[ home ] [ pony / rp / canterlot ] [ arch ]

/canterlot/ - Canterlot

Site related staff board
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]


File: 1494618742047.png (43.75 KB, 300x200, 3:2, 329394000.png) ImgOps Google


So uh, I noticed someone made a thread insulting me and making false accusations about me, and then a mod came by, also made false accusations about me, and locked the thread before I had a chance to respond/defend myself. What gives?


>false accusations about me
Are you kidding me?  I accused you of "going so far as to suggest that the 1st and 8th Amendments of the Bill of Rights be suspended so that the gov't can disembowel and dismember a subset of people who say racist things".  

Here is a conversation with you suggesting that racist so-called "hate speech" (which is generally constitutionally protected; see, e.g., R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992)) should be suppressed by force of government:
>>>/pony/479853, >>>/pony/479858, >>>/pony/479861, >>>/pony/479870
>>>/pony/479991, >>>/pony/479993, >>>/pony/480004, >>>/pony/480007

And here is you suggesting that a subset of racists be disemboweled and dismembered.  In >>>/pony/479939, I asked you:
>Do you also want to take away racists' 8th Amendment rights so that they can be hanged, drawn, and quartered?
And you responded in >>>/pony/479939:
>Depends on the crimes they committed.

Based on your claimed positions above, I think I am more than justified in questioning whether you are trolling.


You're wrong.

No where in >>>/pony/479939 did I suggest that hate speech would or should be included in the subset of crimes punishable by being drawn and quartered. You came to that conclusion on your own. What I said was I don't rule out being drawn and quartered as a punishment for criminals completely.
How about, instead of making a passive aggressive thread asking everyone else if "I'm a troll" and making a claim about an opinion I don't hold, you actually asked me about it?

But this is also about the mod who, upon seeing you do this, decided that yes, I hold "divisive opinions" and locked the thread before I could clarify or even respond. Neither of you get to decided what I think.


>No where in >>>/pony/479939 did I suggest that hate speech would or should be included in the subset of crimes punishable by being drawn and quartered.
Nor did I accuse you of that.  This would be clear to you if you had read my post carefully, considering the meaning of each word and how it relates to other words in the sentence.  If I thought that you thought that so-called 'hate speech' by itself constituted an offense that should be punishable by death (as opposed to being an element of a larger offense or being an aggravating factor), I would have omitted the phrase "subset of".

And I see you do not deny wanting to suspend the Bill of Rights so that (1) so-called 'hate speech' can be punished by the gov't and (2) cruel and unusual punishment such as drawing and quartering can be inflicted on convicted prisoners.  Although if you have revised your opinions and now wish to be reject these positions, I would be happy to hear it.


I don't think hate speech should be punishable by death. I just don't think it should be allowed to be spread. And that's not just limited to racially motivated hate speech either. Hate speech against other sexual orientations, gender identity of religions should not be allowed either. And I don't see how that's bad or why you would be trying to defend bigotry.

As for drawing and quartering prisons, I think I was just upset at the time. A quick and painless death is more than some criminals deserve, and in some cases something they denied their victims, but it should be the standard if the sentence for their crime is death.


File: 1494991061800.jpg (131.69 KB, 500x375, 4:3, face-sink.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>why you would be trying to defend bigotry.
I'm not.  I just think that your proposed solution is worse than the original problem, like burning down your house to destroy a cockroach infestation.

>I just don't think [hate speech] should be allowed to be spread.
Well, who do you think should stop it, and how?  In the previous thread, you implied that your answer is the government and by force.  In that case, the problem, as ⛵ and I explained in the original thread, is that the government cannot be trusted with the power to suppress speech.  Once upon a time, before modern First Amendment jurisprudence, people were sent to prison for protesting the draft for World War 1.  Do you really want to return to those days?  Do you think that disrespectfully burning the American flag should be criminally punishable, as Trump wants it to be?  


File: 1495336750974.jpg (71.27 KB, 900x675, 4:3, The wrong side of the bed.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Did you actually read what I said, Manley?

