Has Houseman been banned?

[SilentPony]

SNIP

I mean take anything Houseman said with an asteroid's worth of salt. He said he was a computer system analyst with years of experience, and also he had no college degree. He said he was a poll watcher and super into politics, and also had never voted before and never thought about politics until September of last year. He said he didn't think the election was stolen, but also believed there was no evidence it wasn't stolen. He judgmentally quoted from the Christian Bible, while also claiming to not be Christian. He said he was looking to genuinely engage with other users, and also he was simply here to troll. He said all posts were his own, and then literally linked to the website he was getting his talking points and verbatim posts from.

It wouldn't surprise me if he read on one of those trump forums that you should always claim to be black, because then liberals can't call you racist, and claim to have a degree in whatever field of expertise is currently being discussed, and claim to either be completely new to politics and just asking question, as well as claim to be an expert on politics with a venerable opinion to give.

To me at least part of the reason why he got in trouble was his unflinching dishonestly and commitment to not enter any discussion in good faith, and simply wanted to derail conversations he didn't agree with.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Meh. Good riddance.

 

[Elvis Starburst]

It makes his user name Houseman take a whole new meaning emphasis on the "house" part.................

I remember a time when he started speaking in a way that was eerily similar to Jim Houseman from Metal Gear Solid (The character in his avatar), to the point that he was damn near comparable. That helped set the tone for me personally

 

[Drathnoxis]

I mean take anything Houseman said with an asteroid's worth of salt. He said he was a computer system analyst with years of experience, and also he had no college degree. He said he was a poll watcher and super into politics, and also had never voted before and never thought about politics until September of last year. He said he didn't think the election was stolen, but also believed there was no evidence it wasn't stolen. He judgmentally quoted from the Christian Bible, while also claiming to not be Christian. He said he was looking to genuinely engage with other users, and also he was simply here to troll. He said all posts were his own, and then literally linked to the website he was getting his talking points and verbatim posts from.

It wouldn't surprise me if he read on one of those trump forums that you should always claim to be black, because then liberals can't call you racist, and claim to have a degree in whatever field of expertise is currently being discussed, and claim to either be completely new to politics and just asking question, as well as claim to be an expert on politics with a venerable opinion to give.

To me at least part of the reason why he got in trouble was his unflinching dishonestly and commitment to not enter any discussion in good faith, and simply wanted to derail conversations he didn't agree with.

I never saw many of his posts because I try to avoid Current Events whenever I can, but reading everybody's posts about him now I'm really starting to feel disappointed that he's banned. I read a post on another thread where SupahEwok was talking about a thread he made on the Sanctuary forums:

'Man, I remember the first week he showed up on Arnox's spin-off free speech forum, he made a thread asking "How Are You Better Than Hitler?" And all the thread was just people posting their reasons why they were better than Hitler, and him arguing about it.'

That sounds great, I wish I could have seen it! Too bad he mostly stuck to posting about politics.

 

[Neuromancer]

Houseman is not worth the thread.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Houseman is not worth the thread.

He isn't, but his departure is. A little bit anyway.

 

[Neuromancer]

He isn't, but his departure is. A little bit anyway.

I disagree on that one too. All the thread does is validate that he got to people enough to make a thread about his departure, which is giving the troll attention even after he's gone. I'm sure he's getting a kick out of this.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I disagree on that one too. All the thread does is validate that he got to people enough to make a thread about his departure, which is giving the troll attention even after he's gone. I'm sure he's getting a kick out of this.

Well, I'm getting a kick out of him not being here anymore, so I guess we're both happy. Unity achieved.

 

[Adam Jensen]

To me at least part of the reason why he got in trouble was his unflinching dishonestly and commitment to not enter any discussion in good faith, and simply wanted to derail conversations he didn't agree with.

He was an alt-right conspiracy theory racist sack of shit who lied about everything because it was the only way for him to try to engage in a conversation. And he was too stupid to hide that fact. That's why he was banned.
And if he's reading this he should know one thing - if you have to constantly lie in order to get your point across, consider the idea that your points and your ideology isn't worth shit.

 

[Agema]

Houseman is not worth the thread.

It's not just that, but I think it's a bit undignified and petty to lay into another (ex-)user who is banned and has no right of reply.

 

[Terminal Blue]

Wouldn't it be ironic if sharing this made you the one who's shared the most anti-Jew Stonetoss comics on the forum?

I mean, it probably does. I don't really see the irony.

Now I can't remember every single shared image, but Houseman often shared the meme template ones and regular anti-SJW stuff which isn't that special. You guys always have to then link the "real" anti-Semitic etc. Stonetoss comics to prove that sharing any of them is a hate crime.

