"That's the problem with you. You deny being vague, but you're vague and it's unchangeable because the moment you're specific, you end up feeling a painful pressure to concede your position."
This is just purely delusional.
Have you ever read one of my posts? They often go on far beyond what anyone was asking for just to provide the specificity one would need to refute it. I literally do that on purpose.
And conceding might feel painful for you, but you can stop projecting. When your foundational value is only believing things that are actually true, being priced wrong isn't painful, it's someone doing you a favor.
"White flame and I won for a reason."
Yes, because people valued your right to be a troll over fostering the environment the terms of the site set out to achieve. We get the site we deserve.
"Actually... Life taught me that RB is more right than you are about how what you can and cannot get away with works in general as well as the severity of pubishment vs leeway."
I haven't made any arguments here about what one can or can't get away with, I mean look at who's president.
I'm talking about what kind of consequences should follow certain behaviors, and how RB's attitude makes those consequences much more likely in the real world.
“I wouldn't get you banned”
You still don’t get it, how incredibly sad.
If my behavior were such that my ban were warranted, you should vote for me to get banned. If it’s not, then you shouldn’t. The world is about way more than personal relationships, where every action can only be interpreted as a signal of how one person feels about the other personally. You really need to learn how it works.
“But because I won, the obvious consequences are zero.”
The site gets the participation it deserves. Enjoy your trolling and rage baiting.
“So yeah, I don't really see what else is there to your argument other than you not liking some posts.”
I know you don’t, that’s exactly the problem.
“The topic is really just bunch of people wanting to ban Remy because they don't like what he posts.”
Yep, this is all you’re able to see because this is apparently all your simplistic mind can handle.
“you seem to be living in delusion that you decide the topic in the first place”
No genius, the topic is decided by what the conversation was about at the time both participants entered into it.
Go back to your first response to me (post 89 responding to my post 88), I had just commented to Remy about taking accountability for his own actions and you responded by making a point to mewhere you totally failed to understand the difference between the effects of someone’s speech vs their culpability for those effects. A distinction you have demonstrated that you have no concept of time and time again, including right here in this most recent post vvv
“The other response is that your post is offensive. It offended my sensitive feelings. So now I gotta ask for your ban so my feelings can heal.”
Exactly. Stupidity demonstrated.
“You are only on this site because as much as you hate me, you really enjoy talking to me. I live rent free in your head. If not, then just quit the site. You can't. You're addicted to me.”
So you’re a narcissist, that really does explain alot.
Sorry bro, I spend no time thinking about you and never have, the only reason I’ve become active in this debate is because deciding what consequences someone should face for their actions is literally what I do for a living, so I find it interesting to discuss here in this context. The problem however is that I’m conversing with two people who are too stupid to even understand that that is the topic at hand. So there’s that.
“not letting other people talk because their words offend you”
Except that, as has already been explained to you, this is not what’s happening.
Some people on this’s site get offended and complain, moderators take notice and make a decision they feel is best for the site.
People have every right to complain and raise the issue when they find something offensive, that’s not them not letting you talk, they don’t have that power.
The moderators have a responsibility to take their position into account and if they decide to ban someone, it won’t be because *they* got offended.
This is really basic stuff. We operate within a system, you act like we don’t, that’s why you are not getting it.
“It's hard for me to accept leftist talking points because it violates my conservative identity.”
Well, at least you’re being honest.
“you will never get how you're wrong because doing so violates your leftist identity”
Text book projection.
Just because that’s how your brain operates doesn’t mean it works that way for the rest of us. Some of us actually do care about logic and reason, one way to tell the difference is that those people do what you did not, provide a substantive response instead to just pointing at someone else and saying “you’ll never get it because of your identity…”
“If you need information to be said NICELY, then you're a bitch”
You still don’t get it, wow.
One can recognize offensive language without being offended, first of all. More importantly though, it has nothing to do with the people who are offended by the things you say, it has everything to do with the fact that the website has rules governing the conduct of its users, and your behavior is in violation of them. That’s it, It’s not rocket science. Why is this so hard for you?
“So you want to teach me what my opinion is?”
No genius. If you would have bothered to read the entire sentence then you’d have noted the second half of it: “ …in actual real life as it has been used for centuries now”. Crazy that I have to explain this, but teaching you the historical usage of a word =/= teaching you your own opinion.
