TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Oh, Poor Matthew! (A teary farewell from a frustrated member) (OP is also evil!)
Pages (8): « 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 »

quote:

Originally posted by djnitride I read through the entire thread and even with Matt getting "personal" I don't think this was called for.

Does anyone think it would help if I went into a more detailed explanation of why Matt's "All Men are Evil" thesis is utterly offensive or does everyone just think that this is the COR and that, regardless of sensibilities and contexts, people should just be able to say whatever the fuck they want?

please elaborate.

i just think it's completely looney (equivalent to bird drops)

but not offensive by any means

but you know him. You know he says stupid shit like this and has the mind of a child. His statement was not that left field. The most offensive thing to me if he had a proper adult brain would be his inclusion of women as religious idiots do without bothering to mention them as that is already a given in their circles of bs. It is hard to get upset at someone that is just really naive and possibly retarded.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker Does anyone think it would help if I went into a more detailed explanation of why Matt's "All Men are Evil" thesis is utterly offensive or does everyone just think that this is the COR and that, regardless of sensibilities and contexts, people should just be able to say whatever the fuck they want?

Don't you find it at least slightly ironic that we are alienating a self described "loner" for simply expressing himself in a way that didn't greatly offend anyone besides you in light of recent events?

quote:

Originally posted by Lira Jesus Christ, Nou... how is this even possible?!

It's called forum software that lets you post more often than once every 5 seconds.

quote:

Originally posted by Psyshell It's called forum software that lets you post more often than once every 5 seconds.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker Does anyone think it would help if I went into a more detailed explanation of why Matt's "All Men are Evil" thesis is utterly offensive or does everyone just think that this is the COR and that, regardless of sensibilities and contexts, people should just be able to say whatever the fuck they want?

I want the detail. I don't see it. I could just be oblivious but i also don't know any of the background info

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker Does anyone think it would help if I went into a more detailed explanation of why Matt's "All Men are Evil" thesis is utterly offensive or does everyone just think that this is the COR and that, regardless of sensibilities and contexts, people should just be able to say whatever the fuck they want?

It wouldn't help. You can't legislate for the individual reactions of those with uniquely strong emotional positions. It is perfectly acceptable for someone to react to such an atrocity with a state of recoiled horror at the nature of humanity, and it is frankly utterly ludicrous that you should try and convince us all that you're right to respond aggressively to one man's philosophical view of the arbitrary conceptual premise of "evil".

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker Does anyone think it would help if I went into a more detailed explanation of why Matt's "All Men are Evil" thesis is utterly offensive or does everyone just think that this is the COR and that, regardless of sensibilities and contexts, people should just be able to say whatever the fuck they want?

No and NO.

quote:

Originally posted by Psyshell Same reason my 2nd last forum account got banned, for no apparent reason because swamper wanted to probably. Part of the reason was that swamper was fucking stupid enough to think I was actually racist... not that I made racist jokes or anything, but that I was, based on a single forum post.

Who are you? If your post had racist content then your suspension was warranted

He's a known racist around here, Swamper. That's why he's the target of so much ire. Get 'im!

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J It is perfectly acceptable for someone to react to such an atrocity with a state of recoiled horror at the nature of humanity, ...

quote:

Originally posted by Mattsanity. all men. this is my favorite video on youtube when it comes to explaining the nature of man. I know yall have other things to do but it's a good listen.

http://www2.tranceaddict.com/forums...=7#.UM9NLnfheSp

I think yours is a very romanticized interpretation of Matt's intent. I'm pretty sure he was invoking hypocrisy to negate condemnation. By supposing that everyone is evil the license to condemn atrocity is revoked. It's a ridiculous extension of the Bible's "Judge not lest ye be judged" axiom; taken woefully out of context and inappropriately applied to the aftermath of these tragedies.

It is not reaction to the nature of humanity. It is an absurd provocation aimed at emotional reactions in the aftermath of such events.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J and it is frankly utterly ludicrous that you should try and convince us all that you're right to respond aggressively to one man's philosophical view of the arbitrary conceptual premise of "evil".

You can't have your cake and eat it, too. I'll accept that my personal preferences are not subject to legislation (as I've already indicated) but how is it right to allow for someone else's provocative speech as you dispute the validity of my aggressive reply?


