Before this thread gets locked, I'll simply point out that you don't understand the meaning of the term "mutually exclusive."

And while I'm here, you also mixed up inference and implication. That's a common mistake.

You still get a participation prize.

Vanessa doesn’t have the balls for trading...

True, I did indeed confuse mutually exclusive events with independent events. And, because I care about the meaning of words and using them precisely, I have no ego tied up in admitting when I'm wrong.

But just fyi pseudo-intellectual nitpicker, the period goes outside the quotation marks when ending a sentence where terminal punctuation is not part of the quote.

http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/edu...uotation-marks

Here you are quite wrong. Let's examine what was written:



Seems like a pretty explicitly stated conclusion that "aggressive lesbians" would be a tautology if all aggressive women are lesbians. The reasoning is circular and stupid to the point where even he questions himself in the next few lines of the post, but it's still an explicitly stated conclusion.



That was exactly my point. The inference is absolute filth because any reasoning to support it is rooted in bigotry and lacks real evidence to support it.

I don't think I've ever seen a better example of a completely indoctrinated and destroyed mind than in this post. The totalitarianism is astounding. You're against free expression completely.

Tell me though, since we're not supposed to talk politics in NVG, why are you posting links from the Nation?

With what ideology do you believe I have been indoctrinated?

Please show me where I argued against free expression. Please keep in mind that:

1) Freedom of expression does not entitle you to freedom of any platform you choose.
2) Freedom of expression does not mean you have the right to infringe on other people's safety and wellbeing via incitement.
3) Freedom of expression does not mean being free from social consequences like being told you're a bigoted prick.

Criticize everyone freely just as they can criticize you. Speak freely on whatever platform you wish. It's fine. Criticism isn't "hate" and if you're uncomfortable with others go ahead and say so. Vanessa is a person just like everyone else and there are no special rules when discussing her due to x or y.

More importantly, why are you posting articles from the Nation here when they tell us NVG should be non-political?

Please show me where I said criticism alone is bad.

Did you mean "speak freely *on* whatever platform you wish"?

Because that's not freedom of speech, that is the totalitarianism you seem to be so dead-set against (that is, until you want it to favour your grubby little aims). 2p2 is a privately owned enterprise. It absolutely can, should and does set its own rules of engagement for posters. Please please please try to sue them for having a ToS that restricts your "freedom of expression" on their private server :') I'm sure Mason would enjoy the counter-claim money.

I never said that all (or most, or some, or any defined quantity of) criticism is hate. I said that much of the criticism Vanessa was facing in this thread was very much hate-fuelled and listed several examples that went far beyond criticism into pure hatred.

There are special rules when discussing -anybody- when that discussion is based around their race, gender or sexuality. Those rules are hate-speech laws and they exist in every developed nation on earth. There are also fundamental tenets of human decency that cause people to decide it's not socially acceptable to denigrate others based on their identity. Society is made up a lot of special rules, bud, many of them unspoken but mutually agreed by reasonable and decent human beings. For example, don't cut in line. Let people exiting an elevator get out first. You might want to participate in civil society one day, so keep this in mind imo.

I posted some further reading links in a reply post to somebody who brought up Trump. I very carefully omitted any and all reference to Trump, republicans, democrats etc and tried extremely hard to depoliticise the argument and make it more thematically about human phenomena.

The only person making this political is you, accusing me of being indoctrinated.

Does anyone other than clckdabtn think I'm a bigot for thinking that the phrase "aggressive lesbians make me uncomfortable"? isn't homophobic....?

Wrong, you posted links from Vox and the Nation which is introducing your politics into this thread. You guys always do this. You talk politics and then when we respond you say "no politics" lol.

Second, this is a lie: "There are special rules when discussing anybody due to their race, gender or sexuality. Those rules are hatespeech laws and exist in every developed nation on earth."

Nope, there aren't. In the United States we treat everyone equally or at least we should. No special privileges belong to anyone when it comes to speech. This isn't Antioch. In society, you should criticize whoever you like. They would have no qualms about criticizing me nor should they.

If you're debilitated with guilt and shame that's your issue. That you have confused speech with crime is very telling.

i don't, there's no reason to want to be around aggressive people ever...unless you're a masochist. Aggressive people suck.

I do, though only mildly. It is absolutely a homophobic, or at least discriminatory comment. It is just fairly low in magnitude.

