China bans feminine men from TV

submitted by [deleted] from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted]  (48 children)

[removed]

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (47 children)

    Are we allowed to advocate violence at Saidit?

    (It's a serious question, because I've been asked not to advocate violence.)

    [–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 10 insightful - 4 fun10 insightful - 3 fun11 insightful - 4 fun -  (39 children)

    Are we allowed to advocate violence at Saidit?
    (It's a serious question, because I've been asked not to advocate violence.)

    You've been asked not to name-call or lie, but you do it anyway.

    [–][deleted] 6 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 3 fun -  (38 children)

    Most of us were fine with socks at first. But a repeated offender should be treated accordingly, and that is what people are seeing with Jason's on-point comments concerning socks lying and name-calling behavior.

    [–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 9 insightful - 5 fun9 insightful - 4 fun10 insightful - 5 fun -  (17 children)

    Most of us were fine with socks at first. But a repeated offender should be treated accordingly, and that is what people are seeing with Jason's on-point comments concerning socks lying and name-calling behavior.

    When socks first showed up I was also fine with his "polite debating" at first too. However, I'd refute his nonsense with evidence that took time and energy to procure and the hypocrite, liar, shill, timesuck would ignore it and keep peddling their perpetual disinfo, authoritarianism, and big pharma bullshit.

    My aggression against socks today is NOT new, and was only started with an excellent video by Jimmy Dore that sock avoids to discuss because socks is as phony as the Squad is. For the video and socks deflecting a legit opportunity to defend his support of fake-progressives see this post:

    /s/politics/comments/8ccr/squad_wont_protest_pelosi_over_eviction/

    [–][deleted] 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (15 children)

    I know for a fact that you used to be very cordial with him, it actually made me doubt you at the beginning of my time here, but hard work shows forth proper fruit, and I may not agree with you, but there is a person behind your keys.

    Socks seems like three or four people.

    [–]Node 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (12 children)

    Socks seems like three or four people.

    I used to exchange comments with that account too. Then the other personas that would lie and post blatantly false info finally got to be too much. Mainly, it was getting sucked into replying that was so annoying, as there are worse trolls (skeeter & alts, shalom guy), but they're easier to ignore.

    So, to block my inclination to feed that hungry troll, I activated my sock-block. What's interesting is how easily replies to socks can be detected in s/all/comments. I too used to get that frustrated and annoyed.

    [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (11 children)

    I just don't know if there should be an establishment mouthpiece here. I wish D3rr would do something about obvious trolls.

    [–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 3 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 4 fun -  (10 children)

    I wish /u/d3rr would at least ban him for a week for perpetually dragging down conversations, name-calling, other obvious and repetitive rule breaking, and generally creating chaos.

    I admit I'm creating chaos occasionally - but only with one single user, who happens to be pushing chaos everywhere with everyone all the time.

    [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

    he got a strike for rule breaking the other day. shit is being handled.

    [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

    Yeah, I really only lash out at two or three users, who seem to annoy just about everybody.

    I disagree with others and try really hard not to do the same with them because they are mostly honest in their dealings. Socks has never been honest, that account backpeddles so often.

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [deleted]

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

      Thanks??

      [–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

      Jimmy dore has become such a great litmus test for leftists I know. All the bad ones instinctively just hate him now and throw around crap about 'Russian ties' or insane lies about him being an atrocity denier. It's so funny to see them react to his honest and often funny criticism from the left in the same way bush era republicans did in relation to the war and conservatism. Total tribalism and group think on display with the reflexive dore haters.

      [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

      Seems you have no idea that Carswell bothers me with many posts each week, ALL of which with insults. I cannot remember a response from him that did not have a direct insult against me. He's also been banned from Saidit twice for similar insults. Give this some thought.

      [–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (12 children)

      Provide evidence or shut up. Your /s/Victimhood claims carry no water here.

      I do NOT insult people very often. You are a very rare exception because I call out your bullshit and you perpetually keep pushing it. You'll deserve every slight you get until you correct yourself, your interactions, and your lies. Somehow I doubt you are capable.

      [–][deleted] 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

      Yeah, I disagree with you on almost everything Jason, but I never saw you insulting anyone unjustly and you're respectful to everyone.

      [–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

      Thanks for the support.

      If I wanted to insult people I could either do so in a boring common way or some tremendously entertaining (to some) and creative ways to do so. IMO, "hypocrites, liars, and shills" are accurate descriptive short terms, not name-calling. I openly admit I have my own agendas, biases, and perpetually shill for what I believe in - without shame.

      Perhaps after 9/11 and/or my first few LeverMind videos, I'd like to engage you further about what you say we disagree on. We need not change our positions, but I'm always open to evolving mine, growing my understanding, and ultimately respecting different perspectives, even if I don't adopt them.