Matt has repeatedly posted the video, quoted above. To my knowledge, this is the second time he has done so in a thread relating to mass-murder. The question of legislating this doesn't pertain to my personal sensibilities as much as it has to do with what Arbiter posted, earlier, in this thread.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Here, however, mattsanity's posts consisted of little more than the same tired act that he has repeated in numerous other threads. In substance, his conduct amounts to little more than spam. I agree that he should not be permitted to repeatedly derail threads with tangential ramblings about the purported "evil" of men.

http://www2.tranceaddict.com/forums...=5#.UM9VOXfheSr

It is the mind-boggling perpetuation of inanity in threads, the topics of which are already emotionally charged, that set me off. Given my personal preferences, he'd have been banned the first time he did it but I understand that my personal preferences aren't necessarily appropriate, here.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker http://www2.tranceaddict.com/forums...=7#.UM9NLnfheSp I think yours is a very romanticized interpretation of Matt's intent. I'm pretty sure he was invoking hypocrisy to negate condemnation. By supposing that everyone is evil the license to condemn atrocity is revoked. It's a ridiculous extension of the Bible's "Judge not lest ye be judged" axiom; taken woefully out of context and inappropriately applied to the aftermath of these tragedies. It is not reaction to the nature of humanity. It is an absurd provocation aimed at emotional reactions in the aftermath of such events. You can't have your cake and eat it, too. I'll accept that my personal preferences are not subject to legislation (as I've already indicated) but how is it right to allow for someone else's provocative speech as you dispute the validity of my aggressive reply? Matt has repeatedly posted the video, quoted above. To my knowledge, this is the second time he has done so in a thread relating to mass-murder. The question of legislating this doesn't pertain to my personal sensibilities as much as it has to do with what Arbiter posted, earlier, in this thread. http://www2.tranceaddict.com/forums...=5#.UM9VOXfheSr It is the mind-boggling perpetuation of inanity in threads, the topics of which are already emotionally charged, that set me off. Given my personal preferences, he'd have been banned the first time he did it but I understand that my personal preferences aren't necessarily appropriate, here.

Or, you could just ignore him?

I really don't get why you have to pay attention to what he says and let it affect you to the point you want him banned?

Because Matt behaves like the Westboro Baptist Church at times.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Because Matt behaves like the Westboro Baptist Church at times.

This is eventually what got him into trouble. I used to have some fun reading his posts because I suspect he was just having a laugh, but there are times he came pretty close to picketing in front of funerals saying Jesus was not a mourning person.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Because Matt behaves like the Westboro Baptist Church at times.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/..._n_2315070.html

Explain yourself Lira!

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker I think yours is a very romanticized interpretation of Matt's intent. I'm pretty sure he was invoking hypocrisy to negate condemnation.

In all honesty, I can't be bothered to watch 9 minutes of religious dogma. If there's something in there that clearly shows Matt's meaning was "None of you people should judge this man" then please pull it out of there for me.

quote:

You can't have your cake and eat it, too. I'll accept that my personal preferences are not subject to legislation (as I've already indicated) but how is it right to allow for someone else's provocative speech as you dispute the validity of my aggressive reply?

No, that was poorly worded - I'd just woke up when I wrote it, for what that's worth. (I have a habit of turning my laptop on to keep me awake after my alarm has gone off.) What I mean is that your reaction is massively over-the-top compared to anyone else's, and should in no way be used as the interpetative framework from which to administer a suspension. You have effectively demanded Matt be censored, when I would not censor you for what you wrote.

And I don't buy into this "spam" argument either - for one simple reason. Matt only posts extensively on this subject when people reply to him about it. That's called discussion. Spam is when someone posts irrelevant content without prompting and thus clogs up a channel of communication with unrelated and obstructive information.

J00F man.

Yeah, that's spam.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J your reaction is massively over-the-top

I don't agree with that, since Eddie reacted like that because of his mother, i presume?

But Matthew it seems didn't know he was causing offence and apologized afterwards.

Although, i still don't understand why Eddie would let a guy like that get to him in the first place. Just skip his posts

quote:

Originally posted by Kylle I really don't get why you have to pay attention to what he says and let it affect you to the point you want him banned?

This dovetails into what Looney was saying about Matt having (at least posting with) the mind of a child.

Simply put, it's offensive and I don't feel like having to sift through it. It serves only to retard discourse as it devolves any interesting conversation to banal assertions, made by Matt, and well meaning, often well-written arguments that are completely ignored by him in favor of furthering his utter nonsense. The fact that I have an emotional investment not shared by everyone probably plays a role in the uniqueness of my response, as well. In the context of emotionally loaded thread topics, Matt's contributions are only conducive to trivializing their seriousness. I understand that not everyone shares my sentiments (even those who may have similar experiences to mine) but I'm quite sick of Matt's inappropriate bullshit.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J In all honesty, I can't be bothered to watch 9 minutes of religious dogma. If there's something in there that clearly shows Matt's meaning was "None of you people should judge this man" then please pull it out of there for me.