But hey, at least you’re admitting that your definition of free speech is just your own opinion, so progress I guess…
“Again, you don't really know what [my personal, made up definition of free speech because it feels good to be] is”
Guilty as charged.
Now if you’d like for me to teach you what the real phrase means in actual real life as it has been used for centuries now, I’d be happy to explain it.
“All of your arguing is in bad faith whether you admit to it or not.”
Well that settles it then, cause Remy said so…
“I wouldn't say Remy is spamming anything consistently. I mean, he barely makes 2 posts per week.”
Yet another example of your blatant dishonesty.
Perhaps that’s his pattern now that he’s on trial, but you know damn well that’s not the behavior that got him here. Did you even read the debate or just waited till the voting was open to tell us what you had decided before hearing the case?
“Also, you are probably using an incorrect definition of free speech, hence the confusion on your part.”
Incorrect… as in not the definition you decided sounds good.
Invoking “freedom of speech” into this conversation is again, inherently dishonest. The phrase carries a very clear and deep connotation because of how crucial it is as a political philosophy. That connotation has no relevance to the moderation of a website.
Again, websites are spaces people own, as in private platforms. There is no such thing as a right to say whatever you want on someone else’s platform, period. So what we are actually talking about (call it whatever you want) is what their philosophy should be. As in… what philosophy best advances their goals. We can reasonably disagree on where those limits should be, but you cannot reasonably argue there shouldn’t be any.
“Tell me again how do you have a debate without free speech? I am really interested to hear the explanation.”
Freedom of speech =/= freedom to constantly and consistently spam the forums with rage bait.
Do you understand that?
“So you want to have a debate site without free speech.”
I just finished explaining *why* the concept of free speech has nothing to do with a website of any kind enforcing its own ToS, and all you heard was “so you don’t want free speech here?”, and you really think I’m the problem…
“I know there's some people who would def leave if they thought the platform no longer respected their idea of free speech.”
Perhaps, and this is absolutely a legitimate consideration for those trying to build and/or maintain the website. But that is the bind Remy is putting you all in. It’s not a reason why he *shouldn’t* be banned, it’s much more of a “my hands are tied” defense, and only because you need to maintain the population that thinks free speech = the freedom to spam websites with offensive and derogatory rage bait.
“Freedom of speech does literally mean freedom to say whatever you want, as long as your speech cannot be connected to harming others. If RemyBrown was harming users on this site, I would say, sure ban him for a day or two. However, the only "harm" he caused is people choosing to be offended by his posts, and that is not harm caused by Remy but by those people.”
The harm he caused is that he single-handedly degrades the website as others are working hard to build it up. Yes in part because he says things that offend some people, but also the part you and many others routinely gloss over is his intentional spamming of the forum section with all his nonsense.
Offending others has no place as a basis for legal ramifications, but we’re not talking about that, we’re talking about the a website and what behavior its moderators should consider acceptable. The concept of free speech as a principal has no place in that conversation.
The issue I have with freedom of speech advocates is what I see as a failure to recognize the boundary between when they’re rights to say what they want cross over into the boundaries of others. As the saying goes, the freedom to swing your arms ends at someone else’s nose.
The issue in this context is certainly difficult. It’s a debate site, a space to express controversial opinions is literally the point. I would respect the position that this is a violation of Remy’s “free speech” a lot more if it comes attached with some nuance and the recognition of the price the rest of us have to pay for it, that nuance however is relatively rare. Instead it’s treated by many as an absolute, here and often in the political sphere. That’s when it becomes detached from the dynamics of the real world.
“Why are so many people caught up on free speech?”
Many people out there, especially on the right, think “freedom of speech” = “freedom to say whatever I want on social media without consequence”. And this is what they truly value.
“I will drive on the road frequently at 30-40, you drive on the road less often (at 30); and you decide to try and get my license removed for speeding. Bud, everyone speeds.”
This is *exactly*what I was just talking about, so thank you for proving my point.
You really think spamming the forums nonstop with threads about raping women, attacking Jews, and equating the treatment of minority groups with heinous acts of all kinds is the same thing as me starting an occasional thread attacking republicans for being hypocrites.
Elephant meet mouse.
