Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely

[JimC]

I've wondered since I was invited here how long it would be before the liberal fascists took over this forum and started their leftist political pogrom against any speech or expression to the right of Josef Stalin.

Now I know.

Your suspensions have not been because of your political views, but because of your personal attacks on others. This includes generalised attacks such as referring to members of the forum as "liberal fascists". This is a warning that any similar post will incur a lengthy suspension.

Wait, you can't refer to people as liberal fascists?

Will this rule be equally applied where generalized insults in the other political direction are leveled?

I ask this only because you should be careful what road you go down here. Try to enforce the rules evenhandedly, without distinction based on political opinion.

Point taken, it will be enforced even handedly. But the key point is whether it is clearly directed at members here. If rEv starts a rant about conservative scumbags in general, we'll just let him rant on.

"RAnt"? I've never ranted in my life!!

There was an "if" involved...

And your calm, measured and always completely well-balanced posts are the very antithesis of "ranting"

[pErvinalia]

:indubitably:

Fuckit, what's the indubitably cunt of a smiley?!? FUCKING SMILEYS HERE GO BY STUPID NAMES!!!1

[pErvinalia]

[Svartalf]

[tuco]

The problem is, and I repeat myself for X-time, that the only proper response which would be: this rule is necessary because .. cannot be made without resorting to anecdotes as its not possible to run two models at the same time and compare. Solution would be to suspend the rule, for period of time long enough, then analyse results. But that would be adult and intelligent.

No, that would be naive. There is simply no sensible argument that can be made that removing personal attack rules and the like will lead to less personal attacks. And concomitantly that more personal attacks leads to more reasoned and rational debate. You seem to be a fan of embarking on monologues and ignoring rebuttals of your "points". If you think a reasonable argument for the above can be made, then fucking make it. Otherwise I and others will ignore your pronouncements as the empty assertions that they are.

This is made up bullshit:

Such a rule is certainly enforceable and rational.

How its rational? Show your working out.

You first, chief. You've got about 60 outstanding questions all over this forum that you are refusing to address. When you start debating honestly, then we'll start treating your request with some respect.

Yeah like here, I see those reasoned and rational debates lol Tell me something I do not know. For once.

[pErvinalia]

Wibble. Answer questions.

[tuco]

I do not think so. With probability close to certainty I suspect how this will end up. In this sense, I expect nothing from this debate, and just amuse myself. I answered everything. You got no data, that is first problem. Second, there is no democracy here, there will not be voting, so what is the point? And lastly, its fine to question status quo, it ought to be able to defend itself.

Answer the questions! lol You are not my boss, mom nor even friend so .. just fuck off

[pErvinalia]

I do not think so. With probability close to certainty I suspect how this will end up. In this sense, I expect nothing from this debate, and just amuse myself.

So you agree you're trolling? Ok.

I answered everything.

Categorically lying. I should report you for even thinking we might be stupid enough to fall for this crap.

You got no data, that is first problem.

Why would I need data when it is you who is making claims or being asked questions?

Second, there is no democracy here, there will not be voting, so what is the point?

What's the point of anything? Nihilism for the win!!

And lastly, its fine to question status quo, it ought to be able to defend itself.

Huh?

Answer the questions! lol You are not my boss, mom nor even friend so .. just fuck off

Nah. I'm going to be a thorn in your side until you start debating honestly.

[DaveDodo007]

I've wondered since I was invited here how long it would be before the liberal fascists took over this forum and started their leftist political pogrom against any speech or expression to the right of Josef Stalin.

Now I know.

What happened? I'm only asking because even JimC who is normally the paragon of moderation of a free speech forum is getting a little tetchy when he can't defend feminism and/or lefty/liberalism using reasonable arguments. How long before anybody who isn't a lefty/liberal faggot gets banned for being a 'troll'? It is all fun and games when you have Bush and Palin to laugh at. Though when the lefty/liberals have to defend Hillary and Sanders stupidity then it is all hands to the pumps and nothing is too pathetic that it needs to be defended at all costs. What is worst is the lefty/liberal tossers think they are right by fiat so don't even need to argue their (non existent points.)

Reality has a liberal bias, evolution motherfuckers do you speak it. I wouldn't mind if it was just this little old forum but these safe place, jazz hands and non platforming fascists seem to have taken over academia as well. It seems free speech, free expression and freedom of conscience are just words to the lefty/liberal maggots. We have no second amendment in the UK so be sure to buy some extra guns for me as I will be joining you in the foxholes of freedom and liberty soon enough. It is only a matter of time before we have to cull these authoritarian Orwellian cunts once and for all.