I really don't blame you. It's silly and more notable for being a coercive guilt trip than it is for something that's relevant to the discussion. The basic gist of it is that if you're judging someone else's actions your own thought-life betrays the moral high-ground one supposes to be judging from. One's condemnation of infidelity, for instance (my example - may not actually be in the sermon but demonstrates the spirit of it, none-the-less), is contrasted to the incidental impulses to commit infidelity, yourself (i.e. the religious version of psychological projection). He contrives an allegory that, if your mind could be recorded on video-tape and shown to your best friend, it is unlikely your friend would want to have anything to do with you, afterward. I sincerely doubt, however, that the author of the sermon had any idea it would be cited in conjunction with such an extreme example of immorality.

Matthew's thoughts on the video and on the topic, in general:

quote:

There's no way people can be categorized as either good or bad because the truth is, everyone has a dark side. People are inherently evil because everyone has done something immoral at some point in their lives. Certain people are more publicized than others considering the severity of the crime committed, but the shooter isn't any worse than a baby that came outta the womb. Sin is an inescapable trait handed down from the event that took place in the garden of eden. God is the ultimate judge though, and I have faith that all 12 victims went to paradise.

quote:

This upcoming checklist isn't directed to anybody. Here it is: Have you ever: lied? [ ] disliked someone [ ] thought about or went through with fornication? [ ] stolen something? [ ] If you checkmarked at least one of these, then congratulations, you're evil.

quote:

And what's not absurd to say is that the suspect isn't some rare, marginalized individual from society. He could've been any person walking on God's green earth. Imagine the evil he was continuously thinking the day he conceived the idea of murdering people 'til the moment he left around carnage. I'm not judging him but I could assure that he was thinking about evil relentlessly. The bottom line is, men are evil.

quote:

any philosopher would acknowledge that evil thoughts lead to evil deeds.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J No, that was poorly worded - I'd just woke up when I wrote it, for what that's worth. (I have a habit of turning my laptop on to keep me awake after my alarm has gone off.) What I mean is that your reaction is massively over-the-top compared to anyone else's, and should in no way be used as the interpretative framework from which to administer a suspension. You have effectively demanded Matt be censored, when I would not censor you for what you wrote. And I don't buy into this "spam" argument either - for one simple reason. Matt only posts extensively on this subject when people reply to him about it. That's called discussion. Spam is when someone posts irrelevant content without prompting and thus clogs up a channel of communication with unrelated and obstructive information.

I'd say that my reaction, while over-the-top, was precisely the confrontation Matt was looking for - albeit more than he bargained for. His arguments were met with admonition to stop and he ignored them. They were met with logic and reason and he replied with obliviousness. It's not until he gets called out for being a complete shit-head that he decides to double-down and, when it gets too hot in the kitchen, lashes out.

He wasn't interested in entertaining a discussion. If he were, there would have been a discussion. Instead, he's only interested in advancing his opinion for the sake of being immaturely provocative. I'm at least willing to examine my assumptions and beliefs and, if not make myself better understood, concede to the possibility I'm wrong. Maybe Matt has shown himself capable of that in something I haven't read but I've only ever read provocation, intractability, evasion, and other forms of avoidance that indicate, quite clearly, he holds himself completely unaccountable for most of the bullshit he espouses.

I'm with you all the way Eddie.

I think we can all agree that Matt got what was coming to him and J00F man, J00F.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker He wasn't interested in entertaining a discussion. If he were, there would have been a discussion. Instead, he's only interested in advancing his opinion for the sake of being immaturely provocative. I'm at least willing to examine my assumptions and beliefs and, if not make myself better understood, concede to the possibility I'm wrong. Maybe Matt has shown himself capable of that in something I haven't read but I've only ever read provocation, intractability, evasion, and other forms of avoidance that indicate, quite clearly, he holds himself completely unaccountable for most of the bullshit he espouses.

His signal to noise is not so great but better than others. I do think this site meant more to him than it did for others. He has issues. I kinda feel bad for him. I don't think he meant harm. He is just a little closed minded. All one would have to do is ignore him. I do think the onus is on those that aren't retarded and can conceptualize what is going on and be the adult rather than expecting a child who for all things other people have done is not that contentious. He was annoying. I think the most sensible thing would of been to ignore him. The function is there.

Was the ban explicitly temporary ? He did seem to ask about it and that it should be permanent. I think cool out time is not so bad. If that is the case, then I guess that is up to the mods. It seems to have got a lot more attention than it requires.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.