Re: Evidence in the Trayvon Martin case
posted at 4/11/2012 4:16 PM EDT
In Response to Re: Evidence in the Trayvon Martin case
In Response to Re: Evidence in the Trayvon Martin case : WDYWN: I know that is your opinion. You and I have had that discussion. But there is a difference if it is aimed at me. I feel it is my decision how to handle those posts. A monitor would be reporting posts not directed at them. Also, jmel tried very hard in his thread, and since, to convince anyone who would listen that only one person was reporting posts. I knew that was not correct. I had seen to many liberal posts removed. And on this thread airborne's last 2 posts were removed. I assume you dislike hypocrisy. It is screaming on this issue. It is now obvious to anyone paying attention that there are several people using the abuse button. I know you would handle jmel in a different way if he was on your back. I respect you as a poster very much, but we have different styles. So hopefully, the majority of us will now stick to whatever the topic is from here on.
Posted by andiejen
Well regardless of whether I become a target I have to speak.
I dislike hypocrisy, true.
But one of the things I dislike the very most (second to blatant dishonesty) is when an individual decides they are going to force everyone else to talk their
way, or else. One person trying to decide for everyone what is appropriate and allowed, as a teacher to children. It redefines "condescending." Most particularly when done in a passive aggressive manner such as reporting posts. Hell, nobody even knows who did the reporting in a given instance. It strikes me as cowardly and contemptible.
Nietchze had some vald points about that in Thus Spake Zarathrustra
, mentioned in another thread recently, his prejudices and bigotries notwithstanding.
Worse, when argument-by-report happens, other arguments about who reported who and who has multiple names start popping up in every damn thread!
I also dislike more than hypocrisy attempts to force a given exchange into a specific structure. You can't say that, if you say that you have to say it a certain way, etc. Hence, my thread on conservative rules for debate, ie, when A complains about a Republican, A is inevitably going to be attacked for failing to post a list of everything Democrats have done that is similar.
If someone is aggressive, be aggressive back or just ignore them. Hell, I often don't read all of airborne's posts because I get tired of having to parse out all the whacko wingnut this and idiot thats.....
If someone wants to be a belligerent *sshole all the time, well, that's likely to be the result. But let what they say stand!
It is beneficial for precisely the same reason that creating a right to free speech was.