What's the deal with Jongstraw? by kpo

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

Horse shit. I'm sorry, Byte, but this is a bullshit position. You're pretty much stating outright that the baker making bread in Dresden in 1943 was exactly as guilty of atrocities in the Holocaust as the guy in the camps running the ovens. That's a load of crap, and everybody here should know that.

It's called social responsibility.

The bread maker doesn't get a free pass. When the Allies first came in and found the concentration camps, they rounded up nearby townspeople and herded them through, to SHOW them what their government had been doing. They were all uniformly shocked.

HOW in the HELL do they not realize what's going on in there? How can the guy running the ovens tell himself these aren't people, they are threats to everyone in Germany and they have to kill them?

And the answer is - they all realize, on some level, but they were too frightened to admit it to themselves. Too frightened to do anything about it, gave into the people with the guns giving the orders. Told themselves that they could depend on people who knew better to handle the situation and give those orders. So they played games in the street, wrote letters to each other, and baked bread while the prisoners baked.

That is what is horse shit. In that way, US citizens who hate torture are just as guilty as the ones who support it. The ones who are anti-war are just as guilty as the warmongers. Because their OPINIONS and WHO THEY VOTE FOR change NOTHING.

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

Saturday, June 1, 2013 6:00 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Sorry Byte, but that dog don't hunt. If your measure is whether your action is "effective" or not in changing the outcome... EVEN IF you were to take some very extreme measures... say, for example, assassinating a guard at a camp... it would STILL "do nothing". The guard would be replaced, and the camp would continue to function. Does that person then belong in the same category as a guard themselves?

I'll wait for your answer.

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

Saturday, June 1, 2013 6:10 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

NIKI, MAL4, and all of the others who seem to have a reading problem:

First of all, may I clarify for the millionth time that rappy is not a rapist (as far as I know)? I was merely making the point that he deserves to be treated with at least the same level of opprobrium. I said he "deserved" to be called one, "or worse".

Clearly (to me, at least) I was using the name as a mark on a yardstick, a measure of my disapproval (which is pretty damn strong). I did NOT call him a rapist. Apparently, that point got lost in either a spate of bad reading, or the absolute shock and horror (Horror, I tell you!) that someone brought a moral dimension to rappy's usual crap.

So, the question (for the millionth time) is not whether or not rappy is a rapist, but what level of opprobrium he deserves.

NIKI_ you claim that calling rappy a rapist is "reprehensible". Well, first of all, I did not. But let me ask YOU a question in turn:

What is more reprehensible? Saying someone is morally repugnant because he has actively supported genocidal, ecocidal, tyrannical programs while they were in motion? Or actively supporting genocidal, ecocidal, tyrannical programs while they were in motion?

Because I find it curious, and terribly misplaced, that you would save your deepest level of horror for someone who (quite accurately, in my opinion) calls out another person for their real moral failings. It's like HKC talking about how "wronged" Jongsstraw was, all the while ignoring the exact same crap (Or worse) that YOU were subject to. So I'm wondering what your moral yardstick is, and whether or not you're applying the same one to different people. If you have an explanation, I'd sure like to hear it. Because I feel I'm being treated to some super-secret double-standard.

And then, maybe we can get back to the discussion of how to apportion blame in cases when society goes horribly, horribly wrong.

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

Saturday, June 1, 2013 7:11 AM

KPO

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
I didn't start this stupid thread with my name in it did I?

In a way, you did. How long did you think you could spam the boards before you got a reaction? Did you expect that reaction to be positive?

It's not personal. It's just war.

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

Saturday, June 1, 2013 8:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Sorry Byte, but that dog don't hunt. If your measure is whether your action is "effective" or not in changing the outcome... EVEN IF you were to take some very extreme measures... say, for example, assassinating a guard at a camp... it would STILL "do nothing". The guard would be replaced, and the camp would continue to function. Does that person then belong in the same category as a guard themselves?

I'll wait for your answer.

I'm talking about enabling through inaction, or indirectly through funding.

