File: 1596061744601.png (81.27 KB, 398x506, 199:253, A_wtf.png) ImgOps Google
Um... My other thread on Harry Potter wasn't a debate thread. Or alteast, not one worthy of /townhall/'s more stringent rules. What gives?
File: 1596062405469.png (216.75 KB, 402x447, 134:149, 5654768768768.png) ImgOps Google
As I said earlier, I was the one who moved it due to the fact it was simply not appropriate for /pony/. The thread would have been absolutely 100% fine if it was only left to: "Harry potter sucks". Instead of adding another part that you should know would derive into controversial discussion.
File: 1596063552583.png (285.62 KB, 497x670, 497:670, 879898709098.png) ImgOps Google
That topic has always been controversial everywhere I have seen it discussed... I will wait to see if anyone else would like to weigh in on this.
Your assertion that "the creator of Harry Potter has outed herself as a terrible person
" certainly generated controversy in that thread, as anyone could have foreseen.
File: 1596063931156.png (145.03 KB, 340x420, 17:21, well, see.png) ImgOps Google
This entire transphobia debate is not a topic, I think, that suits /pony/ and should take place better in /townhall/
You can argue that was not the point of the thread, but it was steered into that quickly, and knowing the public on ponyville, wouldn't have left either.
Harry Potter is /pony/ material, JK controversy and Transphobia is /townhall/
or maybe that LGBT thread that /pony/ has.
Being a bigot makes you a terrible person. >>6778
Good point, /pony/ has an LGBT thread, but that's not considered "controversial".
>>6782>It's kind of silly to say that ponyville doens't have an anti-bigotry stance
That post that you're responding to didn't say that.>And so why is it "controversial" to say, in a pro-LGBT space, that someone being anti-LGBT is bad?
I've replied to that here: http://ponyville.us/townhall/res/5957.html#6034
Her being a bad person ought to be completely irrelevant, then, so why start the thread with that?
It shouldn't matter to the idea Harry Potter is of poor quality.
Even if she was a great person, a hero, an angel you stood on earth, the quality of the work ought stand on its own
So, you're saying Harry Potter should suck so she doesn't have a platform.
I think many would find that disagreeable.
I'm saying Harry Potter sucks, and we should accept that it does universally so she doesn't have a platform. That's different than what you said. The way you said that, you make it sound like our actions would make
it suck. When it already does.
The point being though, your thread is politically motivated very least. Your drive to make it seem like Harry Potter is bad, is for that particular removal of platform.
Again, somebody's character shouldn't matter in a discussion of whether something is bad. So it should be irrelevant. Unless it is your goal to make it to others out to be bad for this political ends.
in which case, it absolutely belongs on town hall.
No, I'm not "trying to make it seem" like Harry Potter is bad. Harry Potter IS bad. It just exists in that state prior to today. A state of being bad.
My goal is to make it's badness universally known and accepted. Known to those who are unaware of it's badness and accepted by those who hold on to the idea it was good when it wasn't.
In making it universally known and accepted that Harry Potter is bad, then we diminish the power of J.K. Rowling to spread hatred. This is not a campaign to "make" Harry Potter "look" bad. It is a campaign to make the fact that Harry Potter is bad universally accepted. Big difference.
I'm on mobile. Sliding finger thing works good most the time, but it can be a major pain at times.>>6792
That's more or less what I was meaning.
Your reason for trying to convince others is political.
By that kind of logic, it probably should stay on the political board, not the general less serious one
The subject is definitely political, though.
If we use that definition, white supremacy isn't political. I hardly think it would be acceptable to make threads about that on pony.
And it's not like the stuff doesn't have influence on laws in the country anyway. Especially the UK, as I understand it
In essence, because it's an item of moral consideration in regards to the standards of our given social systems.
As long as it's not relating to law or government, should I be allowed to make whatever threat on race I please on pony?
I don't know why you would wanna unless there's something you're not telling us. >>6802
"Being a transphobe is bad" shouldn't be a controversial statement, but here we are.
I disagreed with you. Several hours ago. >>6805
Stop bringing up race to try and bait me. That's as direct as I can be.
I am quite obviously not trying to do so. What I am doing is pointing to the standard at inconsistent.
Why do you have to always assume the worst possible motive in everyone you talk to? It's really irritating. I'm trying to be as up front as is possible, but you read into things far beyond any reasonable point
I got in an argument with someone defending racism on /townhall/, so i'm a little on edge. My appologies. Anyway, to answer your question in >>6801
No, that wouldn't be allowed. But issues of race are political in nature because they are intertwined with the history of government in this and many other countries.
My topic isn't political because expecting people not to be assholes isn't a political statement.
File: 1596079807794.jpg (237.85 KB, 1125x1334, 1125:1334, ef8.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>6807>I disagreed with you.