      [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

      Sure thing mate, have a good one.

      [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

      Is there one redeemable characteristic about bullies and narcissists? If so what is it?

      [–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (7 children)

      bullies and narcissists

      Name-calling, yet again.

      Is there one redeemable characteristic about hypocrites, liars, and shills? If so what is it?

      [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

      Name-calling, yet again.

      It's just a question:

      Is there one redeemable characteristic about bullies and narcissists? If so what is it?

      [–]JasonCarswellVoluntaryist 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

      If I'm a bully and narcissist for truth-seeking and calling out your hypocrisy, lies, and shilling behaviour, then I don't give a shit what name-calling you want to try to label me with.

      I think truth-seeking and free-thinking are exceptionally noble characteristics. Perhaps even redeemable, if I actually sought or needed redeeming.

      How about you block me, shut up, or leave SaidIt instead of perpetually dragging down conversation?

      [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

      Why don't you go back to your first interactions with him? I have given it plenty of thought, socks. You have the memory of a fish if you think everyone hated you from the get go. Personally, I think obvious shills like you should get banned.

      [–][deleted]  (4 children)

      [deleted]

        [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

        Why are you here? Where are you from?

        I'm from mid-west America, I come here to meet remarkable people and learn new things. See, now you try.

        [–][deleted]  (2 children)

        [deleted]

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

          why have you answered with Mogadishu and other places before? Is everything a joke to you? I mean, I get it, you like to pretend that a dude who sniffs little girls is any different than the orange fool, but don't you realize that I wouldn't have been so "mean" to you if you had just been forthright with information months ago?

          No, instead, you ignore questions and context, and sling around indirect insults.

          [–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

          The comment can't be removed if nobody reports it. You just made a comment (with 20 back and forth replies) without actually using the report button. Which makes me think this is just about clogging up real debate. So that's another strike against your reputation socks. Everytime you do this it undermines your 'here in good faith' claims. Which as you know is also a rule here.

          /u/caparvoneverec also doesn't have a history of violent comments so he will not be banned for the comment so don't try to lobby to have him banned. /u/jasoncarswell is a quality contributor to this sub and saidit in general but he could learn from DAR regulars that engaging with socks is kind of a losing battle in most cases. Don't take the bait.

          edit. Socks. You're actually making me consider a new rule to the sub: no 'Saul Alinsky' tactics. You're clearly playing the 'make them follow their own rules' tactic. You don't actually care about discussing dissident politics now do you? You simply want to climb into people's headspace and sow discord. It's not going to stand and I predict you're going to be just like /u/salos60000 begging to come back and debate us in 6 months after you're banned. We might not be in the mood for second chances in the future.

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

          You guys are fair and balanced on how you deal with your sub.

          [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

          Which makes me think this is just about clogging up real debate. So that's another strike against your reputation socks.

          No - that's not what happened. I asked a question. I did not want to report anyone. In fact, had I hit the report button, and noted that I hit the report button, you or someone else would claim that I am trying to cause trouble. My question did not "clog up real debate." It's not a complicated question. I also did not get an answer to the question. Regarding 'debate' about "China bans feminine men from TV", it's good to ask about reactions, especially if they advocate violence. For example, is that a debate that one can have on Saidit, and if so, why would it apply to this post and not to other posts? Before I asked the question, I looked for notes about advocating violence in the Saidit rules and here at DAR, but only saw the last line in the POD. I also see others advocate violence, and wondered why the rule applied to me the other day, but not to the others. But that's not my question. It's a simple question about that post, and it's not a good question if the post is removed (which has now happened). I did not want the post removed, and I did not clog up the discussion. And I did not want the user banned. Nothing in my post impies any of this. Nor does it look like lobbying. Your note about Carswell is odd, because I did not ask Carswell this question, nor was my question related to Carswell, not in the least. My discussion with him related to a different post where he kept asking me to respond to a video about something else. I refused. He wouldn't take no for an answer, and continued bullying me. So I merely asked him about bullying, which was the main subject of that conversation. It's unrelated to my question about violence. I also know absolutely nothing about Saul Alinsky, nor should I have to know about him, in order to ask a simple question. And my question is not directly about 'dissident politics', whcih you now tell me I'm not interested in. It's unrelated to my question. No, my question is not an attempt to "climb into someone's head and sow discord". This is a strange claim that could apply to every disagreement and to no disagreeements. Your note is really making numerous assumptions because I asked a question, or because you don't like what I said to Jason. Why have you done this? There isn't anything factual in these arguments. Really strange this is. (Also - I've never been subscribed to DAR.)

          [–]send_nasty_stuffNational Socialist 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

          So what type of law do you practice?

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

          Tort, apparently. (IDK)

          [–]FrenologistSaving the World 1 Cranial Exam at a Time 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

          too long didn't read