's just PN. But you could draw parallels that were logical and reach natural and equivalent situations.

You could say "NWO is actually a lot more like the Nazis than it is like other forms of socialism" And maybe that's an inaccurate statement. It probably is. But it's not a godwin.

Saying "The NWO use of govt. funds to invest in private companies and turn those companies into parts of their war machine is similar to what the nazis did" is not a godwin, and not inaccurate.

But since many people don't understand godwin's law and think it's just the word "Nazi" that makes it a godwin, then you could modify the above statement:

"The NWO use of govt. funds to invest in private companies and turn those companies into parts of their war machine is similar to what the Mussolini did"

This is clearly not a godwin, and not inaccurate.

Saying "Obama is a Nazi!" would probably be a godwin. You would have to defend it a lot. You'd probably need to discuss it in terms of Bagram prison in Afghanistan.

The same goes for "Bush is a Nazi!"

Saying "Obamacare is Nazi!" is clearly a godwin.

But you can godwin without Nazis:

"You're no kind of roomie. You're usurping my space, you take up 2/3 of the fridge and you're even using my dresser. You're just like Stalin!"

That's a godwin. You can see how the connection was made, but it was not rational, and it was extreme.

Usually I find when something is *actually* comparable to Nazis it's comparable to something else as well. Nazis were unique in nothing.

Quote:

Except that it is nothing like pizza vs nazism. Nazi Germany happened for a lot of reasons, but one of the facts of it was that ordinary people stood by and let others be treated terribly, therefore my anology holds up. That is the sort of mentality that was present in Germany at that time. Just because you don't like that comparison, doesn't mean it isn't valid.

Oh you're not defending your godwin are you? That's a super godwin. For the ultimate godwin you have to liken my dismissal of your godwin to the Nazis!

Anyway, no, it was not. The mentality which brought about Nazi Germany was

1) The totalitarian silencing of debate and free speech
2) The usurpation of all independent action by groups including both govt. and corporate.
3) The bombarding of the populous with psychologically manipulative propaganda
4) The use of censorship to remove key pieces of information from German decision making.

If every German paper had printed pictures of Auschwitz every day, the Nazis probably would have collapsed. (Though doing similar things here doesn't seem to have brought that about, that's because the people are dumb enough that they don't see Obama's agenda as being Bush's agenda even though Obama himself said so.)

But anything of the above four could probably be interrupted.

The Germans weren't allowed to see the Nazis as we did, here's what they saw:

a) The economy is improving, because we're no longer paying an invented war debt.
b) jews, a despised underclass are leaving to Israel. (Israel and Britain both supported this idea as well.)
c) The country is getting back to work with industrialization.
d) We're at war because the non-socialist capitalist outside world fears are superior order.

And stuff like that. You can see how that came about, and how the people would respond:

Some would reject it, but most would probably say "Hey, govts. always suck, but at least we're not starving to death like we were in the Wiemar republic, or being slaughtered like cattle like we were under the Kaiser."

I mean, internally to Germany, it probably looked like the best govt of the three they'd had. By the end of the war? Not so much.

It's not whether or not I like the comparison, it's that it was irrational, letting Kaneman rant does not result in anything, Kaneman is not our leader and not trying to do anything but show us something, or have fun with our inability to learn it. Also, it resulted in an extreme parallel: An internet troll is exactly like Hitler, or at least an SS guard who tortures jews to death and tosses them in ovens.

If you want a logical parallel of that parallel, to say that would be to say that "Yelling N*gger is like lynching" or "saying fuck off is just as bad as shooting someone in the head."

Quote:
For the record, I never said Kaneman should not post his dross. I insist you apologise for misrepresenting my view.

Your asking me for an apology is just like when the Na- oh, no wait, it's not, they never asked for an apology, and that would be extreme to say.

I'm sorry. I don't know what dross is, but I imagine that Kaneman posted some. Kaneman is a girl.

Quote:

Well there is someone for everyone, as my ma used to say.