Even though the person failed to change anything in that case, I think that this effort is something a little more extreme. The morality in of itself of killing a guard aside, since I equate "people doing their job" as about on the same level of culpability and guilt as "people in denial/enabling," this would probably count as "taking action" by my definition. It may just be swept under the rug like any other failed attempt at resistance, but it's doing something BESIDES playing into the hands of TPTB by protesting or voting in accordance to their rules.

There's also a scale there of taking action. Risking your job as a whistleblower or risking jail time ranks lower than risking your life.

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

Saturday, June 1, 2013 8:19 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So YOUR measure of how much responsibility a person deserves is how much they risk to change things? To reiterate: risk?

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

Saturday, June 1, 2013 8:22 AM

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

Quote:
What is more reprehensible? Saying someone is morally repugnant because he has actively supported genocidal, ecocidal, tyrannical programs while they were in motion? Or actively supporting genocidal, ecocidal, tyrannical programs while they were in motion?

Obviously that has nothing to do with the issue at hand, and you know it. I've said many of the same things (perhaps not as dramatically) about Rap as you have, and you know how much I absolutely DESPISE his attitude and what pawns he and his kind are for the most reprehensible activities of many. That has nothing whatsoever to do with calling him "Rapey".

There's nothing "wrong" in my book with expressing the opinion that someone is morally repugnant. And, as an aside, my disgust with using that term is FAR from my "deepest level of horror", I'm merely expressing the opinion that I think it's disgusting. My entire point, AND NOTHING ELSE, is that calling someone "Rapey" on a forum board is repugnant and puts you squarely in the same category as the most irresponsibly nasty posters HERE.

Given I have been the receiver of some of their truly horrible comments, it bothers me to see someone I usually consider fairly intelligent doing something similar, and I've expressed my opinion. If you want to keep making the argument about some other criteria or standard which has nothing to do with common decency in communication, that's a game I'm not going to play.

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

Saturday, June 1, 2013 8:24 AM

Well, slightly more than that as I worked through the above post.

Protestors actually do risk life and limb at times - but the problem is that the risk comes from basically walking into a trap, as I see it. Protests are acceptable to the government because they're easy to put down.

So there's also an element there of How Much Resistance. How much rule breaking. Getting a protest permit when and where so the jackboots descend on you around G20 is a different part of the scale than assembling unlawfully in a place like Occupy Wall Street or scattering the ground forces and them not knowing WHAT to do, which is then in a different place than violently breaking into a place and forcefully trying to put a stop to something.

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

Saturday, June 1, 2013 8:32 AM

So it's really a complicated answer.

On one hand, there are definitely some types of taking action, which then fail, which still probably count as taking action just on their own merits.

But on the other hand, whenever someone takes action but also fails to effect change, it is in some ways a waste of time and effort, and in that way enables whatever was being challenged in the first place.

It's especially bad if people THINK they're being effective, but are actually wasting their time and other methods might work better.

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

Saturday, June 1, 2013 8:37 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
AND NOTHING ELSE, is that calling someone "Rapey" on a forum board is repugnant and puts you squarely in the same category as the most irresponsibly nasty posters HERE.

Except it wasn't me. You may find it a too-fine moral parsing, but all I said was that he deserved that level of disgust. If you're OK instead with me calling rappy a disgusting parasite that deserves nothing more than a dose of antihelmintic, and are instead having a problem with that specific name "rapey", then leave me out of the discussion because I wasn't the one who posted it. (altho I agree with the level of emotion behind it.)

So, yanno what? Figure out what's bothering you, and then come back to me.

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

Saturday, June 1, 2013 9:33 AM

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

Sigh...you defended calling him that. Yes, Kiki is the one who actually used the term, but by consistently arguing that he "deserves" it, you put yourself in the same category.

And enough already. I don't think anyone should call anyone "Rapey"; anyone can call anyone anything they want here, obviously. I think there's a lot of nastiness going around and I hope it does down at least somewhat over time. End of story, for me at least.

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

Saturday, June 1, 2013 9:59 AM

MAL4PREZ

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
NIKI, MAL4, and all of the others who seem to have a reading problem:

First of all, may I clarify for the millionth time that rappy is not a rapist (as far as I know)? I was merely making the point that he deserves to be treated with at least the same level of opprobrium. I said he "deserved" to be called one, "or worse".

