Most likely it’s just Tom’s friend again, only this time he’s pretending to take the side of the community to try and throw off the scent. This act is pretty tiresome.
Just to clarify, the wumpus thing was not mine.
It was “an anonymous Moderate GOP Qt’3er”. :)
Dawn falcon was insane and went well beyond anything gman did. He actually broke the forum rules.
I just want you guys to know that I’m totally not a sock puppet. ;)
Honestly, I barely remember the specifics of what he did other than be an annoying fuck.
I know some of his aliases played by the rules, while still refusing to engage in anything resembling discussion, which is why people started calling them out as being him before he admitted to it/got caught.
He seriously had issues though.
Is fun how easy is to spot when a crimen is pasional.
Between 1 and 5 stabs “the murder did not knew the victim”.
Between 5 and 15 stabs “I kind of hate you”
Between 15 and 30 stabs “Is personal”
More than 30 stabs is “I love you”.
The same can be apply to exclamation marks.
One exclamation mark “I am sane”
Two exclamation marks “I am accepted by society, but ignored”
3 exclamation marks “Insane”
More than 3 exclamation marks “The pain is beyond human tolerance, please help, kill me”.
Applied to accounts:
One account “I like to post here”
Two accounts “I am somewhat a deviant”
3 accounts “I am a professional troll”
More than 3 accounts “I need professional help”.
I just made this post for fun. I don’t care/understands about this thread much.
And yet you made a very good point. One of the key aspects of gman was being a dick IMO was the huge number of his posts. If everything else was the same and his posts were fewer by an order of magnitude, I suspect this whole mess would have simmered instead of exploded.
Oh, he was.
…or those things weren’t a reflection of personal values, but rather things he felt obliged to do to keep his base. If I had been older than 6 at the time, and I was troubled by Johnson’s personal badness, I’d have wanted to take a good long look at the things he was doing to see if they were reflective of that badness. As it turns out, they weren’t all bad.
That’s what I’m suggesting Trump supporters ought to be doing now. Instead, most of them are cheering him on for being an asshole, for ‘sticking it to the libs’. They are awful people too.
IMO this is only now. The tail-end of the GWB presidency helped shift the forum a bit left. Trump did the rest of the job for various reasons.
Go back to post 9/11. Everyone was rararaing the war on Iraq. You posted against it and got shit for it.
Here’s a post from John Scalzi’s Blog that sums up, in terms gamers can understand, one of the key issues with people like gman and also the jerks who are combing through the net looking for history to exploit as attacks on public liberals.
Here’s a key quote (emphasis added by me):
"It’s really frustrating to me that more people don’t understand that racist/alt-right people have gamified their rhetoric; they’re not interested in discussion, they’re slapping down cards from a “Debate: The Gathering” stack, and the only goal is taking heads.
They gamify their rhetoric because essentially this shit is a low-stake game for them, whereas for other people it’s their actual lives. That’s an advantage they have. If they lose, they shuffle their cards and go on to the next thing. If others lose, their life takes a hit."
Until now, I thought this thread was locked for some reason.
Anyone willing to blow up a forum to push their own agenda needs to be banned. He probably would have laughed irl about walking into a 15+ year old forum and causing it to implode just by his existence, and then gone about his day because lol liberals.
If people are screaming at you in unhappiness and your reaction isn’t “What am i doing wrong and how can i change” but “ahaha”, then you’re a troll.
Everyone is saying to bring it to the appropriate thread so:
You say that, but he was using white supremacist dog whistles and code words.
Once he crossed that line, I was openly belligerent towards him. Hell, half the posts defending him were likely citing me. But he never backed down from his white supremacist statements, he deflected and changed topics and pretended it didn’t happen.
I don’t want to speak for Nesrie or anyone else, but the fact that everyone hand-waved that crap away is likely why people got so upset and even left. I came around and tried to reach him, but it quickly became obvious he wasn’t here to talk, he was here to seed alt-right talking points and see what happened.
Whatever, it happened and it’s over as far as that specific incident, but the reality is that the precedent has been set that if you’re a polite racist, then everyone is cool with it. That’s a pretty shitty standard to have. The rules might say racism isn’t allowed, but… it really is as long as you use code words and are mostly polite while you do it. That core issue was never resolved.
- Copy and pasted from other thread, so might be less cohesive than intended.
In other words, SOP for Republicans and their media outlets?
As I mentioned, the right and alt-right are bedfellows, but they’re still different things. If you’re going to dismiss everyone on the right as alt-right, as purveyors of hate speech, you’re going to make the alt- prefix useless. Gman rolled out the same tired and often deliberately provocative talking points as every other Trump supporter, but it’s a stretch to call him a white supremacist unless you dilute the meaning of white supremacy.
Let me put it this way, Shiva. Do you think Donald Trump is a member of the alt-right? Or do you think he uses them as a tool? And if so, is there any point maintaining a distinction? Are Ted Cruz and Richard Spenser equivalents? That’s not a rhetorical question. I would be interested in your answer.
Well, I’m certainly open to resolving it. Are Republican talking points the equivalent of hate speech? If so, should they be disallowed? I don’t think they should, but if anyone does, please make your case.
-Tom
What’s the difference between Republican talking points and alt-right talking points?
In Trump’s GOP I really can’t tell the difference so I’d love to know.
Let’s say someone says, “We need to build Trump’s border wall.”
Is that racist? Probably not.
When asked why, the response is, “Because we need to secure our borders.”
Is that racist? Again, probably not.
When asked to clarify, suppose the reason given is, “Because illegal immigrants are stealing jobs, using citizen’s benefits, and are a vector for crime.”
Racist? I’d suppose that some people would say yes. It might be dog-whistle stuff for those that take it that way. Is it bannable? I don’t really know. I’d wager that these are legitimate points for GOP voters. Do we just not allow that opinion here?
Sure, but if someone comes in and says “we need to protect European Culture” than it’s easy to say that’s racists and ban that person.
I assumed, and I’m not really joking, that the entire formulation of the border wall was simply to appeal to white racist voters. Is a wall really the most effective way to deter or deal with illegal immigration?
If a bunch of white Europeans suddenly illegally immigrated to the US would Trump be building an Atlantic Wall? Ignoring the economic folly of an Atlantic wall, I somehow doubt that it would sit very well with some Trump voters for reasons that weren’t economic in nature.