OK, but please stop acting as if your thread asserted only that "Being a transphobe is bad". The controversial part was asserting that Rowling is "terrible person". You don't get to duck out of that by acting as if you said something much less controversial.
Then the matter of LGBT issues is logically equally political, as similarly, it had a history in most countries and governments in alike measure.
It's probably a bit of why the LGBT thread seems to avoid heavier discussions and the like, being more about positive support for one another, rather than questions, examination, and philosophy on the relevant concepts
File: 1596080032647.jpg (345.9 KB, 991x1400, 991:1400, 1463362685112.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
OK, but now you must be aware that saying "Rowling is a terrible person" is controversial. Just look at all the controversy that it actually generated!
Incidentally, if they incident is what I think, relating to the thread this lot is about in townhall, the characterization there is equally false.
It was likewise, at least if you're referring to what I think you are, an instance of presuming the worst intent.
File: 1596081127274.png (17.61 KB, 334x317, 334:317, 268722__UNOPT__safe_rule-6….png) ImgOps Google
Not gonna lie, I would've assumed it wasn't controversial, either. I've never heard anyone say she isn't
a terrible person, I've only heard of people abandoning Harry Potter entirely and people who think it's okay that she's a terrible person and continue to consume her writing.
But, like you said, I guess it's actually fairly controversial! So...
Well, if you want to say she's terrible for general attitude and demeanor, that would probably be fine. I think where the issue is, is when you get into the idea of she's a bad person because of transphobia, and so we should work to show people Harry Potter is bad to deny the platform.
More or less anyway
File: 1596081518227.png (36.69 KB, 412x382, 206:191, I have no idea.png) ImgOps Google
>>6816>the idea of she's a bad person because of transphobia
Well, yeah, that's the part I didn't think was controversial. Or at least wouldn't be on this site, filled with trans people and people who support them.
If she was hitting trans folk with spiked bats, sure, but I'm inclined to believe at least for myself that while bigotry of any kind is bad, it's usually from place of ignorance, and so the individual isn't bad for it. Where that kind of moral judgement for me comes is based on direct intended harm or inconsistency to one's claimed principle.
But I think the main controversy in this regard became from the whole platforming thing.
Oh, and there's also the question of exactly how much wrong outweighs how much good.
If somebody kicks puppies in their spare time, but happens to be a renowned charity worker with several Nobel Peace prizes, multiple orphanages named after them, and has personally raised eight amputee war orphans, does the first act outweigh the rest?
Are they good or bad?
File: 1596082035270.jpg (46.96 KB, 990x530, 99:53, Bewitching-Brews-10-Most-U….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
I really enjoyed the Harry Potter
series, and the accusation that the author is a "terrible person" really rustled my jimmies.
File: 1596084473028.jpg (594.87 KB, 809x1169, 809:1169, 1595779384055.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>6820>you should be against transphobia.
I am! But I don't reduce a person's whole moral worth to only their failings. I consider Rowling a good person DESPITE
her transphobia. And it's not like Rowling is a particularly vicious transphobe either.
File: 1596084786303.jpg (32 KB, 636x477, 4:3, snake-1436017879001.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
That's where I disagree with you. All of us are sinners one way or another. We should try to find the good in other people rather than only condemning them for their failings.
I've a similar perspective on such things. Though even this I don't really see as a moral failing, since like I said, I don't fault the ignorant as evil.
I feel like we should call people out on their faults, especially if they are promoting harmful ideas. Otherwise people cannot grow or change. >>6825
it's one thing to be ignorant. It's another to constantly assert that your ignorant position is the correct one without admitting to your own ignorance.
File: 1596085851198.jpg (934.2 KB, 1280x1920, 2:3, snake-jurassic.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>6826>I feel like we should call people out on their faults, especially if they are promoting harmful ideas.
You can do that without
asserting that the person is a "terrible person", though!>>6825
Sneks are cuties!
File: 1596207012329.jpg (109.43 KB, 595x735, 17:21, eyebrows90.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
It was heading that direction.
Mike made the proper decision.
File: 1596256389193.png (141.59 KB, 900x787, 900:787, 1572061048114.png) ImgOps Google
It was controversial even if not political; /townhall/ isn't just for politics.
File: 1596340479022.jpg (109.43 KB, 595x735, 17:21, eyebrows90.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Not all discussions are political.
Only political discussions get quarantined to /townhall/.>>6833
My point I keep coming back to is "Being a transphobe is bad" should not be "controversial", especially on this board in particular, since it's so openly pro-LGBT>
Chain, arguing that AK47 rights are somehow equivalent to human rights makes your position deliberate bad-faith sophistry.>>6772
I recommend elimination of /townhall entirely. Rn theres a thread about whether 5.x mm rounds are adequate to kill personnel targets which is neither controversial or political, but simply inappropriate on this site under any circumstance.
Get rid of the festering pit that is /townhall.
File: 1596414276598.png (526.18 KB, 680x1279, 680:1279, 1425341887157.png) ImgOps Google
>>6836>arguing that AK47 rights are somehow equivalent to human rights
Um, I never did that. I disproved an (implicitly) universally quantified statement by instantiating it and showing that the instantiation was false. Like, if you say "for all x, P(x)", but I can show that P(42) is false, then I disprove your universally quantified statement "for all x, P(x)" by instantiating x with 42.>My point I keep coming back to is "Being a transphobe is bad" should not be "controversial",
Nobody in this thread has disagreed with you on that. The controversial part was something else in your thread OP.
File: 1596418174446.jpg (109.43 KB, 595x735, 17:21, eyebrows90.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Wrong.>>6836>I recommend elimination of /townhall entirely
I actually agree with Lost for once. It was basically a board made for Noonim whose constant whining made the site a lot worse.
File: 1596424026500.png (401.21 KB, 600x600, 1:1, 141305120402.png) ImgOps Google
>>6836>5.x mm rounds
You mean 5.56×45mm NATO?>which is neither controversial or political,
Um, I've gotta disagree with that. The Wikipedia page on the cartridge informs us that: "There has been much debate
of the allegedly poor performance of the bullet on target in regard to stopping power, lethality, and range." And a question that basically amounts to "Did the US government select a round that is inadequate for its purpose?" seems at least a little political.
I don't think that's a good idea. Tensions are high right now, and there's too many right-wing people on the site to not have a place to push back on their rhetoric. >>6838
Didn't he stop using the site some time ago after getting banned from all the boards but /pony/?>>6839>>6836
We really shouldn't be talking about bullets.
File: 1596457186411.png (60.3 KB, 463x436, 463:436, 1596066255264.png) ImgOps Google
I don't think it was intended to be "bad faith". Though I'll agree it'd've been better to point to something pertaining to actual people, as opposed to an item.
Still, as he pointed out in that thread with the definition, relating to people is not required for bigotry.
What's so improper about talking on the efficacy of a given round type for its intended role?
I'm not against removing /townhall/ entirely. Seems to be a complete disaster.
But, I don't really see why that thread's bad.
Applying an egregious false equivalency to an argument is the height of bad faith, disrespecting all parties involved and rationality itself.
Unconscionable for Chain to be doing all the damn time. I love you Chain but, get some perspective on the importance of basic honesty in discussion. Its dehumanizing to be subjected to flagrant logical fallacies that can only distract from truth or fraudulently prove lies or wrong concepts.
*edit: also your own def of bigotry shows that it applies to people, not objects. Shame on you, Soffist.>dont see whats wrong with bullet lethality thread on happy pony website
I know im not supposed to use the word sociopathic here but, ANY rational normal person (even me) can see whats wrong with that.>>6841
So basically Moons wont run me off cuz most of his friends are bigots. Which is the honest way to say "right wing". Maybe /townhall should stay and its human beings who dont think talking about how best to kill casually in their pony place, who should go.
Don't answer me; i concede.
*another edit: hey Max, i'd preesh a reality check here. Im prolly just projecting again. Canterlot self-ban for now
File: 1596486723128.jpg (322.91 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, kyouko-opening.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>6843>*edit: also your own def of bigotry shows that it applies to people, not objects.
The key word is "especially". The word "bigot" can certainly be used to describe obstinate/intolerant opinions and prejudices about objects as well as about people.>Applying an egregious false equivalency to an argument is the height of bad faith, disrespecting all parties involved and rationality itself.
Your understanding of my post greatly differs from my own understanding of my post. I did not mean to argue for any equivalency (false or otherwise). I guess some of the blame for this miscommunication falls on me for not being clearer. But I hope you can try to see the argument that I actually intended to make. I was using the word "bigoted" to apply to prejudices about objects as well as about people. Manley was using it to apply only to people. That was a source the confusion between Manley and me.>>dont see whats wrong with bullet lethality thread on happy pony website
/townhall/ is decidedly not
a happy pony website. In fact, many of the recent posts have been about police officers murdering people!
The trouble is I do not consider it to be a "false equivalency".
It is technically applicable, given the definition. The "especially" portion is not required for the primary definition, merely obstinate devotation to one's opinion or prejudice. Both of which can be on an item.>I know im not supposed to use the word sociopathic here but, ANY rational normal person (even me) can see whats wrong with that.
I would completely disagree. There's a massive difference between talking about the efficacy of something that can kill, and saying you want to, or do not care if someone is killed.
Saying "This particular knife is much more effective at stabbing" doesn't mean "I want to stab someone with this knife".