Not sure I got it. OTOH, my line was a bit obtuse. Sometimes someone is illustrating by example is what I meant. The content of most of Kane's posts is meaningless. Much like the content of Wulfies. They're trying to show us something, but Kane has a point. Wulf will have a point someday. He needs to work on it.

Quote:

What's the name of the debating tactic where you immediately do what you claim you are not going to do?

I don't know, but I wasn't actually taking sides. I didn't defend CTS's position, or Kane's. I simply meant that neither of them were being Nazi-like.

I find Kane annoying sometimes, and would like at times her to curb her tongue, but whackamole is not the answer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 16, 2010 8:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Comparing CTS's defense of Kaneman's free speech to white supremacist's defend of Nazi genocide is a exactly that.

To be clear, I never defended Kaneman's free speech, and Magon never compared me to someone who defended Nazi genocide. That was not the gist or spirit of the analogy she made.

As I understood it, she interpreted my "Thank you" to Kaneman as an implied sanction or disregard of Kaneman's insults to others. She compared this perceived attitude to that of non-Jewish German bystanders who condoned (and thus passively enabled) the Nazis because they themselves were not victims.

ETA: I happen to think Kaneman's invectives to Niki and others to be utterly disgusting and vile--and Kane knows it--so I would never defend Kane's speech itself. Kane's right to say those things was really neither here nor there--that wasn't part of the argument between Magon and me.

----
Arrogant and proud of it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 16, 2010 9:07 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

0) I said except Kane in just about every post I made on the topic. Also I excepted PN.

That was my point about your attack on me, so it was point zero. But more to the point, do you pay no attention to your fellow members?

1) Kane is a she, not a he. This is an undisputed fact mentioned many times on this board by Kane, and many others.

2) Kane has consistently claimed to be black since the very first post, a claim only disputed by people who think she is RiveR6213.

3) Kane is gay, which is also an undisputed fact posted many times by Kane.

I f you believe Kane on any points, I may have over-estimated your intelligence.

Quote:
4) Kane is insane, a fact which also is undisputed by anyone including Kane.

Well, at least you got that one.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 16, 2010 10:01 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I agree with you on the “compare” thing, to a degree. There’s a perfect example of what is written not being what is read. But I think you take it way too far.

Quote:
but also that allowing Kaneman free speech would bring about a totalitarian dictatorship which had no free speech, or that Kaneman as a radical element would cause Nazi Germany.

I disagree. She didn’t say any such thing, her comparison was much simpler and she didn’t add anything that indicated it would have the same results. And she is in no way denying his free speech or saying that it will lead to ANYTHING, just making the comparison in how wrong it is.

I also disagree that what Kane is “showing” is of value. Trolling is not, in my opinion, of any value; it doesn’t further anything but discord and it contributes nothing of any value to the discussion. To do it—-consistently and without offering anything of substance, IS trolling by definition and only probes the patience of those to whom it is directed. That’s not of any value.

Mike, I’d say it was “meaningful”, not profound. If we all kept in mind all the time that those like Kane are here for no other reason than to sow discord and be offensive, and were able to ignore them completely, what they say not being what they say would be totally unimportant. It’s that it DOES trigger us to respond which is wrong, no matter what they say.

I agree with Magons

Quote:
The difference is that you are a troll. You come on this and probably numerous other sites with the purpose to denigrate and insult. As far as I have seen, you have contributed nothing more than these kinds of interactions on this forum (although you may have prior to me coming here).

The same is true for me, tho' on occasion I have see him make a comment or two that's pertinent, whether I agree with it or not. Also RIGHT on point that

Quote:
Does CTS get the medal then? I wasn't aware that these discussions involved winning and losing. I thought it was about communicating [sic] ideas, sharing views, looking at different concepts

I also agree that what you did, DT, wasn’t to “settle” anything; you voiced your opinion on what was right and what was wrong by your interpretation of same, and “awarded” Kane. That doesn’t “settle” anything, it just expresses your opinion.