As I clarified above, any time you include a qualifier in a statement, that qualifier becomes relevant to the condition the statement is describing. By using 'lesbian' as a qualifier, you are absolutely saying that a person's orientation is relevant to whether or not they make you uncomfortable. This is, by definition, homophobic or discriminatory. I don't think it rises to the level of hate speech or is truly offensive, but it is absolutely bigoted, albeit mildly.

Please note, the statement wasn't 'aggressive people', but 'aggressive lesbians'. Trying to argue that people is a superset of lesbians, therefore the statements could be equivalent is beyond disingenuous. That is like saying 'milk makes me sick' is semantically equivalent to 'food makes me sick'. Not even close.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauharnais_v._Illinois

This one's from your home state, you dumb ****.

Every time you protest that the US doesn't have hatespeech laws, I will give you another ruling. Enjoy the free history lesson.

That you don't understand why hate-speech is a crime is very telling for you.

Well, is it okay for lesbians to say they don't like aggressive straight men?
To ask the question is to answer it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Nothing was said by anyone in these posts that was "hate" according to that definition in a case.
"The result was that an Illinois law making it illegal to publish or exhibit any writing or picture portraying the "depravity, criminality, unchastity, or lack of virtue of a class of citizens of any race, color, creed or religion" was upheld. It is most known for giving a legal basis to some degree that forms of hate speech which may be deemed to breach U.S. libel law are not protected by the First Amendment."

What the fellows said here is fine and that you're trying to police their speech tells us all about the sick and evil control fantasies you have in regards to your fellow citizens.

I'm glad Vanessa's out of poker. I can't stand her and i don't need to pretend to like her when i don't due to some control freak's imaginary hate speech codes.

It depends on the context. If a lesbian was talking about a poker player, than no, it would be equally discriminatory. If they were talking about men who hit on them and wouldn't leave them alone even after they told them they weren't interested, it would be relevant.

Same thing here. If a woman said 'I don't like aggressive lesbians. Even when I tell them I am not interested, they keep hitting on me, saying they can convert me', it would be relevant. In the context of a discussion of poker players, it is not relevant.

Note: It is worth noting that while your example above is equally bigoted, discrimination from a miority group is not equivalent in impact as discrimination from a majority group.

Whoa! So is it okay for Vanessa to criticize aggressive straight men or not?

Who has consented to these disgusting guilt based criteria for living one's life? Not me. I'll treat others as I'd like to be treated and also based on the way they treat me.

If it's okay for lesbians to criticize us then it's certainly not "hate" when we criticize them. Criticize everyone freely. Criticism is never hate.

I don't like aggressive gay men. I also don't like aggressive straight men. I am all for aggressive lesbians.

I wish you all the best Vanessa.

Strawman argument. At no point did I say the "aggressive lesbian" statement would fit a legal definition of hate-speech. I only ever called it bigoted, which it is.

And suddenly the penny drops that ur MURRRRRCAAAAA ain't so FREEEEDUMBBBB O' SPEEEEECHEZZZZ as you thought, huh? How was that existential realisation for you? Pow, right in your home state!

there's no "impact" at all. You guys have been brainwashed with appeals to sophistication.

If person A says they "don't like aggressive lesbians" that's simply their opinion. It is not discrimination and it doesn't impact anything.

The same for when person B says they "don't like aggressive straight men." That's their opinion and no impact on anything.

All of this is rooted in masochism and an attempt to get the American people to despise and resent one another. Simply treat others as your equal and say whatever you like to them. We don't need third parties to monitor and police our speech.

No, it doesn't make you a bigot, but why Selbst being a lesbian is even part of this thread is beyond me. The problem is, when quoting others' words, is that often the context is completely lost.

If we are discussing lesbians, then saying 'aggressive lesbians make me uncomfortable' isn't in itself homophobic. It is an inane and somewhat worthless point to make though, as others have pointed out .

When it's used out of context, however, Spewing's qualifier has much more rationale; the phrase becomes liable to wider interpretation.

Anyhow, as I said, Selbst poker skills and personal behaviour should be up for discussion given her position, but her sexual orientation, given that it has never been part of her 'public/poker persona', has no place here imo :/

"Simply treat others as your equal" does not jive with "say whatever you like to them". If you ever possess the empathy and/or cognitive function required to understand this, you will become a much more decent human being.

And this is the only correct response.

Lock this trainwreck of a thread.