Oh right, you said he deserved to be called a rapist, but you didn't call him that. You flat out say that he's on the moral level (or below) of a rapist, but you're not applying the term yourself and you're offended, offended I say that we think you are misusing the word just because you brought it up and said that he deserves to be called it.

[ETA: Just saw Niki's post. Didn't recall that Kiki used the "Rapey" thing first. Doesn't change the quote above and my reaction to it.]

Good lord. That sounds like an argument Rappy would make.

Quote:
Clearly (to me, at least) I was using the name as a mark on a yardstic

Rape is not a tick on a yardstick. Rape is rape. Other crimes and moral offenses are not rape. As far as you and I know, Rappy has never raped someone. So the term does NOT apply.

I suppose you will continue with your Rappy style wiggling. It is quite disappointing to hear this kind of thing coming from you.

You defend the word when it does not apply. Simple as that.

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

Saturday, June 1, 2013 3:06 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
You defend the word when it does not apply.

OMG!! Call the police! I defended the use of the word "brown" when it should have been "taupe"?

Clearly, that is NOT the issue!

Yanno what? I respect your guys' opinions, and because of that I was reacting to you guys being tweaked, but being defensive is over. I "get" that you two are seriously ... whatever... but I frankly don't understand why. Is it the name-calling? Is it the SPECIFIC name? Would you have been less upset if I used a more polite, more indirect equivalent, like saying that rappy metaphorically fucks people without their consent? Was drawing a moral equivalence between rape and advocating genocide what set you off? Did I cross some invisible politeness threshold? Was I being "unfair"? Something else?

You keep saying..."But it's RAPE!" and I'm like... "YEAH.... AND...?"

I would have a hard time explaining rappy's crap to the parents of a dead Afghani child, and to relatives of the hundred-thousand or more dead. "He was just mouthing off on the internet"? Really??

THIS is what rappy supports. Please watch it.

Therefore, I stand by what I said.

As far as I'm concerned, this conversation has dropped into the who-the-fuck-knows? category. Maybe someday, you guys can explain it to me in a way that I can grok. Maybe mutual understanding will arrive later.

In the meantime, if Bytemite wants to continue the conversation on shared responsibility, I'm heading in that direction.

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

Saturday, June 1, 2013 4:01 PM

KWICKO

"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:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:

Rape is not a tick on a yardstick. Rape is rape. Other crimes and moral offenses are not rape. As far as you and I know, Rappy has never raped someone. So the term does NOT apply.

By Byte's logic above, if someone is raped and you don't do anything about it, you may as well be a rapist by your inaction or inability or unwillingness to stop it.

And that's the problem with trying to deal with such issues are pure black or pure white; no room is left for the gray, and most problems are more than 95% gray.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

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

Sunday, June 2, 2013 5:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
I think there's a lot of nastiness going around and I hope it does down at least somewhat over time. End of story, for me at least.

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

Sunday, June 2, 2013 6:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:

Rape is not a tick on a yardstick. Rape is rape. Other crimes and moral offenses are not rape. As far as you and I know, Rappy has never raped someone. So the term does NOT apply.

By Byte's logic above, if someone is raped and you don't do anything about it, you may as well be a rapist by your inaction or inability or unwillingness to stop it.

And that's the problem with trying to deal with such issues are pure black or pure white; no room is left for the gray, and most problems are more than 95% gray.

Remember that community where the boys threw a "humiliation party," got a girl drunk and assaulted her and posted it online? All the adults knew about this kind of behaviour and it had been happening for GENERATIONS and they all encouraged it by looking the other way? Doesn't help that a lot of THOSE adults probably did the same kinda thing to girls from their generation when they were back in highschool and they've never come forward.

Damn right you can be as guilty by inaction as whoever actually put their hands to a person. These things go deep and none of this is "gray."

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

Sunday, June 2, 2013 6:03 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So, on to shared responsibility. This is something that I really haven't thought about much, but it's an interesting topic.