Kane posting

Quote:
What I find hilarious is that you found it impossible to NOT post in this shithole of a thread

is amusing, given he hasn’t found it one bit more possible not to continue posting himself. Example of the immaturity I mentioned to Wulf:

Quote:
How old are you? My bet....14

Calling people immature is immature...at best.

DT, you’re entitled to your opinions, but they ARE just opinions, not fact. I realize you don’t see it that way, but as I see it, that’s true

Quote:
China is the test state for NWO policy. China is NWO utopia

And on and on. Even your dissection of Nazis is your opinion; others, with just as much knowledge as you, may well have come to other conclusions. That and the fact that it is not for you to “award” who’s right and who’s wrong makes me dismiss your arguments on the subject.

And CTTS has it right on target. Not only the specific words, and whether they reflect Godwin or not, but the INTENT and UNDERSTANDING of the communication matter. Magons wasn’t saying all the things you claimed she was, she was saying merely that, just as the old saw about the Jews, not speaking up about something that is wrong is bad. Period. You took it too far, in my view.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 16, 2010 7:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
I didn't start this thread...Mother hen did. What I find hilarious is that you found it impossible to NOT post in this shithole of a thread. Shame on you.

Sshheeesh, you got a point

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 16, 2010 8:31 PM

Story

Quote:
Quote:

3) Kane is gay, which is also an undisputed fact posted many times by Kane.

I f you believe Kane on any points, I may have over-estimated your intelligence.

Undisputed, no one has made a contrary claim, stated by kane it was, so, it is a statement.

There's no reason to assume the opposite, yet many people seem to do so. As I said, humans in general tell the truth 95% of the time, even when they are lying. It's logical to assume that anything said by humans is based on fact.

Of course, if people lied more often than this, the result would be suspiciously incoherent.

Make what you will of that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 16, 2010 9:15 PM

Quote:
DT, you’re entitled to your opinions, but they ARE just opinions, not fact. I realize you don’t see it that way, but as I see it, that’s true

This is a talking point, not an opinion or a fact.

This was an opinion:

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
China is the test state for NWO policy. China is NWO utopia

It is PN's opinion, I was reposting it. He made a good case for it, I see no reason to doubt it.

Quote:

And on and on. Even your dissection of Nazis is your opinion; others, with just as much knowledge as you, may well have come to other conclusions. That and the fact that it is not for you to “award” who’s right and who’s wrong makes me dismiss your arguments on the subject.

Anyone can declare a godwin. Are you really that much of a n00b? That was the most obvious godwin I've ever seen (opinion) but the poster of an obvious godwin has autolost an argument (fact)*

* This is a fact of netiquette, so it's protocol, but it is still a fact that it is protocol. You may think that protocol itself is an opinion, but that's fairly radical an abstract. In the real world, laws treaties and conventions are binding, and so are protocols.

No one signs up for them, but here's another one:

Doing what Kane does makes you a troll. Ergo, Kane is a troll.

That's subjective opinion, but it's based on very familiar netiquette. Trolls post only to get attention, they post early and often, and they post after other users in an argumentative and contrary fashion.

Those would all be definitions that fit Kane well.

PN is not a troll. He is more of a spammer. He doesn't often post things contrary to what others have posted, he usually doesn't post at all. He's more of a hit and run.

Filling the information channel with unsolicited posts that dilute the information density of previous conversations is known as spamming.

The email use of the term came much later, but this is basic netiquette as well.

As for my conclusions on the Nazis, they are based on a large amount of information. I have to say that as the descendant of holocaust victims, I'm not alone, but as a historian, I have been able to research this a lot. I know Spielberg is researching it a lot right now. But a lot of people "know" but that's just because someone told them. They didn't really research. I would be hard pressed to credit an opinion based on the idea that the NSDAP is an outgrowth of the Thule Society and that it is the result of the influence of Jiddu Krishnamurti. This seems fairly absurd to me. Sure Krishnamurti was very influential, and may be responsible for Aryan nationalism, the swastika and certainly for theosophy, but nothing about this man or his thoughts have anything to do with what became the monsters we call Nazis. The Nazis do not strongly resemble the Indian dravidian mystic, but instead strongly resemble the old world order and the new world order. Symbols and pageantry were adopted to get votes, because Krishnamurti was very influential in Germany, and in India, and which the Germans wanted as an ally.

That said, take a moment to deal with this logo

Yes, I'm sure these people had a lot to do with the creation of Germany and Israel. My great grandfather was heavily involved in both as well, through another organization, this one:

But so what?

The hijacking of Germany was done by a number of institutions with specific goals.

Hitler idealized this

He wanted to create a party called Social Revolutionary Party, but he took from the SWP and DAP to form the NSDAP. DAP had strong connections to the Thule society, but it's important to remember that Hitler was there to spy on them, under orders to do so, and that no Thule society members ended up as NSDAP officials to the best of my knowledge. At any rate, this hardly seems like the dangerous element. The corrupting influences of international banking, international corporations, and the military industrial complex had far more to do with the set up of WWII, the holocaust, and what Nazi Germany became, esp. post-kristallnacht.

Blaming the whole thing on an indian mystic seems not only misguided, but as a pretty obvious distraction from the very obvious socialist/corporatist aspects of the fascist regime, and their equally obvious origins.

But you don't need to look at the Nazis at all to see this pattern, as very similar things happened in Russia and China, and later in many other regimes. Even Fascism itself, without socialism (Italy, Spain) while truly despotic, were not as bad as socialism without fascism (USSR, Mao's SSSR aka China)

Sure, it's my opinion that these were bad regimes, but it's not an opinion that they were socialist regimes. These people were luminaries of socialism.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 16, 2010 10:42 PM

Good lord, how to miss the point muchly. I may have been guilty of breaking godwin's law, but your detailed explanation of nazism is just tedious.

I have two things to say.

Firstly, I don't give a fat rats arse about godwin's law. I'm not here to 'win' a competition. Even arguing badly, at least I still try to think about a topic and give my point of view as well as I can. A lot better than a series of posters here who do nothing more than spit venom. What I'm not interested in is trading shots about debating techniques. Carry on if you wish, but I'm staying out of that.

Secondly, I feel strongly when people are okay with others being abused, just because it's not them that's being abused. I may have missed the point of your and CTS response, but that's how I saw it. I see it everywhere, work, school, on public transport - where people kind of shrug their shoulders and get on with their own business. We have a saying here - the "I'm alright, jack' mentality, it means that as long as you are okay you don't give a bugger about anyone else. Perhaps a more profound way of saying, rather than speak of nazis given the supposed internet taboo regarding using them as a reference is to use the quote

‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’

So I personally don't like it. I'm not trying to win you over or win a debate. I'm telling you what I think. You can disagree to your hearts content, but that is how I feel.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 2:47 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
China is the test state for NWO policy. China is NWO utopia

A case could be made that China is rapidly becoming a test state for libertarian/tea-party policy, too, and that they're becoming the tea-party utopia. No regulations, no copyright laws, get in, make money, get out, and when the high-rise building goes up in flames, who really cares?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 5:38 AM

Mike

Been to China lately?

Magon

Godwin's law isn't about infringing on your rights, it's about not shooting yourself in the foot.

The post of nazis was about nazis, Niki was the intended audience I think, she said something about origins of NSDAP not being socialist. A discussion about Nazis is a discussion about actual Nazis, godwin's law doesn't apply to actual nazis. It applies to calling Cant Take the Sky a Nazi for defending Kaneman's right to free speech.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 6:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
It applies to calling Cant Take the Sky a Nazi for defending Kaneman's right to free speech.

HUH??? Nobody defended Kaneman's right to free speech, and nobody called me a Nazi. For the record. Just sayin'.

As far Godwin's Law (snicker) goes, all it says is the longer a discussion runs in a forum, the more likely Nazis are going to come into it. It is a statement of probability, that's all. Godwin's Law is not a logical fallacy. It doesn't validate or invalidate the actual Nazi argument.