Honestly, I think I explained this but maybe I didn't do a very good job.

The problem isn't sharing the comic. That's why I don't really see the irony in me sharing the comic I did.

The problem is what sharing that comic suggests about the kind of environment you're getting your cultural reference points from, because it's not an accident that this stuff is so popular in conservative online discourse. The people who are putting it there know what they're doing, even if not all the people sharing it do. In general, I'm of the opinion that the degree of separation between you and Nazis should be as high as possible, and if you disagree, if you think it's possible to be tolerant of or coexist with white nationalism, conspiratorial anti-semitism or violent and hateful homophobia and transphobia, then I think that reflects badly on you.

I think it's entirely reasonable and correct to judge people for existing in online spaces alongside Nazis without being filled with horror at the experience.

 

[ObsidianJones]

Houseman is not worth the thread.

Houseman might definitely not be worth this thread, but did you see Chimpzy posting this?


Definitely worth making a thread for that.

 

[Crystal Violet]

Kind of looks like Houseman has been banned.

I used to use the V1 for a short while years ago before the alt-right scandal happened. When I came back and started posting three different people sent me private messages warning me about him. What exactly was he doing that made him so controversial?

I am likely next. But I act more conservative here than I do on Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit. And most of the conservativeness is on international relations.

lol is this an example of conservatives complaining that liberal media biased cancel culture political correctness is oppressing conservatives just because someone once told them because maybe it's not cool to say that we should reinstate slavery?

 

[Agema]

lol is this an example of conservatives complaining that liberal media biased cancel culture political correctness is oppressing conservatives just because someone once told them because maybe it's not cool to say that we should reinstate slavery?

Pretty much.

In the old days, the right wing had much more power, often via public opinion: they could heavily restrain media access and control the presentation of socialists, racial minorities, women, homosexuals etc. Unfortunately, now they can't, and in fact have found public opinion is perhaps more likely to disapprove of them. Even worse, their own ideology has been turned against them. The logic of the right wing was long that people could do what they want with their own property, and they or people friendly to them owned the property. "Cancel culture" is in essence their complaint that the left has started using this to exercise power, by exerting pressure on media owners (in large part as simple as posing a threat to their revenues). The key point here is that there is no real principle of free speech underpinning the right on this issue: they were perfectly happy just so long as it was other people being silenced.

I suspect elements of this also tie into the increased anti-elitist and anti-capitalist threads on the right. Again, in the old days, they could normally safely assume that big business were either right wing, or at least "establishment". Now they view the likes of hugely powerful companies Google appear worryingly left-ish in ways, and so they've decided that big business isn't so much their friend any more.

 

[Breakdown]

I used to use the V1 for a short while years ago before the alt-right scandal happened. When I came back and started posting three different people sent me private messages warning me about him. What exactly was he doing that made him so controversial?

I don't know. To me he seemed to be one of those guys who always plays devil's advocate on internet forums, annoying if you get caught up in the arguments but otherwise harmless. I'm not sure where all the stuff about lies and racism and fascism comes from, but then I didn't pay much attention to most of the threads he posted in.

I thought this thread would be more about the lack of transparency when people get banned on this forum.

 

[Crystal Violet]

"Cancel culture" is in essence their complaint that the left has started using this to exercise power, by exerting pressure on media owners (in large part as simple as posing a threat to their revenues). The key point here is that there is no real principle of free speech underpinning the right on this issue: they were perfectly happy just so long as it was other people being silenced.

Yes, the market will regulate itself. All hail the market. Oh no! The left is cancelling me with the market!

I suspect elements of this also tie into the increased anti-elitist and anti-capitalist threads on the right. Again, in the old days, they could normally safely assume that big business were either right wing, or at least "establishment". Now they view the likes of hugely powerful companies Google appear worryingly left-ish in ways, and so they've decided that big business isn't so much their friend any more.

Yes, big businesses are on the side of the left because they changed the Google background to a fucking rainbow flag.

 

[Gergar12]

I used to use the V1 for a short while years ago before the alt-right scandal happened. When I came back and started posting three different people sent me private messages warning me about him. What exactly was he doing that made him so controversial?



lol is this an example of conservatives complaining that liberal media biased cancel culture political correctness is oppressing conservatives just because someone once told them because maybe it's not cool to say that we should reinstate slavery?

WTF are you talking about, I literally support a 15 dollar minimum wage, I just don't want a 1984 PRC China takeover of the international system that's my only conservative position on foreign affairs. The anti-cancel culture stuff is a civil libertarian free speech position.