BYTE, let me give you a less obvious example of shread responsibility... the BP Macondo blowout.

The concrete used was substandard.

The "pour", inferior.

The transition from testing to operational was rushed.

The blowout preventer wasn't designed for, and had never been tested in, deep water.

The spill response plan, the materiel and manpower available, was vastly inadequate.

Government oversight was non-existant.

----------------------

This is BP's defense: It wasn't us, or at least not only us. It was our contractor/ supplier/market/ business partners/ regulators who ALSO dropped the ball. Nonetheless, it was BP's money. and BP devided how that money was to be spent. And although the corporate culture was- move it fast and get it making money, because every day this thing is offline is costing us profit- there is no
paper trail. There is no way that one can legally point to a single person, or a group of people, as decision-makers. (Since that is the case, I question their egregious salaries, but that's another story.)

Where does the responsibility lie? Who pays for the damages? Everyone? Nobody?

------------------

As far as lumping everyone into the same "at fault" basis unless they do something effective... well, that is how you get Tea Partiers threatening to assasinate various representatives. Is that the direction you want?

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

Sunday, June 2, 2013 6:30 AM

Quote:
As far as lumping everyone into the same "at fault" basis unless they do something effective... well, that is how you get Tea Partiers threatening to assasinate various representatives. Is that the direction you want?

-_- Yes, telling left-right invested voters that they're voting for elected officials who ignore them and do what wealthy lobbyists tell them is exactly the same as encouraging people to assassinate representatives.

Look, I hate this system because our concept of "representatives" is a joke. None of them represent WHATSOEVER. But despite the fact that I think of it as utterly FUTILE to try to change the system from within, and that I think both the economic and government system is exploitative to a horrifying degree, I've always been willing to let you people try to fix it yourselves.

I just happen to think the whole thing is going to crumble before you all even get a chance. And heck, that might actually be the ONE THING that even gives you the opportunity to establish something that WORKS.

As for BP, both BP and the regulators are responsible, but more than that, capitalism itself was to blame too. There were concerns at the time that war might start with Iran and the global market for oil might become unstable if Iran oil became unavailable. So they hurried up on Deep Horizon, and, well...

If it weren't for the contamination and ecosystem collapse in the gulf waters, there'd be something almost satisfying in the karmic justice of them no longer being able to tap the deep horizon. As it is, they're assholes of the first order.

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

Sunday, June 2, 2013 6:46 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Okay, Byte, thanks for the reply. Needs some thought. Because you are saying that there are SYSTEMIC issues- both our governmentso-called representatives and the Macondo blowout are examples of that, and that working within the system doesn't work?

Not trying to get you in trouble here, but just to extend the discussion along theoretical lines... I think the only way to beat a system is to have a replacement system, because no matter how people feel abut freedom and all that other good stuff, they still need to work and they still need to eat.

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

Sunday, June 2, 2013 7:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Okay, Byte, thanks for the reply. Needs some thought. Because you are saying that there are SYSTEMIC issues- both our governmentso-called representatives and the Macondo blowout are examples of that, and that working within the system doesn't work?

Not trying to get you in trouble here, but just to extend the discussion along theoretical lines... I think the only way to beat a system is to have a replacement system, because no matter how people feel abut freedom and all that other good stuff, they still need to work and they still need to eat.

A replacement system is definitely a good idea. :) I like possibly running a replacement system hidden in plain sight right along side the existing system.

I don't really know what kind of alternate system could've worked in the Monsato blowout, but I wouldn't have minded something like environmentalists in boats like what happens with whaling ships. I don't know if it would've done anything, but it brings attention to stuff that often doesn't get attention.

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

Sunday, June 2, 2013 6:27 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, the best replacement system that I can think of- one that doesn't involve changing ANYTHING except one thing... is to find a replacement money. Like Bitcoin. Except that the problems with any currency also exist with Bitcoin: it can be commandeered and manipulated by a small group of people. So let's do away with money altogether. International trades, for example, can be handled as simple barter, or three-way barter: food for oil.

Still working in how to deal with internal economies.