So really, Godwin's Law, free speech, Nazi name-calling--none of that actually applies the short interchange between Magon and me. I hope by now that Magon understands what I was saying and NOT saying, and feels understood by me. If not, we've said our peace already.

Let's give it a rest, huh?

----
Arrogant and proud of it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 6:18 AM

"HUH??? Nobody defended Kaneman's right to free speech"

Well that says a lot...right?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 6:48 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Actually, I think I have on many, many occassions.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 7:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Mike

Been to China lately?

Sorry, DT, but that's an auto-lose for you. ;)

You in no way even attempted to make any case or disprove my allegations.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 7:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Actually, I think I have on many, many occassions.

As have I. I've also defended PN's rights, and Wulfie's.

I don't have to agree with what they say, but I sure as hell don't need anyone else telling them they can't say it. I'm perfectly capable of ridiculing them on my own.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 7:17 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Tell that to Niki then.

In a "non-offensive" way, of course.

Don't want any precious little snowflakes feewings getting hurted...

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 7:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Tell that to Niki then.

In a "non-offensive" way, of course.

Don't want any precious little snowflakes feewings getting hurted...

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

1) Seems like you're the one most likely to get their tiny wittew feewings hurted. You run out of a thread faster than Rappy these days, once someone pierces the veil of bullshit you tend to vomit forth and debunks your idiocy with actual facts.

2) Where did Niki say that you couldn't post whatever you want? She may have said that she'd ignore the videos and the useless garbage, or that she'd track the slurs and epithets, but that's a long way from infringing on your free speech rights.

Or do you think that you "free speech" means you can never be held accountable for your words, never have them held up before you? You shouldn't have to take ownership of them? Is that it?

If you have the right to go to a Klan rally in support of "white power", do *I* have the right to take your picture there and publish it on the internet? If I don't, aren't you prohibiting MY free speech rights? (Not to mention the freedom of the press...)

But seriously, Wulf - I'd really like to discuss this. Can you show me where Niki infringed on your rights? I don't really think I need to tell her not to, because I think it's pretty universally understood around here - except for a few on the ultra-right who like to prattle on about having people "banned" with whom they disagree, that is.

The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 8:04 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"But seriously, Wulf - I'd really like to discuss this. Can you show me where Niki infringed on your rights? I don't really think I need to tell her not to, because I think it's pretty universally understood around here - except for a few on the ultra-right who like to prattle on about having people "banned" with whom they disagree, that is."

NEVER SAID SHE DID.

I have issue with the whole idea that we must somehow censor our speech, to prevent the hurted fewings of others.

Yeah, if you want to be taken seriously on an idea... you should present it rationally, calmly and with a minimum of snark...

But if you want to just lash out... thats cool too.

Just, if you choose to do that know you won't win many followers.

However, monitoring, tracking, etc in order to somehow "shame" people who speak (lashing out or not) is kind of Orwellian, don't you think?

Again, you post an idea or belief here, no matter how nicely you do it, there are going to be people who ridicule it...

So?

Man up. Most of us are too old to go running to our parents because "someone on the interwebs insulted me..."

But it doesn't stop some people from trying.

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 8:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
Actually, I think I have on many, many occassions.

As have I. I've also defended PN's rights, and Wulfie's.

I don't have to agree with what they say, but I sure as hell don't need anyone else telling them they can't say it. I'm perfectly capable of ridiculing them on my own.

Man, you gays are hilarious. You ridicule who? You get mentally stripped, raped intellectually , laughed at, and ridiculed here in cyberspace by any creature with fingers and a keyboard......You are a joke, punk.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 9:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"But seriously, Wulf - I'd really like to discuss this. Can you show me where Niki infringed on your rights? I don't really think I need to tell her not to, because I think it's pretty universally understood around here - except for a few on the ultra-right who like to prattle on about having people "banned" with whom they disagree, that is."

NEVER SAID SHE DID.

I have issue with the whole idea that we must somehow censor our speech, to prevent the hurted fewings of others.

