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 they want?
No and NO.
Swamper
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 ing 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
Halcyon+On+On
He's a known racist around here, Swamper. That's why he's the target of so much ire. Get 'im!
EddieZilker
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Halcyon+On+On
Because Matt behaves like the Westboro Baptist Church at times.
Lira
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.
srussell0018
quote:
Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
Because Matt behaves like the Westboro Baptist Church at times.
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.