There’s really nothing left to discuss there, it’s like trying to argue which shade of blue is darker to someone who’s blind.
But you don’t even have to agree with me on any of that. You don’t have to accept that there’s any difference between those things, you only need to recognize that you wish to participate on a site that does regard those things as materially different and act appropriately, but you won’t. That’s the part that makes the difference for me, and I’ve made that clear. I couldn’t care less what you have to say, but if I’m being asked should you remain, there’s only one answer imho, of course not. If the site cares about these standards then enforce them. If they don’t, get rid of them. It’s that simple.
“This is all identitarian rhetoric in 100% of your most recent posts.
You can't get me on identitarian rhetoric without being a hypocrite.”
You’re the kind of person who looks at a mouse and an elephant and can’t tell which one is bigger.
“Yeah, a point irrelevant to topic will most likely decide your vote.”
It was relevant to the conversation I was engaged in. Go back to post 153 and note that it wasn’t your name after the arrow.
“Notice that your entire point, which you said would determine your whole vote, is merely premise 1”
Here is what I said from post 153:
“I suspect that is the point that will decide my vote more than anything else.”
Notice a few things here. First, it’s not an argument at all. I was explaining what will most likely decide my own vote. Second, not the last 4 words; “more than anything else”.
So no, your deductive syllogism has no relevance in this conversation because I wasn’t making an argument in the first place. And no, I never said the whole debate was about one thing. You, as you always do, made that entire thing up to attack an argument I never made.
This is why conversation with you is pointless.
So are you now going to answer the very simple question I’ve been asking you since yesterday, or keep evading it?
“ I have a computer program which does deductions. Maybe it can explain it to you.”
I’m not interested in your chatbot conclusions, if I wanted to interact with one I could easily do that myself. Answer the question I asked you.
“If I know I'm not going to change someone's mind on the merits of an issue, then the debate is pointless.”
I think this is a large part of the problem. You’re starting off with an extremely impractical standard of success, then blame everyone else when you fail to meet that standard.
If someone changes their mind during the course of one debate with them then one of two things are almost certainly true; they haven’t given their positions much thought at all, or they’re likely to change their mind again as soon as someone presents them with a reasonable counter argument. In either case, the reward is particularly unsatisfying.
To the extent that I care about changing anyone’s mind, it’s incremental. I don’t expect anyone to all of a sudden say “you’re right”, my hope is that they would say “well you have a point there but…”. Even when they cannot refute the argument they’re hit with it takes time and thought before they’ll come around, no one who has put serious thought into a position would switch without a full exploration of everything that once convinced them.
But even that is asking a lot. I just enjoy the dialog because each disagreement pushes me to think my position through that much deeper. Our forces me to better answer the question of why do I believe what I do? And sometimes, when I’m debating someone who is just no longer being serious, at that point I’m more just entertained by seeing how far down that hole they’ll dig themselves.
I think if you adopt some of those changes or at least move further away from the expectation of instantly changing minds you’d be much better off.
“Because there is no deductive logic which tells you:
refuses to change = deserves permanent ban”
Ok, so if you own a website and a user continually violates your ToS, and you’ve intervened numerous times only to find that the user refuses to accept them, what would you do?
Can’t wait for you to blow my mind with your awesome deductive logic, a term I’ve never heard or thought about before.
“Because liberals need to use euphemisms to FEEL better about their actions. But words aren't violence. It's impossible for me to do violence to you on the internet, but I can use words to you on the internet.”
You’re making my point. Calling two things by the same name doesn’t make them the same. Or more specifically, you don’t get to be taken seriously by taking two different things, stripping away the differences, then pointing to what’s left and saying “see, they’re equal”. No, the differences are just the parts you ignored.
Also, I found it telling that you leaped right over the first two euphemisms I provided which were both conservative and went straight for the liberal one just so you could focus on attacking liberals. It’s the same pattern I’ve been describing this whole thread - focus only on what you think validates you, ignore the rest.
“The behavior is brutal honesty.”
If you think that’s the reason your potential ban is being litigated before the site it’s yet another example of why you’re in this boat.
“So a point irrelevant to topic will decide your vote?”
How is the fact that the mods have had to intervene numerous times to correct Remy’s behavior and he refuses to change, irrelevant to the question of whether he should be permanently banned from the site? Enlighten me.