And yet you got your itty bitty wittew feewings hurt when I ridiculed your "god", belittled your religious beliefs, and asked if it was your cowardice or your craziness that kept you from serving your country. (By the way, you never did answer that question - which one was it?)

Quote:

Yeah, if you want to be taken seriously on an idea... you should present it rationally, calmly and with a minimum of snark...

But if you want to just lash out... thats cool too.

So you admit that you've never wanted to be taken seriously, eh? I'd add that if you really want to be taken seriously and seen as intelligent, you might want to mix in a spell-checker now and again, too. ;)

Quote:

Just, if you choose to do that know you won't win many followers.

Okay, so we've firmly established that in addition to not wanting to be taken seriously, you also have no interest in gaining any followers. Check.

Quote:

However, monitoring, tracking, etc in order to somehow "shame" people who speak (lashing out or not) is kind of Orwellian, don't you think?

You tell me. You're the one who suggested rounding up and deporting all the "liberals"... Seems you're pretty gung-ho on monitoring and tracking "others"; it's only Orwellian when it's done TO YOU.

The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 11:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Godwin's law isn't about infringing on your rights, it's about not shooting yourself in the foot.

Maybe you need to read my posts more carefully. I never said my rights were infringed, I said I didn't give a fat's rat about godwin's law, just because you have evoked it. If you don't like the way I argue, I'm not losing any sleep.

Quote:
It applies to calling Cant Take the Sky a Nazi for defending Kaneman's right to free speech.

Dear me, that's revisisionist history in the making for you. I didn't call CTS a Nazi and the issue was never free speech from kaneman or otherwise. If I don't like the dross that gets posted on this forum, I'll go elsewhere.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 11:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
China is the test state for NWO policy. China is NWO utopia

A case could be made that China is rapidly becoming a test state for libertarian/tea-party policy, too, and that they're becoming the tea-party utopia. No regulations, no copyright laws, get in, make money, get out, and when the high-rise building goes up in flames, who really cares?

No one believes that China is a utopia. The NWO that DT goes on about is a fantasy of his/her own making. It was a hardline communist state for about 40 years, and now has a rather unpleasant, but economically successful, blend of capitalism and a highly controlling government.

That being said, anyone that I know who has been there has said it's a remarkable and wonderful place, just be careful doing business with Chinese authorities.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 11:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
It applies to calling Cant Take the Sky a Nazi for defending Kaneman's right to free speech.
HUH??? Nobody defended Kaneman's right to free speech, and nobody called me a Nazi. For the record. Just sayin'.

As far Godwin's Law (snicker) goes, all it says is the longer a discussion runs in a forum, the more likely Nazis are going to come into it. It is a statement of probability, that's all. Godwin's Law is not a logical fallacy. It doesn't validate or invalidate the actual Nazi argument.

So really, Godwin's Law, free speech, Nazi name-calling--none of that actually applies the short interchange between Magon and me. I hope by now that Magon understands what I was saying and NOT saying, and feels understood by me. If not, we've said our peace already.

Let's give it a rest, huh?

----
Arrogant and proud of it.

thanks for that, cts.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 12:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Mike

Been to China lately?

Sorry, DT, but that's an auto-lose for you. ;)

You in no way even attempted to make any case or disprove my allegations.

Yeah, I did. China is a totalitarian dictatorship. It's only a libertarian paradise if you're Rand Paul and think libertarian philosophy is about letting corporations run away with everything, but the citizens be killed if they question the govt., or skip out on their 15 hour a day jobs, or fail at them, or have children, get my point?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 12:56 PM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I agree with your definitions that Kane is a troll and “PN is not a troll. He is more of a spammer.” Makes sense.

I still disagree that you can flatly tell someone they lost an argument because of how you interpreted that argument, along with the fact that I don’t think anyone “wins” or “loses” an argument, discussion or debate here. As it happens, I agree with CTTS on both that how she feels re: her second point. I would also call it something we have a lot of here in the States: “I got mine, fuck you”.

