Speaking of socks:
Don't think I didn't notice the posters I have NEVER EVER INTERACTED WITH calling for a permanent ban.
I actually still have enough respect for Rob to not accuse him (I just think you're a zealot with terrible judge of character 😛 )
So that leaves Whirl, Adam, or Teg as sockers. Whirl most likely.
Originally posted by cdtm
Speaking of socks:Don't think I didn't notice the posters I have NEVER EVER INTERACTED WITH calling for a permanent ban.
I actually still have enough respect for Rob to not accuse him (I just think you're a zealot with terrible judge of character 😛 )
So that leaves Whirl, Adam, or Teg as sockers. Whirl most likely.
Ever stumble across something online and wonder wtf it is, yet find it strangely compelling?
What is that game anyways?
Originally posted by cdtmWho do you expect a reply from cd?
Ever stumble across something online and wonder wtf it is, yet find it strangely compelling?What is that game anyways?
Originally posted by cdtmYou did get a reply message from me, yes. But it was asking you a question, not clicking on your link or engaging in its subject matter. I know you use random irrelevance trolling as your main troll approach. So who do you expect a reply on your random irrelevance from? How is this approach working for you? Is it working?
I got one from you didnt't I? 🙂I dunno though, who does anyone except a reply from? Anyone interested, I guess, or not. Same as anyone else.
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
You did get a reply message from me, yes. But it was asking you a question, not clicking on your link or engaging in its subject matter. I know you use random irrelevance trolling as your main troll approach. So who do you expect a reply on your random irrelevance from? How is this approach working for you? Is it working?
Nah, I don't troll.
Tbh I just never cared what other people think. If I talk about, say, anti-semetism, it's because I'm actually trying to come to grips with the logic behind anti-semetism. If I get violently negative reactions, I'll chafe against both the idea that anyone is obligated to social pecking orders, subject to social norms, and frustration that no one really seems willing to engage in the why's.
That's why I brought up Whoopie Goldberg. I'm genuinely sympathetic against the backlash she received. The way I see it, she's a black woman who sees men with white skin, many of whome she likely deals with in entertainment and who have achieved great success, and started to ask some questions. And those questions resulted in an incomplete idealogy that came out poorly when she tried expressing herself on The View.
And ok, there's a lot of nuance she missed. "White" jews were locked out of opportunity by WASP, for example. So TALK about it. ENGAGE her on it, publically. Make it a LEARNING moment.
Don't just tell her to shut it and take a few weeks off, and force an apology.
That's how you create bitterness, and maybe a real trip down the rabbit hole.
I mean, what could she be thinking now? Has her understanding of why she's wrong increased? Or did she just learn to keep quiet and stew?
Literally nothing about her statement has anything to do with that. You just pulled an imagined scenario out of thin air.
She was trying to be profound, and say that the Holocaust was caused by inhumanity in general, and not targeted genocide specifically. It was a clumsy, "we all bleed red" metaphor that minimizes the historic persecution of the groups targeted by the Nazis.
Because the truth is that some animals are more equal than others, and generalizing the Holocaust as if it affected everyone equally is reductive and lazy.