Here yes. But this is also one of the most polarized forums, I think due to the prior split, and the perception I think came with that, that each side now had a 'safe space' and the way they engage the breaching of that 'safe space'. I don't think people consciously acknowledge that. I think it is done at a subconscious level.

ON the Rotten Tomatoes forum, the only other one I have really posted at length on I had no such issues. Here, I think my engagements being with Tooth and the BFI over covid discussed, just set both my tone and response style a certain way. Seeing Tooth could say 'Trump perfect, Obama to blame 3 years into Trump term for lack of PPE' would be met with silence in that forum but the reply to it, with truth was the offense. Even those who said Tooth was hyperbolic or wrong said 'I could just not reply to him', meaning they were ok keeping it as a safe space for even ludicrous right positions but offended by any thing left of that, even if correct. This side of the forum is not as extreme but the gulf of difference is not as wide as some want to believe.

For instance Bobo called me out telling me 'I could just not reply' to a hyperbolic and trolling statement by Trolly, with no comment to Trolly instead. People rally look at why they choose to address the party they do.

Hardly true to the point of being a disingenuous statement.

A passing comment is not engagement on the more BS points. Monty got ferocious engagement in the BFI, at best he gets a passing comment of 'you could do better' type here. You are one of the rare ones who might actually engage (a bit) and chez, more so.

But for instance, I suspect that if uke and I had the polar opposite positions on Cancel Culture ONLY being a thing that can be examined when successful, I would have you and others engage me explaining to me, why that position is illogical. That both results (cancel happening, cancel failing) CAN be present and acceptable in a situation where the 'Tactic' was utilized.

Because no one else will just say to uke, to let that point go, he is wrong, we continue for pages arguing such a silly and obviously wrong (his view) which then the forum attributes as a negative to me. Same function in the BFI where both Monty and I were accused of making Tooth go on crazy rants, instead of blaming Tooth for going on crazy rants.

They were ok with Tooth's craziness as he was generally on the same 'side' of the majority of issues they were on and his more hyperbolic positions were attacking targets (Obama, etc) they had not sympathy for.



Indeed.

See my comments re why they tolerated Tooths style more in the BFI.

If you cannot understand that dynamic is a real thing, then my points will not resonate with you.

I could quote you an exchange in the BFI were an APPEAL was made to me to just not reply to Tooth. That person said something very similar to what you say here, that they really do not notice Tooths more hyperbolic statements and it was my engagement with them that was the irritant.

WHY??????

Because again, people tend to not notice the more hyperbolic statements that are more directional loaded either at people they are not sympathetic to (in this forum Trump, Rogan, etc) and would notice if directed at things they are more sympathetic too.

I actually do not despise anyone in my life. I have never got there even with people who i have received direct racism from. It is not in me. And certainly not for forum posts which i understand can and do bring out certain 'competitive' (no quarter asked, none given) type qualities in people.

I am generally aligned in almost all areas with uke from a left/right perspective and think our only real disagreement would be over what I would describe in myself, as more pragmatic ways to get to a positive result, versus what I would describe in him and others as 'The road to hell', meaning they mean well but do not understand how they contribute to more problems and hurdles.

(and I am not suggesting uke has to agree in any way as to how I framed the above, to avoid that becoming a flash point. That is how I would frame it).

So for, me an ideal future world, is one like Star Trek often showed in Utopian societies. One were race, gender and other such issues are just not even noticed as factors and everyone gets to YOLO. I quite certain that is what uke would like too.

I, however, believe a lot more harm will be done, short term, on that journey, if we avoid pragmatism around Sport, Prisons, Women's Shelters, Gym facilities for families, etc, regardless of what I feel is the underlying 'right' on that topic. I don't think uke and i would disagree over what the end point SHOULD be. All of our arguments would be on the path, and gives and takes on getting there.

Lastly, I almost certainly will visit Vancouver Island (which is where I think uke is) and it was my intention, if i did to reach out to him for a beer. If he comes to the mainland, i would offer the same. Face to face interactions (even once) often radically change how people deal with one another on line. Does not mean they will agree, but a lot of the hyperbole is often removed.

I would even allow for him to bring guests, (witnesses), lest he feared it was a trap I might try to disappear him or worse tie him up somewhere and force him to listen to my views until he conceded them.


You would have been despised by many if you felt the need to call Tooth out or a few others on their most specious posts as opposed to ignoring them.

For example O.A.F. K, never got in to any flame wars there. He merely would address Tooth's consistent cribbing of voluminous data, presented often disingenuously and selectively edited, with the full analysis of all the data Tooth was presenting.

One of the main reasons Tooth was valued in that Covid thread, was he always posted voluminous amounts of data that supported the anti covid view. People did not want to comb thru it all and read it themselves so they were happy to have Tooth do it and then just point to their confirmation bias position.

O.A.F.K would present a thorough debunking and had many haters for that.