Quote:
calling Cant Take the Sky a Nazi for defending Kaneman's right to free speech

That did not happen. There was a “comparison” made she wasn’t “called” a Nazi; there was no defense of free speech, as far as I can tell, there was a “thank you” for Kane not having attacked HER specifically.

Ooops, CTTS caught that the next post down. I read/post/read/post, takes too long to read the entire thread then go back and start responding. Mea culpa. I see now that both Magons and CTTS have refuted what you wrote. You over-dramatized; did you do that on purpose, or is that how you perceived it? Just curious.

As to defending his right to free speech, I believe CTTS was saying nobody IN THIS DISCUSSION, and specifically not her.

Wulf, I really wish you would pay attention. Luckily I don’t have to go through all this again, just re-read Mike’s post regarding the untrue things you said about me. Nobody here CAN censor another’s speech, and nowhere do I say “shut up” or attempt to change anyone. Of course lashing out is free speech, so is commenting on lashing out. Where do you get the idea I’m trying to “censor” speech? Do you have something personal that makes you feel that way? Do you feel guilty or something, or persecuted? I can’t figure that out...you keep saying the same thing over and over, despite it having been refuted...there’s got to be something more to it.

Ahhh, “shame”...there it might be. Why do you give a shit if I quote you? Why not just ignore the entire thread? Do you FEEL ashamed of what you write? If you don’t, why do you give a damn if someone quotes it? You’re taking this way too personally, which I don’t think others are...it is interesting. But basically, continuing to post what you have been just shows more and more that you are whining and “running to mommy” by complaining to the board.

You put up an entire thread just to whine; you've brought that whining into this thread and the one you initially whined ABOUT. Just ignore it and “man up”, as you said.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 1:37 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Mike

Been to China lately?

Sorry, DT, but that's an auto-lose for you. ;)

You in no way even attempted to make any case or disprove my allegations.

Yeah, I did. China is a totalitarian dictatorship. It's only a libertarian paradise if you're Rand Paul and think libertarian philosophy is about letting corporations run away with everything, but the citizens be killed if they question the govt., or skip out on their 15 hour a day jobs, or fail at them, or have children, get my point?

Oh, I get your point, but I think you still insist on missing mine. Rand Paul *IS* largely the face of the tea party movement, it's poster boy, it's golden boy, it's sacred wunderkind. Remember, these are the very people who turned out in droves to protest for the corporations' "right" to walk all over them, chew them up, shit them out, and stomp them into the ground.

In that very sense, China *IS* the tea-party utopia the tea party movement is pushing for.

That you may not LIKE it matters not one whit; it doesn't change what IS.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 1:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
"HUH??? Nobody defended Kaneman's right to free speech"

Well that says a lot...right?

A lot of times, "the right to free speech" means "I want the right to say whatever I want without being criticized or attacked." But that isn't what the First Amendment means--it is there to prevent shutting speech down by force or law, not to prevent speech from being criticized. And I believe you are smart enough that you don't expect THAT kind of "free speech."

As far as I know (though I may be wrong), no one's asked Haken to ban you from RWED. I think THAT means no one wants to take your right to free speech away. It goes without saying that you already have that right (since you're here speaking), and therefore your right to free speech does not need to be defended.

----
Arrogant and proud of it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 2:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
"HUH??? Nobody defended Kaneman's right to free speech"

Well that says a lot...right?

A lot of times, "the right to free speech" means "I want the right to say whatever I want without being criticized or attacked." But that isn't what the First Amendment means--it is there to prevent shutting speech down by force or law, not to prevent speech from being criticized. And I believe you are smart enough that you don't expect THAT kind of "free speech."

As far as I know (though I may be wrong), no one's asked Haken to ban you from RWED. I think THAT means no one wants to take your right to free speech away. It goes without saying that you already have that right (since you're here speaking), and therefore your right to free speech does not need to be defended.

----
Arrogant and proud of it.

