AndrewV69 wrote:cunt wrote:
Nerd Of Redhead, in all sincerity asked noelplum99 to evidence his claim that he'd (noel) previously rejected the position that, I dunno, "bitches aren't shit", or something. When provided with video evidence, Nerd flat out refused to watch it and demanded a peer reviewed study. Hypothesis, he's an absolute fucking cunt.
Well, I see it as a commonality. Quite apart from Louis apparently demanding evidence from one side while apparently not requiring the same from "his" side, I believe you do not have to look too far to see examples of this type of behaviour in other individuals no matter where or which side they sit on.
The hypocrisy of course in this case is pretty obvious to us. I doubt that Nerd is introspective enough to see that he has different standards of evidence depending on who and whom. Or perhaps he does, but merely defends "his" side come hell or high water.
I am also sure that Steersman, if anyone could possibly show us an example of us doing the same. Not that I can recall any of us doing it, though "love is blind" may have something to do with it.
“Putting them on the
list, putting them on the list, so that none of them will be missed!†:-)
And while the list of offenders from the benighted territories of FfTB-land is rather longer and substantially more egregious than from here, there are still a few of the latter. And while the case of franc anathematizing smilies as being used only by “reetards", in spite of using them periodically himself, only qualifies as an amusing example of shooting oneself in the feet, that an
entry in his “Things Baboons Say†is entirely untrue is rather more problematic – not least for tending to discredit some of the other more credible and useful entries there.
As another case, I might refer to the “principle†and extent of “doxingâ€. While, as you mentioned, any two people here are likely to have at least three different and conflicting opinions on any subject, my impression is that the support that you, among others – myself included to some extent, provide for AVfM doxing several people at the U of T is somewhat inconsistent with the opinions expressed on the question of Mykeru “doxing†Creepy Bitter Girl; the Pit doing the same to Anthony K.; likewise with Laden and Mykeru, although the publication of addresses seems beyond the pale; and finally, Justin and Amy. While it is admittedly somewhat of a sticky wicket – one might wonder, for example, how we think about, say, the “doxing†of someone burning some crosses on a lawn while wearing white shirts, masks, and pointy hats – that inconsistency seems equally problematic. A useful principle might be that illegal acts remove the cloak of anonymity; presenting an anonymous persona is anything but a "get-out-of-jail-free card".
In addition, there was the recent case of SomeDumbGuy and his supposed “threatsâ€. Again, some variation in the responses here, but some of them seem to be predicated on the perception that the threats had some credibility leading to some discussion about banning him or at least editing his comments. Yet their credibility seemed to be no more than that implied by various “threats†against Watson which virtually all and sundry here had dismissed just as Watson engaging in some “histrionicsâ€.
Rather problematic tendency in humans in general towards “in-group morality and out-group hostilityâ€.