So there, like here, the key to not be 'despised' is to not engage the worst actors on both sides. Just let it go.

I struggle to see this as an honest post but will admit I only know of the history, what you guys have said here.

It seems to me there was a massive split, with Tooth (and others??) basically being pushed to the BFI and others posting here, due generally to what could be called ideological lines (more right, against more centre and left).

And I am speaking to that dynamic ('sides') which any feigning of lack of knowledge, would seem impossible, if indeed it was so serious here it caused that fracture and the encampments (safe spaces) that followed.

Well over 1,000 words in your latest word vomitus, and while I did not read them, one can easily guess that no further details were given with how your fictional lefty zesty beast cancel culture mob actually functions and operates. No doubt you filled in a lot of numbers in the Cuepee Bingo card game. Under/over of how often you used the word "I" is 20 times in that post.

All the best.

Jesus Christ

If when there is, it is more the 'stopped clock' phenomena than anything else.

I say this without any hyperbole intended that you use more casual lies, without any care, in your posts, pound 4 pound, than arguably anyone else, as your approach it try and approach witty rather than necessarily accurate.

I don't think anyone who tends to be on the other side of your 'quips' has not and could not site endless abundant lies.

I think you would defend the quoting of them as 'who cares type lies' as you just think they are funny or whatever.

Are you on crack?

It was one constant flame war, in which I frequently flamed back.

Wish I could cancel you using my SN to try and support your rants.

You can hold a view, rightly that you think, when the topic specifically is 'high level athletes transitioning gains no benefit by having people who were high level athletes comment and use their person experience'.

I would never say you have to agree with them that their personal experience adds any value.

On the flip side, that you think it does not, and does not need to be said or added to the discussion, and that you just don't think but you think you are on such high moral ground you will lecture the person as to why it is wrong, unneeded and boastful to do so, shows a detachment and arrogance and narcissism that is undeniable.

This again speaks to my constant use of the Carlin meme. You think to yourself 'i would not do that' and that makes you think 'others are wrong to then do it'.

You will continue to argue against it and waste my time and the forum time as you will not comprehend it. I did prior and I will again, use my personal experience where I think it adds value.

If you feel the need to say 'it does not' and register whatever insults you want then I will reply 'it does' and register my insults back at you. We can go back and forth for 10 pages if you want.

Or you can accept others might take different approaches you and THAT IS OK, NOT WRONG, even if you disagree.


(the above as well Rococo is the type of argument that I think, if i was on the other side of 'others' would call me out on. It is just such nonsense but I end up going pages because the other person does not get called out, and i am not going to give in to such poor argumentation).

lol. you are not alone.

I'd say those on the left care more about norms, while those on the right care more about being *******s and project their own motivations onto the left. Left and right are assymetrical.

Canceling someone in an exercise in free speech.

Jesus Christ. You think I am lying about knowing nothing about BFI? The **** man, seriously. I get that you seem to think there is some super deep insight to be learned about comparing me to someone I know nothing about, but if you can’t even accept that I don’t know wtf you are talking about and must be lying you’ve fallen further than even I could imagine.

The latest has amused me too much to ignore. Maybe accidentally, monty agreed to the obvious fact which I've been arguing since year dot against bziarre objections, that intent matters and that judgments based on intent are totally standard. Then he got a bit confused in a delightful way.

Maybe help me that as well as all the usual pints pf beer, i now get a large scotch everytime a character from cheers gets mentioned.

I do suggest you relax a bit more. You're here a lot so might get some enjoyment from it. There's also been a great deal of agreement among all the heated fighting among people who slightly disagree.

No surprise that you believe you can speak for the forum on time wasting without a hint of irony.

Can we get a separate thread for discussing BFI?

You only have yourself to blame for writing 10,000 words per day on 2+2. Blaming that habit on others is ridiculous.

On the brighter side, you once again have succeeded in convincing me to withdraw from a discussion in this forum. I'll probably be the happier for it.

Feel free to provide a link to where we agreed to your obvious fact of "year dot against bziarre objections." Thanks!

All the best.

For the sake of the forum, if your diatribe gets over the word limit for English 101 essays, can you please put it in spoil tags so that everyone who won’t read it can easily skip it?

.

You really have it very wrong. It's nothign to do with BFI. The history behind the forum was a split with the ACers

They were silenced you might say

Yeah I was scrolling through that for like five minutes before I got to the next post

Why would you post on a board named after throwing tomatoes at artists?

You stay on topic and don't get in constant flame wars so you' be fine. It's not like the the subforum mattes all that much.

That was my point. Avoiding ridiculous flame wars isn't difficult, just like avoiding street fights isn't difficult, and avoiding sexual harassment claims isn't difficult. Just be an adult.

I like that definition.

Speech is censored in the classroom all the time. What do you think would happen if I lead my K thru 5th-grade chess class in reciting the Lord's Prayer?