[tuco]

Trolling? What is that? I chit-chat. Chit-chat is done for amusement. Getting into line here.

edit: What claims I made? Claims that need to be proven by evidence? I am not the one making claims without evidence here. I question status quo, not sure what you do not understand about notion that status quo ought to defend itself, and the only answers there are are made up bullshit. No evidence. Oh Youtube comments lol

[pErvinalia]

I've wondered since I was invited here how long it would be before the liberal fascists took over this forum and started their leftist political pogrom against any speech or expression to the right of Josef Stalin.

Now I know.

What happened? I'm only asking because even JimC who is normally the paragon of moderation of a free speech forum is getting a little tetchy when he can't defend feminism and/or lefty/liberalism using reasonable arguments. How long before anybody who isn't a lefty/liberal faggot gets banned for being a 'troll'?

What about us non-gay lefty/liberals?

Reality has a liberal bias, evolution motherfuckers do you speak it. I wouldn't mind if it was just this little old forum but these safe place, jazz hands and non platforming fascists seem to have taken over academia as well.

What do you care about academia? I'd be thoroughly surprised if you had been within ten kilometres of a university.

It seems free speech, free expression and freedom of conscience are just words to the lefty/liberal maggots. We have no second amendment in the UK so be sure to buy some extra guns for me as I will be joining you in the foxholes of freedom and liberty soon enough. It is only a matter of time before we have to cull these authoritarian Orwellian cunts once and for all.

Suffering from delusions too? You can get medication for that.

[pErvinalia]

Trolling? What is that?

What you do - that is, having a one-sided conversation where you refuse to address what your interlocutors say.

edit: What claims I made? Claims that need to be proven by evidence?

That removing the rules will lead to more adult and productive debate.

[tuco]

Who defined trolling like that? You? lol

I made no such claim and you cannot quote me on it so .. gg. The only claim I made in this direction was that: IF every sentence would end up with ".. and fuck you" it would become norm thus not problematic in the sense it was brought up, as problematic.

edit: you really are star rEvolutionist. I mostly avoided you back at ratskep, cant do really here, but you are gold. Seriously.

[pErvinalia]

Who defined trolling like that? You? lol

By implication this means that you don't think dishonest debating (i.e. only being here to amuse yourself and not respond to rebuttals to your "points") is trolling. That's retarded.

I made no such claim and you cannot quote me on it so .. gg.

Firstly, this point is in relation to you asking me for evidence of some alleged claim I made. The only claim I made was that lack of moderation sees forums descend into anarchy. For which I provided the evidence of youtube (and I could provide more if I thought you were interacting here honestly). So what the fuck evidence are you asking for?

Secondly, bullshit you didn't make any claim. Here's some of your stupid comments so far:

**"But not here, not personal attacks. That would interfere with discussion. lol Fucking idiots, hypocritical idiots."

You consider that someone holding the view that personal attacks interfere with discussion is a fucking idiot. Therefore, by direct implication, you hold the view that personal attacks DON'T interfere with discussion. Unless you are calling yourself a fucking idiot.

**"If everyone said " .. and fuck you" it would become common thus .. no problem."

You are literally saying here that there would be no problem with personal attacks.

**"Change the fucking rules, let people live and moderate only what is in fact interfering with debate like excessive spam or advertising."

Here you specifically claim (in the context of personal attacks) that only spam and advertising interfere with debate. Therefore you hold that personal attacks don't interfere with debate.

**"Solution would be to suspend the rule, for period of time long enough, then analyse results."

Why would we suspend the rules if you didn't think that allowing personal attacks could lead to something more desirable for a debate forum?!

You really need to understand the meanings of words you use. Or perhaps logic is your problem. Whatever it is, you need to sort your shit out.

edit: you really are star rEvolutionist. I mostly avoided you back at ratskep,

Thank fuck for that.

cant do really here, but you are gold. Seriously.

What is this supposed to mean? Can you put it into a form of English someone could hope to understand? I'd like to rebut the fuck out of it.

[tuco]

Can you quote me on those alleged claims or not? What you quoted is not me claiming anything in need of evidence. I am not Seth (apologies Seth) who will quote sentence by sentence, babbling nonsense, pretending to have debate. You talk shit pure and simple from where I sit.