There have been many request to have me banned. Whole threads. They get nowhere with their requests. I don't mind at all. I couldn't care less what those whiners think....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 2:22 PM

Quote:
Ahhh, “shame”...there it might be. Why do you give a shit if I quote you? Why not just ignore the entire thread? Do you FEEL ashamed of what you write? If you don’t, why do you give a damn if someone quotes it? You’re taking this way too personally, which I don’t think others are...it is interesting. But basically, continuing to post what you have been just shows more and more that you are whining and “running to mommy” by complaining to the board.

Yup, on all counts.

Yes, I'm fully aware that my words will offend some people. I deal in words, and I tend to be very careful with them. If any of you are offended by my words, you can be pretty sure that was my intent.

And if my words offend you, maybe you should choose YOUR words more carefully in the future. What I'm doing is fighting fire with fire. Many of you run around saying that one group needs to police its own, and I'm calling on you to do the same. I've shown pretty consistently that my left-wing brethren (and sistern?

) here will pull me up on the carpet and read me the riot act for MY words. What I don't see is anyone doing the same on the right. I hear a lot of pissing, moaning, wheedling, and whinging about "political correctness" and not having to stifle yourselves, but precious damned little of that gets brought up when I call you a bunch of racist tea-bagging scum. You want to insist to me that you all have the right to say whatever, and if anyone gets offended by your words, that's THEIR problem. So I'm doing my own experiment here (for years now), and holding you to that standard. And by and large, you don't like it. You get KKKaney, who claims I could *never* ridicule his worthless ass, running around bitching that Haken should ban me, and others who claim that I go too far and should be nicer to people who have openly posted that I should be murdered, and a few who've volunteered to do so.

You want people to respect you? Start by showing them some of the same. DT, you want me to quit calling your pet movement a bunch of teabaggers? Get on them to start treating my side with some respect, or fuck off. Y'all have been running us lefties down for YEARS, and you're being a bunch of giant pussies about getting called a bunch of ballsuckers.

What's that phrase again? MAN UP! Get over it. You on the right don't get to go around bashing groups of people for years, and then ask those same people to be nicer to you than you've ever been to them. And you especially don't get to start whining about it right after y'all claimed that you "shellacked" us on the left. Somehow, you manage to be even smaller and more petty as the party on the rise than you were when you were the party on the fringe.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 2:49 PM

Kwicko, I would never want you banned. I couldn't pay for the rec I get on you. Oh, and stop ranting...You gays are funny. Way too serious.

...and spelling fairy I'd go back over your post if I called MYSELF the spelling fairy....Start with whinging....LOL

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 3:27 PM

Mike,

I am certain this is not the case, but I actually can't state the details on a public forum, I'll send you an email.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 3:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
Kwicko, I would never want you banned. I couldn't pay for the rec I get on you. Oh, and stop ranting...You gays are funny. Way too serious.

...and spelling fairy I'd go back over your post if I called MYSELF the spelling fairy....Start with whinging....LOL

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary:

Quote:
whinge verb \ˈhwinj, ˈwinj\
whingedwhing·ing or whinge·ing
Definition of WHINGE

intransitive verb
British
: to complain fretfully : whine
— whinge noun, British
Examples of WHINGE

Quit whinging and get on with the job.
People were whinging about the lack of service.
Origin of WHINGE

Middle English *whingen, from Old English hwinsian; akin to Old High German winsōn to moan
First Known Use: 12th century

Now what were you whinging about?

The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, November 17, 2010 5:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kaneman:
There have been many request to have me banned. Whole threads.

I'm sorry to hear that, though I completely understand why they wanted you banned. For what it's worth, I would defend your right to stay. But to be clear, I couldn't ever defend the kind of things you say. You know they are horrid, Kane.

If I may be so bold as to pry, why do you do it, Kane? I know you are fully capable of making intelligent and articulate arguments. Why resort to inexcusable vulgarity at all? It completely baffles me.

----
Arrogant and proud of it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 18, 2010 7:51 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

CTTS, he has explained many times that he does it to pull our chain. I believe he also does it to get attention; the two put together being the definition of "troll."

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 20, 2010 4:16 AM