I didn’t get the feeling Gman was really arguing points and instead just seemed to be offering a few bullet points. I can handle someone passionately arguing a situation with their own view points. I can even handle genuine “whataboutism” if a previous administration had done the exact same thing
This is pretty much my thoughts as well. Until the Wumpus thread exploded, I was neutral on Gman, but by the end I was “this dude gotta go.” As the Godfather said, “I can’t reason with this man.”
I mean he was just a talking point regurgitator that changed subjects whenever anyone tried to nail down his actual position on anything.
His goal wasn’t to have a discussion, it was to foment chaos and probably get someone banned/make them leave. You know for the LULs or whatever. He was a forum griefer, essentially.
According to what he said, he didn’t actually support Trump on anything. Like anything you pointed out that Trump did, “well I don’t like that thing,” repeat for literally everything Trump ever did.
Youtube took down the good version but the end of this is relevant:
Oh look what happened between my Steep and sleep sessions.
I understand the pickle Tom is in. And I understand Wumpus and others, now that I’ve seen 1st hand what gman is doing. That guy has no interest in anything other than fight in the P&R forum.
Personally I would still prefer a technical solution, like a ignore user function, but I don’t think the ban is OTT.
Putting on my bleeding heart hat, I’d say that guy was groomed to be such by his job. He of course choose to take the job, but the MO of the alt-right is to be provocative and nothing else. Fact, evidence or reasoning is irrelevant to him, because everything is propaganda (basically the extreme left and right meet: the relativists on the left also think truth doesn’t exist). The yuge alt-right machine provided him with a job, nurture his worst impulses.
No I’m not saying he is a victim, but I think there is a bigger villain out there who provided him with a job and nurtured him in such a way.
As much as I love QT3, Tom and some of my the regulars, I think I’m going to withdraw as well having started my fair share of “why do conservatives suck” shitposts recently. That and the unchanging reality (shitshow) of Trump’s Amerikkka without any glimmer of hope have sapped my optimism.
This shouldn’t reflect on them. They came around to wanting to close the account long before I did. It’s all me.
-Tom
Wasn’t he effectively banned based on a slippery slope argument? “If we let one Trump supporter in, the barbarians will storm Rome Qt3 and turn it into an alt-right haven!”
That was never really in the cards. I understand @tomchick’s reasoning in going forward with the ban, but I share the disappointment expressed by @RickH and @Strollen, and I’d probably go one step further to say that it reflects poorly on the staff, too, for banning the symptom (a loud, dissenting voice, who represents a mainstream political movement, unlike @Timex and @Strollen) rather than addressing the root problem.
If I’m perfectly honest, I’m much closer to Gman politically than I am to the average here at Qt3, and if the recent P&R threads I’ve been exposed to as part of the Gman affair are any indication, if I spent time reading P&R and getting a sense for what most of you would actually think of me, if I were open about what I believe, I would already have left.
Take that for what you will. It seems to me that the reaction nowadays would be more ‘good riddance’ and less ‘don’t go’.
Edit: to put it another way, @RickH said something about how he’d already be gone if he felt he wasn’t welcome here. I think it’s the case that people on the right already aren’t welcome here; it’s just that most of us are politically anonymous.
Oh thank God. Thanks, Tom!
Thank you for the clarification. I shall refine my opinion.
Yes, it has been debated many times here.
Islam is a belief system, and it is as open to criticism as conservatism. I don’t believe it deserves its bad reputation in some quarters, but I also don’t think someone is a bigot merely for opposing it. At least, no more a bigot than someone who opposes conservatism.
Islam is a religion and not simply a belief in a political system. Muslims are commonly thought of as a race (though technically there is no such construct). Both have been repeatedly referenced in derogatory manners today and in the past.
How inclusive do you think this forum is when it is socially acceptable to bash someone’s race and religion? Do you think it should be permissible here to “oppose” Jews? Blacks? Asians? Given this type of response and Tom’s above, it seems that the common courtesy and restraint offered other minorities here does not apply to Muslims. For all of the complaining by conservatives, it is becoming increasingly apparent who the real unwelcome group is here.
People bash Christians here all the time. There are threads dedicated to it.
Muslims are not a race. That’s a silly idea. Is Louis Farrakhan the same race as Recep Erdogan?
Islam is a religion, which is a belief system. You can become a Muslim, or leave the religion. Just like Christianity, which as Timex pointed out is frequently a target of criticism.
Conversely, being black and/or Asian is not a belief system. There are no principles to which blacks and Asians all subscribe. There is no way to join or leave the group apart from circumstance of birth.
Just for the sake of clarification, to get ahead of things, I pointed out the fact that people attacked Christianity not for the purpose of defending people attacking Islam, but merely to point out that folks perhaps don’t apply the same standards equally.
I personally feel that attacking both religions is wrong, despite not really practicing either. Not that the actions of followers cannot be criticized, but judging billions of people as a monolithic entity is a poor choice.
That was argued, but I don’t think (I hope) that was what led to his ban. I’m just a long time lurker here, but for what it’s worth, with my liberal to moderate to conservative views, I have lots of healthy debates with Trump leaning conservatives without resorting to name calling. Lots of these topics should be discussed and honestly have a common root in most people.
Most folks would agree that illegal immigration is not ideal. We should defend our county. Terrorism is bad. Police are needed. Racism sucks. Families are great, etc. etc. Starting with that and then working outward would do well here (and most places) I think, although I’ve never felt the desire to try.
On the other hand, there will always be non-tolerant folks, and P&R isn’t a good place if you have no stomach for that.
I agree. Attacking religions is usually wrongheaded. But it’s not racism, and given how frequently it occurs here it’s obviously not a banning offense.
No, although a lot of Islamophobia is in fact rooted in racism.
That’s also true. Islamophobes are often also racists, just like vegans are often liberals.
But you shouldn’t jump to conclusions. Some vegans are not liberal, and some Islamophobes are not racist.
Yes, and there are tons of Muslims who believe extremely backwards things, just like a tons of fundamentalist Christians. Those beliefs can be criticized just like any other.
But similarly, it’s also possible to interpret the same scripture in a moderate, pragmatic, non terrible way.
I think we are on the same page.
