Funny events in anti-woke world
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
Which they can only do by getting a job with 'terms of voluntary employment'.
Oh really?
Then Quote me doing that or kindly take back this egregious lie.
And the Fact remains those posters brought up criticism in response to people on about threats and libel.
Either
They were conflating the things thus defending them
or
Trying to deflect and strawman people
Which was it?
Oh wait why am I bothering to ask again it's not like you'll actually answer this question when I've asked it multiple times already no you have specific narrative to push so I might as well just keep replying by saying "THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS"
Well yes because it's become rather clear you think you know peoples far better and they have some secret evil Cabal agenda that you truly know and no matter how many times they say otherwise you'll claim to know better an that I dunno they're secretly a Romulan Spy or something
Right wingers are the easiest people to grift. Even more than wokescolds and guilt ridden yuppies and that's saying something. Who do you think keeps those televangelists in mansions and private jets, folks?
A friend and I came damn close to something similar, starting up a small fried chicken joint that expressly refuses as policy to not cater gay weddings, moslims, and Democrats. We figured once the news got out we'd be rolling in conservative sympathy bux.
I think Black Rifle Coffee went that route. They just walked back their support for those kind of people. If I had to guess, it was one too many customers saying "I can't wait to shoot protestors myself" in their coffee shop.
That depends on the pressure people are under to have work.
One might take the Bible for a message here. Esau, starving after a bad day hunting, is forced by Jacob to give up his birthright for a bowl of stew. And thus one of the bedrock texts of Western civilisation tells us just how exploitable desperate people are.
Like, show us where 'pissing in a bottle is your toilet' is part of the Amazon voluntary employment agreement. But, somehow, its forced on them.
No, they're free to hold it in and develop kidney problems, or just piss their pants, it's their choice to do it in a bottle.
Also free to quit the job! As if that means much if no other source of income is forthcoming.
When conditions are bad enough, it's pretty easy to see that most of the people accepting them aren't really doing so "voluntarily" in any meaningful sense.
It's been pointed out already over and over again.
Remember the poster on the Factorio subreddit? The one who (A) wasn't being abusive; and (B) didn't demand that anyone be fired. You deemed that to be "cancel culture", and then came out with a few lame-dick excuses for why it counted. "He was appealing to a mob", and "he was just being falsely polite"-- basically just projecting imaginary motivations onto the poster of a single comment.
I'm really not interested in whatever justification you can cough up for making false accusations. A false accusation is a false accusation. Pointing at your opponents and whining about what they said is irrelevant. The only relevant point is that they didn't condone abuse or death threats, and you said they did. That's literally the only relevant context.
Oh you mean where the person in the Factorio subreddit made false claims about how Uncle Bob was actually harmful to people and had harmed people? That's still libel against Uncle Bob and bullshit calling out the Factorio dev for not helping spread the libel. That wasn't any kind of actual valid criticism against against the Factorio Devs.
But as I aint seeing those quotes I asked you to provide so if you're not gonna provide evidence to back up your claims against me all else I have on this point for you is
"THE ARE FOUR LIGHTS"
The fact remains
THE ARE FOUR LIGHTS
and no matter how much context you ignore and how you try to spin it. It doesn't change that. You say there is no point pointing at my opponent and whinning? Is that not just what you are doing now? Whining because I point out context damn well matter?
You say it's a false accusation?
Then how do you explain their positions?
Answer the question I've already put to you multiple times cause I only see two answers and you're deliberately pulling all this sophistry most likely because you can't invent a 3rd one that doesn't sound insane and the 2 options I presented, well it's lose lose and would require you to admit to something you don't want to admit to either way.
They didn't condone death threats and abuse, they didn't condemn them either. Seems like they were in awkward spots where for some weird reason they didn't want to denounce them? Just try to deflect and make the conversation about something other than them then do what you're doing now. Get upset when people won't talk about just what you want them to and instead were talking about the specific aspect of the topic.
Right-wingers trying to appropriate Star Trek is very cringe
Right-wingers do not engage with media. They just consume it.
I'm only a right winger in so much as I'm to the right of Chairman Mao.
If people don't want Star Trek used against them maybe they should stop acting like Cardassians
Happens very much on both sides like the shocking number of people who thought Five Night At Freddy's was endorsing child murder...........I wish I were joking.
See above: limp-dick excuses used to tar criticism as "invalid".
"Harmful" is a value judgement. It is objectively, legally, factually, not libellous to make a value judgement. It is an opinion. You condemned criticism because you didn't like it, people then defended criticism from the charge of "cancel culture", and you then accused them of condoning harassment and abuse.
Not really, no. Because my argument is simple: you made a false accusation against at least three posters.
Your argument appears to be... that this is justified because of the context, even though that context doesn't involve them doing what you accused them of doing.
If you accuse somebody of something, the only relevant context is whether they did it or not. They didn't. You're just pointing at other shit they said ("Oh well they brought up X! They shouldn't have done that!") as a justification for the false accusation.
Similarly, if you accuse somebody of theft, I'm going to ignore it if you incessantly point at other stuff they did that wasn't stealing anything. I'm going to ignore that "context", because the only relevant context is whether they stole something.
Last edited:
Oh I'm sorry I didn't know you were the arbiter of what is and isn't valid criticism.
"Harmful" and claims he'd "Caused harm" are very specific terms used to illicit and emotional response without having to actual reveal what happened and allow people to judge on their own it is a rather deliberately manipulative method to try and frame a persons actions to have them condemned based on the framing not the reality. It's about getting people to believe the lie.
As I've said before I knew a Sociopath for a number of years and saw how he operated. This is the kind of stuff he'd do regularly.
People weren't defending the criticism of Uncle Tom and you very much know it, hell I'd encourage people to look up when people started responding to others bringing up criticism vs when the Uncle Tom stuff got brought up in the thread. You'll likely find it was after people were trying to conflate death threats and libel with mere criticism.
But hey I guess the person is allowed to hold the opinion on Uncle Bob but I'm not allowed to hold the opinion that how it was expressed was abusive and manipulative and bordering on if not fully stepping over the line of libel.
Funny because none of those three posters ever bothered to clarify their actual position in the end. Either they were trying the community argument method or that wa their position and I was really bang on the money but they couldn't actually come up with a way out.
You wish me to confess and throw myself at some supposed mercy that would be offered if I confess?
To that I say
THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS
and this charade of yours is wearing thin. I mean are you really so desperately grasping at any point at this stage to try for a composition fallacy? Ultimately I fear you'd only be fooling yourself on this one.
On your thief example. So you'd ignore the muddy footprints, the broken window, the glass cuts on the persons wrist and say they did nothing wrong because there is no CCTV footage showing them taking the item.
Context maters!
Have you considered the possibility that you are just boring? Melodramatically obsessed with unimportant bullshit?
Last edited: