I have been happy with Moose too. But I haven't posted to ETG for months, and his very personal, distateful and insulting post, totally out of the blue, is what I am posting about here. If he had just swore at me, as others have done, I wouldn't have been particularly bothered.
Leg pulling or not, calling out a person regarding what they do in their personal lives and using that against them isn't just against forum rules, it's a very disrespectful thing to do. Now I accept that the poster in question has apologized they crossed said line but it doesn't excuse the fact this even happened to begin with. Whether said personal information was given in good faith is still not a valid reason for this either. Oh and please can we stop using the word N**I, its not technically a swear word but it can and does offend people who perhaps read this forum at the leisure. Any more such disruptions of this nature will result in this thread being removed for good. First and final warning on the matter. Regards Skyla
No it is not a light hearted leg pull. You have repeatedly questioned my role in the NHS and Unions based on the fact I disagree with you. I was asked about my experiences that informed my comments, and you have then repeated referred to them to denegrate my political views. But perhaps it is me that should appologise to you, with the same sincerity you use. I am sorry that my political views upset you so much, and put you in fear of very bad people. But I'm still going to express them on here, because I don't think the fears you have or the offensive implications your throw around, are at all justified. Maybe take the mods advice and ignore me. Apology accepted.
Not only is it not a swear word, its use can be perfectly legitimate to describe a certain type of politics. I agree it shouldn’t be used as an insult and I can’t see how it would make sense to use it in a footballing conversation but you can’t bar people from using the actual word, particularly in a politics section of the forum.
Fair enough. Maybe at the very least limit it's use if possible as a compromise, and as you said, don't use it as verbal slang to attack another poster.
Oh, as Skyla had typed it all in capitals I thought it was some new acronym I hadn’t come across. Do the same strictures apply to ‘fascist’ which a certain poster is wont to call people with zero justification?
Aye, couldn't be bothered to look up the exact dates so figured the dates of WW2 would be enough of a hint!
We can talk about male chickens but can't call someone one. It's all about context. Rule of thumb if they're 6ft 6 & 20 odd stone and you wouldn't say it to their face, don't type it. Using those rules given my powerfully built frame and martial arts skills I can say whatever the hell I want. You're all ****s. edit: dammit!
I thought Skyla asked us not to make any accusations without evidence. I guess that this would be a case of put up or say sorry. I have never called anyone on here a fascist, though I have explained when I have seen behaviour I believed was parallel with fascism, and people have been free to contest me. Nor have I ever told anyone to shut up, or suggested they did not post their opinion.
I have never suggested anyone should not post an opinion nor have I ever reported a post. I was pointing out that it could seem somewhat inconsistent to set limits on certain terms if similar terms were not also subject to such strictures. It could be suggested part of your post is semantic dissimulation.
Let’s be clear, linking people to behaviour that has been arbitrarily declared ‘fascist’ is just calling them a fascist in a sneaky way.
That salad of words and terms, one might say, would go deliciously with a nice vinagarette dressing. Imperfectly crafted to avoid the Elephant in the room. The main untruth I challenged in the post I replied to, clearly to everyone on the forum, is your claim that I described other posters as fascists; an allegation you have made several times before but have never provided evidence to support. So, as I have asked you previously, please show the proof of your disgusting and insulting claim or withdraw it. If you want me to justify asking you to do so, I urge you to read all of Skyla's recent warning posts on this thread. You are on the verge of getting the thread shut down because you can't stop yourself from insulting me. These are the rules you guys claimed were needed to stop me from abusing you. Don't blame me for your dreadful childish behaviour.
Splitting hairs here Hooter. There are numerous examples of you claiming the things people support (or even things they don’t put forward like CRT) as ‘fascist’ so the person is acting like a fascist. That’s calling them a fascist essentially when it is done in such a hostile fashion. You’ve done the same for racism, homophobia, disablism etc. Just search your own using name for those terms. If you seriously want to turn over a new leaf, own it and move on. But I wouldn’t overplay the victim here. You got an apology and that’s more than the rest of us have had.
I do own it, and I strongly believe that things like CRT are the epitomy of fascistic racist thinking. The difference is that I describe it as such, and then people defend it, and then get upset because CRT turns out to be racist in its very deginitoon. I don't accuse anypne of being anything. I just describe the things they are defending for what I believe they are. If a person's respose is "I don't consider CRT fascist or racist and defend its use by politically motivated groups." Then fair enough, but be prepared to explain why it is not racism, based on what it is and does. I make no accusations, but leave people to make their own decisions. If you don't agree with me, it doesn't make you a fascist, but may reflect poorly if others consider the facts of CRT, a theory that starts by categorising every one of us into a group based solely on the colour of our skin, to indicate that it is based in racism. The point is there to be argued, but you all fall short of doing so, because CRT is a left wing cause, and is without doubt the very epitomy of racist thinking. It says we are not individuals, we are characterised by the colour of our skin. Me saying that, years ago, was considered so offensive that my post was deleted. Not blaming the mods for that. We discussed the reasons and I was allowed to post further on it. CRT comes from identitarianism, which comes from nazi doctrines. There is no difference, it is just applied against different groups than the Germans applied it to. If you don't agree, please feel free to explain why it is not. I encourage people to come to their own conclusions, and particularly to read up on CRT. Everyone should know about that particular theory.
I used to enjoy watching Hammy Hamster on Tales of the Riverbank. Little did I know my young mind was being polluted with nazi propaganda I found this pic from an episode called Hammy goes to sea in the Bismarck
I would think many would find it ironic that you would see fit to complain about being insulted. I also see no evidence of me having insulted you in the post you have replied to. If you want an example of how you have used your own ‘idiosyncratic’ (many would say ‘flawed’) interpretation of an issue to level accusations of supporting unpleasant views at people who clearly do no such thing, then I would refer you back to the ‘Third World’ exchange.
I appreciate your extreme distaste for CRT, but I’m not convinced by your claim it is based totally on segregating everyone into racial groups. It has been described as ‘an analytical toolset for interrogating the relationship between law and racial inequality’ which developed after the ‘race equality’ gains of the late ‘60s & ‘70s had started to be rolled back by regressive legislation and misapplication of existing legislation in certain states. In that context, it could be argued that it started as a response to effectively racist developments. It could be argued it contains a contradiction at its root insofar as it also describes ‘race’ as being a ‘social construct not based on biological fact’, so its concentration on ‘racial inequalities’ could become a little tortuous. (The same statement about ‘social construct’ can also be applied to the concept of ‘ethnicity’). Maybe your main objection is to the way it has been applied and/or taught? It is noticeable that the main academic criticisms seem to have centred around a weakness with regards to ‘truth and objectivity’. The obvious response would be ‘whose truth and objectivity?’ The main movers against its teaching in schools would seem to correspond to education structures that also favoured the teaching of Creationism. Am I convinced by the merits of CRT? Not at all, but not am I convinced it is inherently racist.
No one has advocated CRT or identarianism (whatever the **** that is) to you. Mildly, it has been suggested that you may only have one view of CRT, well explained above by @Since63 Your proposition is essentially, you think they are fascist so anyone who disagrees or even looks to evenly consider the subject must defend themselves against allegations of fascism. And that’s just a way of accusing people of being fascists.