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

Monday, June 3, 2013 2:38 AM

KWICKO

Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:
As far as lumping everyone into the same "at fault" basis unless they do something effective... well, that is how you get Tea Partiers threatening to assasinate various representatives. Is that the direction you want?

-_- Yes, telling left-right invested voters that they're voting for elected officials who ignore them and do what wealthy lobbyists tell them is exactly the same as encouraging people to assassinate representatives.

You've essentially said just that, and you've basically called me a rapist for not stopping something I didn't know was happening.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero

"I was wrong" - Hero, 2012

Mitt Romney, introducing his running mate: "Join me in welcoming the next President of the United States, Paul Ryan!"

Rappy's response? "You're lying, gullible ( believing in some BS you heard on msnbc ) or hard of hearing."

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

Monday, June 3, 2013 6:14 AM

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

Quote:
Yes, telling left-right invested voters that they're voting for elected officials who ignore them and do what wealthy lobbyists tell them is exactly the same as encouraging people to assassinate representatives.

I just read that one. OMG. There are no words.

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

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 2:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Niki2:
Quote:
Yes, telling left-right invested voters that they're voting for elected officials who ignore them and do what wealthy lobbyists tell them is exactly the same as encouraging people to assassinate representatives.

I just read that one. OMG. There are no words.

SARCASM, Niki. Sig basically insinuated that I'm a gun-toting tea partier who can only think of solving problems with bullets simply because of my views on the effectiveness of voting.

I don't know why everyone gets a free pass to insult me, but when I snark back, omg, it's SHOCKING.

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

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 2:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Quote:
As far as lumping everyone into the same "at fault" basis unless they do something effective... well, that is how you get Tea Partiers threatening to assasinate various representatives. Is that the direction you want?

-_- Yes, telling left-right invested voters that they're voting for elected officials who ignore them and do what wealthy lobbyists tell them is exactly the same as encouraging people to assassinate representatives.

You've essentially said just that, and you've basically called me a rapist for not stopping something I didn't know was happening.

NO, I DID NOT.

I elaborated on these views in another thread. Social responsibility means that the person who doesn't stop something is in their own way guilty of neglect, and as such as guilty as the person who did the thing, but that doesn't mean that the average person is also guilty of EVERY crime in the world. That's ridiculous.

If this thread is going to just become "but you also" and accusations of hypocrisy when the conversation is about demonizing other posters with nicknames and accusations and insults, then fine, you win. It's not at all what I intended to say or what I meant but you got me! In commemoration of this event, I suggest a new nickname for myself: 'lil bytey-rapey. I'll even be the new insult target for everyone, it promotes board unity. No one has to defend or justify these attacks, it's clearly very important to everyone, and it was wrong of me to question the application. Meanwhile I'll console myself by looking forward to someone getting pissed off enough to just start spamming the board with hardcore bdsm porn and pictures of human intestinal waste.

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

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 3:47 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

That's what PN is for, surely

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

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 4:45 AM

*Sigh* I guess I don't want to leave it at that. Sorry for going off on you Kwicko. I wasn't clear in the original communication what I meant.

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

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 5:13 AM

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

Quote:
SARCASM, Niki

Ah, I see. Sorry; I was shocked to think you actually meant that, I'm glad I misunderstood. Around here, sarcasm is sometimes hard to detect, which is why I use ;o) so much, or copy others' concepts of {/sarcasm}. Glad you cleared that up for me, thanx!

I don't think anyone gets a "free pass" to insult you, any more than anyone else. Hell, if people get a free pass for insulting anyone, kiddo, it's ME! How OFTEN does anyone get taken to task for the very obvious insults hurled at me? I'M NOT CRYING VICTIM, in case anyone's wondering, I'm quite content to take my lumps; I choose to be here, I choose to be myself, so be it. But lots of people have spoken up to chastise others for going after you, as some have for me as well as others, and you have every bit as much right to snark back, or just SNARK, at anyone.

Of course, one could say that everyone has as much right to snark back at you as you have to snark, and on and on and on, but that would be getting silly. ;o) We all snark; we are snark-festers...

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

Wednesday, June 5, 2013 3:44 PM