 

[EvilRoy]

I don't know. To me he seemed to be one of those guys who always plays devil's advocate on internet forums, annoying if you get caught up in the arguments but otherwise harmless. I'm not sure where all the stuff about lies and racism and fascism comes from, but then I didn't pay much attention to most of the threads he posted in.

I thought this thread would be more about the lack of transparency when people get banned on this forum.

Speaking as an outside observer - I read many threads where he and others argued but never engaged in a conversation myself - you're basically correct. He really liked to fight in favour of the establishment and sometimes even asked for people to show empathy to those he defended while simultaneously offering little or no empathy for those he argued against. That in itself is forgivable, but what I saw cause the most friction was the fact that he often very clearly entered conversations with almost no background understanding of what was being discussed - not even having skimmed a wiki article - but spoke as though he had something to add, and then demanded others explain the situation to him when his arguments were discounted outright. Basically the conversational equivalent of a selfish lover - brought little to the table barring gainsay, insisted that others do the heavy lifting to explain to him the situation.

For what its worth I don't think he was actually a troll. I believe he believes everything he says, and his approach to discussions is just his personality. Its just that those two things together make a lot of people hate talking to him.

I do agree that we need some more transparency regarding who is banned, and why. I don't think we need a play by play, but the old system of just greying out the username and then writing a reason on the last post/offense as to why from Escapist V1 was helpful.

 

[ObsidianJones]

Speaking as an outside observer - I read many threads where he and others argued but never engaged in a conversation myself - you're basically correct. He really liked to fight in favour of the establishment and sometimes even asked for people to show empathy to those he defended while simultaneously offering little or no empathy for those he argued against. That in itself is forgivable, but what I saw cause the most friction was the fact that he often very clearly entered conversations with almost no background understanding of what was being discussed - not even having skimmed a wiki article - but spoke as though he had something to add, and then demanded others explain the situation to him when his arguments were discounted outright. Basically the conversational equivalent of a selfish lover - brought little to the table barring gainsay, insisted that others do the heavy lifting to explain to him the situation.

For what its worth I don't think he was actually a troll. I believe he believes everything he says, and his approach to discussions is just his personality. Its just that those two things together make a lot of people hate talking to him.

I do agree that we need some more transparency regarding who is banned, and why. I don't think we need a play by play, but the old system of just greying out the username and then writing a reason on the last post/offense as to why from Escapist V1 was helpful.

In my thread about how the cops lied, once again, about their encounter with an Arab boy on his way to work, I questioned in my original post why do I even post these stories any more.

This was his response.

Outrage bait because you're biased against cops and because you want to elevate their mistakes and suppress their successes in order to validate your feelings?

Not that the subject was wrong. Not that I was spreading falsehoods... That it was overblown and it was a 'mistake' that these cops repeatedly punched an unarmed citizen in the face and then lied about it on their official report.

He had no time for anyone not deemed worthy in his eyes and he continually pushed for everyone to overlook or not speak about any misgivings or outright incidents of those who he did deem worthy.

Let him believe in his Bullshit all he wanted. He lived on this forum to breed dissent, twist narratives for his way of looking at things, and to try to rile others up. The only reason I put him on Ignore is because it was the only way to stop myself from delving into his lunacy... the only thing he wanted for all of us to do.

 

[EvilRoy]

In my thread about how the cops lied, once again, about their encounter with an Arab boy on his way to work, I questioned in my original post why do I even post these stories any more.

This was his response.



Not that the subject was wrong. Not that I was spreading falsehoods... That it was overblown and it was a 'mistake' that these cops repeatedly punched an unarmed citizen in the face and then lied about it on their official report.

He had no time for anyone not deemed worthy in his eyes and he continually pushed for everyone to overlook or not speak about any misgivings or outright incidents of those who he did deem worthy.

Let him believe in his Bullshit all he wanted. He lived on this forum to breed dissent, twist narratives for his way of looking at things, and to try to rile others up. The only reason I put him on Ignore is because it was the only way to stop myself from delving into his lunacy... the only thing he wanted for all of us to do.

Oh I know, I saw that response and was fairly disappointed with what I read, but I wasn't surprised. That's what his personality is. Defend the establishment, gainsay the opposition. He couldn't call it incorrect or a lie because the story is based off surveillance video, and that's not something he as a person siding with establishment can easily question, so instead he had to find another way to gainsay it. So it was you hating cops. Empathy for the cops, not for the kid.

When I say I don't think he's a troll I mean in as much as I don't think he was playing a character to specifically piss people off. I'm pretty sure the Houseman we saw is the person that he is. That his personality is so unpleasant that it presumably got him banned is another matter.