you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]jmichaelhudsondotnet 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

saidit is not better and your incompetence is the primary cause of this

best thread to demonstrate this was censored by you, erased from history, except i archived it

also that thread was prescient, as I was saying this front page promoted thomas sewell garbage was race-war bait

and now like 3 weeks later there is actual nearly a race war, except people have clearly caught on thanks to the work the work of many such as myself

as for you, i have no idea what clown world job you are really doing

have you not even noticed they are pushing a new reddit-alt, "upvoteworthy" or some such? first it was voat, then raddle, then saidit, now upvoteworthy.

pattern to obvious for any actual thinking person


For posterity:

Any thinking person would do 10x as much for themselves reading my site and books than any time spent here whatsoever, you degenerate scumbag

UPDATE: Rather than respond to this I have been banned from posting here, without notification or discussion

RESPONSE TO BUTTERFERRET: I present evidence censorship and magnora-allowed trolling happens here at saidit, address that fact if you want my respect.

My work is not pseudo intellectual, or you are going to have to prove that statement, which I would actually like to hear.

Your comment here IS actually pseudo intellectual, as you want to sound like you are making complex reasoning, but it is an elaborate dodge, slide and personal attack.

[–]magnora7 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

So you want to accuse me of pyramid of debate violations, while in the same comment calling me a "degenerate scumbag" huh?

Hypocrite much?

[–]jmichaelhudsondotnet 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

insulting someone as part of an argument is not the same thing as just calling someone an asshat

-extended essay why you are an asshat- -and therefore you are an asshat-

is how I did it, you are conflating the two, which is a shill tactic, obviously

[–]copenseethe 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

And yet nobody is censoring you here. You are allowed to post dissenting opinions that would get you banned from reddit.

[–]jmichaelhudsondotnet 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Not true, of course to see the evidence you have to be able to read, which is in doubt.

My response to the thomas sewell race bait thread, and ensuing interaction with the troll mr obvious, were erased from this site to cover up magnora's failed moderation abilitiies, or intentional failure to moderate in cases where he has an agenda

that is the entire point of my response here, which you have utterly failed to comprehend

that said, yes, most of the time I have not been censored, only 90% of the responses are personal attacks(trying desparately to appear as not personal attacks in humorous yet twisted ways) and another 9% of the responses are outright manipulations at other lower sections of the debate pyramid, such as yours.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Meh I like this site

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I think it's fair to say most people reading your post believe you must be a complete nutcase. I would opine more towards "delirious paranoia with mind-erasing hubris". But that's not a technical term.

And I apologize to the pyramid of debate but seriously dude, don't you have anything, you know, PRODUCTIVE to do with your time?

[–]jmichaelhudsondotnet 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

shill tactic - make entire discussion personal about the person you are trying to silence, exclude, undermine

blocked, without hesitation

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh we can block? Great, how do I block this "insightful individual"?

[–]danuker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I wouldn't call the limited ability to defend against nation-state covert agents "incompetence". I don't like the insults either.

Still, you raise some valid points. How about you create your own invite-only forum that monitors people for signs of propaganda/subversion/time wasting?

[–]jmichaelhudsondotnet 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

after my time here so far there is not a single other user I would invite, it is that bad.

the assault against memory is the key tactic of totalitairian governance, they want to jedi mind trick you to forget what happened.

There would have been 10 ways magnora could have sanely moderated the thing that happened with mr obviousu in the sewell thread, and 10 ways he could have came clean about making mistakes since then, but nope.

People tell you about themselves, they reveal themselves to you, and then try to make you forget what they told you, it is agent 101. Never admit your mistakes.

Activisism 101 and history 101 are the same thing, never forget the revealing mistakes of power and their toadies.

[–]butterferret12 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Mate, I don't exactly always agree with magnora's ideas and tone and such. A good portion of the time he comes off as a massive jerk.

Having said that, this sounds to me like you are just insulting this site and magnora's competence -- however limited that may or may not be -- in order to promote your pseudointelectual ideas and works and prove to yourself that you have some sort of self-defined moral and intellectual high-ground.

I do not support censorship, but when you act like this in every single comment it is entirely understandable how you would be removed. I don't agree with it, but I understand it. This style of writing does nothing but detract from the issue with half-accusatory statements that have very little actual foundation.