I said you have opinions that are held to such an extreme degree that it is divisive. Your whole deal with calling all Trump supporters and voters "monsters" is still very vivid in my mind. I'm sure you'd just call it "the truth," or some such however. Since you're writing off whatever percentage of the country that voted for Trump off as either evil or stupid, I don't know how I can put it more delicately than calling it "divisive."

You can oppose someone's political beliefs or reasons without demonizing them. I say this as someone who voted for Clinton.

I was trying to stop a fight. Lo and behold I come back and find you started it anyway.


But saying that I hold "divisive views" in response to someone accusing me supporting the killing of racists makes it sound like I actually believe that.

I realize you were "trying to stop a fight", but I don't like the implication that "Oh yeah, he believes that kind of stuff, just ignore him" when it's not something I actually think.


File: 1495554971782.png (120.54 KB, 500x642, 250:321, Let's take a walk.png) ImgOps Google

You do however hold views that have a tendency to provoke people, even if you don't mean for them to. That's a history you've yet to shed, but it also doesn't make you a troll.

In any case, if you don't want to make something out like it's what you believe, then answer with a definitive "no," not an "It depends."


I feel like you would understand my views on the election more if I weren't one of the only non-white people on the board. I've since tempered a few of my views on the matter, but it doesn't change the fact that this is a dangerous time in history for me and my family and friends.

Anyway, the question I was posed was not "Do you think racists should be tortured?" It was "Do you think certain criminals should be tortured?" He assumed what I meant by my response and you went along with it and just said "Yeah, Manley believes some crazy shit."  Do you not see where a response like that can be seen as you saying something for me? I don't think racists should be tortured, btw.


Just because I am white doesn't mean I can't or don't understand where you're coming from. Furthermore, just blanket labeling most of the board as "white" fails to take into account that that there is a sizable portion of the people who post here that aren't even American. I mean for God's sake we've got Poles who post here.

It was, actually. The sentence verbatim was "Do you also want to take away racists' 8th Amendment rights so that they can be hanged, drawn, and quartered?"
You answered-
"Depends on the crimes they committed."

That is a very vague answer, and it's that vagueness that escalated the situation even further. You don't take away someone's 8th amendment rights at all, or even insinuate it. That it's happened to PoC in the past is an even greater reason for it to not be taken away in any way now. If you want a truly cynical answer as to why some white Americans would support equal rights for minorities even though the system would benefit them, is that they realize that if that treatment could be done to blacks, it could be done to anyone.

>I don't think racists should be tortured, btw.
That's good! You also never said that after the exchange I showed. Do you see how as a mod I'm looking in and seeing what looks like someone who just wants to fight?


What's a pole? You mean, like, Polish people? I don't think nationality has much to do with what we were talking about. I didn't say white people were monsters. I said people who voted for Trump were (which, as I said, is a view I've since amended and tempered). So if you aren't American, you couldn't possible be included in that group.

And I think the confusion here is that he assumed I thought "being a racist" is included in the "crimes committed" Which was not my intent. I meant more along the lines of, people who have committed hate crimes, not just those with racist views. But the answer I gave was a bit vague, I'll admit that.


File: 1495606068664.png (211.76 KB, 687x1024, 687:1024, Well then.png) ImgOps Google

Yes, I mean Polish people, who until fairly recently were an ethnic minority in the Soviet Union, and treated quite badly. Watching what you say due to fear of secret police is something that remains a very real memory there.

In any case, the point here is that if you want to be accurate, you'd be wise to say non-white American. Try and adopt a non-Amerocentric viewpoint, at least around here.

With the way you worded it, yes, that's what he/she thought, and I cannot blame them for that. If you're going to debate someone on such a hot-button issue, you need to be clear. Otherwise I open the site and see almost an entire thread being reported because there just seems to be people fighting and getting nasty with one another. Then that nastiness looks as though it's going to start getting spammed across the front page.


That person making a new thread about it was out of line. I'm not upset with it being closed, I'm upset with the implications that were made. Which we have gone on to clear up here.

[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / rp / canterlot ] [ arch ]