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

/pony/ - Pony

Ponies and General Posting
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.605367[Last 50 Posts]

I feel like this video I posted might have gotten lost in the larger discussion in the other thread. But it's actually rather informative about the issue of gun control in the US. Because it's not just something we should talk about right after a bunch of people die and then forget about.

I'd like it if people actually watched the video so we can discuss the points it makes in this thread. Feel free to disagree and counter-point if you'd like, but only if you watch the whole video.


File: 1507681502980.png (187.22 KB, 350x450, 7:9, Sad shy 4.png) ImgOps Google


I think the point is to be morbid. Sometimes dark humor can be used to shock people into accepting that something is a problem. The fact that they've been able to post the same article so many times is kind of disgusting. But the problem is, no one wants to have the discussion.


File: 1507682249415.png (120.68 KB, 322x335, 322:335, anxious nervous scared moo….png) ImgOps Google

but what is there left to discuss? :c what can we talk about, that will help the situation?


Seriously talking about gun control instead of brushing it off as unavoidable. Like the article says. We need to stop avoiding it when a tragedy happens, and stop forgetting about it when no one is dying.

We have to have the hard conversation about guns themselves. "Guns kill. That's their primary objective. Target practice? You can do that with things that look like guns but don't kill people. Hobby? Your hobby kills people. Collector? Collect things that don't kill people. The argument is always some form of 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' Ignoring that guns were literally invented to kill people."


File: 1507683526834.jpg (19.32 KB, 289x296, 289:296, Awww Flutter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

i am of the thought that butting heads has never solved a problem constructively.

debating it entrenches people's positions. what we need is to come together, and discuss what would be reasonable both to gun owners and enthusiasts, and to the non-gun owners/enthusiasts. Such that we can start the process from there, and work our way towards a safe but egalitarian future.


If they'd listen to us.


File: 1507683789880.png (223.46 KB, 572x495, 52:45, are you okay.png) ImgOps Google

we too should listen. nobody is anypony's enemy in this debate. the enemy is wanton violence.



The argument is that it's a constitutionally protected right, 2nd amendment. I'm not a big gun guy, but just straight up making all guns illegal is clearly unconstitutional. I'm not saying we should all be able to buy rocket launchers at the corner store either, ny point is the devil's in the details when it comes to gun control. Personally, I think addressing the glaring mental health crisis would help, and I think automatic weapons and bump stocks don't have a place.


The constitution can be changed, though. I've never liked that argument. It's literally called an amendment. "An an alteration of or addition to" Where did this idea that it's set in stone and can't be changed come from?

Besides, no one is calling for the out right ban of all guns. That's a straw-man. But we have to call a spade a spade and a gun is a tool who's only use and reason it was created for is to kill. And something like that needs to be regulated if allowed. As the video (which people haven't been watching like I asked) pointed out, we regulate cars much more. We make people get a car driving license, take car safety tests and scrutinize the makers of cars for public safety. When cars aren't designed for killing. Because we know they are dangerous regardless. Why aren't guns treated the same way?



I'm with you so far. I think bump stocks were likely just an oversight. I'd never even heard of them before, and my aunt is a shooting instructer.

As for a tool to kill, I think guns are as much a statement, it's a way of stopping everything in a situation, they can act as a deterrent. I think the fear of guns can sometimes prevent as much violence as it causes, sortof like how contries hoarding nukes theoretically deters war.

I'm up for an amendment eventually, but I wonder if it's a  good idea to try and get it done in such a politically shitty environment.


The video makes a great point that we need to have a conversation, but I don't think it had any actual solutions to offer beyond that. I feel like we can't actually have a conversation until we know what we are trying to accomplish. It is nice to say 'well we want to stop gun violence' but that is so broad that it isn't really a realistic goal to move forward. So, what is our goal with gun regulation?


I really don't think guns act as a deterrent. Places with more guns have more gun violence, not less.

A good place to start is a gun license. Like we have a drivers license. And making gun safety training mandatory to get one.

But I think it's wrong to say we don't have an idea of what we want. Stricter gun regulations, closing the gun show loophole. There's lots of things that we want to happen that keeps getting put down.


>But I think it's wrong to say we don't have an idea of what we want

I was specifically referencing we, as in the people of this thread, not the country as a whole. I was asking for you and others to offer up your idea's for what objectives you wanted to accomplished with gun control.

>A good place to start is a gun license. Like we have a drivers license. And making gun safety training mandatory to get one.
I'd be 100% on board with a gun license. It seems like common sense. Though, I'd still like to clarify, to what end do you want a gun license? What problem will that solve (again, not saying its a bad idea, just that I the way I am approaching the problem of gun regulation, I would want to outline objectives so that we can map out an approach to getting somewhere).

>closing the gun show loophole
For instance, one of my top objectives is that there should be a traceable history of all guns in America that includes a chain of custody. A legal transfer of ownership of a gun should have to be recorded. This doesn't infringe on anyone's right to gun ownership, but it would help us keep guns in the hands of the 'good guys' and law abiding citizens. To that effect, the gun show loophole would have to be closed completely, or regulated to make sure official chain of custody information is filed.


Political shitpost containment board when?


And to explain why I am so 'objective' focused, I feel that a lot of the debate gets derailed because there is a fear that the liberals are coming for all the guns. You say you aren't, but what are you actually for then? If you aren't defining what you want to accomplish with your regulation and why this specific regulation is the best way to accomplish that, then the other side really don't have much reason to believe you aren't actually coming for all the guns.


It's not shit-posting. If you don't like political threads… why'd you click on one?


Because in my opinion the volume of it is ruining the site more than it already is.


A gun license would insure that anyone who owns a gun has at the very minimum been trained in gun safety, and that some kind of organization has deemed this person sound enough physically and mentally to safely operate a firearm. It won't end gun violence, but it will take steps to lessening it, and make it harder for bad people to get guns.

One way you could close the gun show loophole is to make it so that all transfers of ownership in regards to firearms have to be documented and filed with some organization. Perhaps the same one that gives out gun licenses?

The idea that anyone is "coming for all their guns" is ridiculous and doesn't need to be validated or dignified. For one thing… they have guns. You can protect your gun… with your gun. Second, "taking all the guns" would mean having the US military. Their own sons and daughters, husbands and fathers come to every home in America and take their family members property away. There's no way they can organize something of that scale and not have people refuse to carry out the order. "They wanna take the guns away!" is a strawman argument. One they don't really believe, but is easier to tear down instead of addressing the real problem.  


Ok, well then, tell mass-shooters to stop shooting mass amounts of people.


File: 1507690392754.jpg (59.33 KB, 500x528, 125:132, tumblr_o4ggt3B4tS1tyns1uo1….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I heard on the news last night that there are laws in Texas that ALLOW guns in schools. Great idea! Because the one thing that will prevent massacres in places that have the worst record of them happening is putting the tools to do so right in them!


>A gun license would insure that anyone who owns a gun has at the very minimum been trained in gun safety, and that some kind of organization has deemed this person sound enough physically and mentally to safely operate a firearm. It won't end gun violence, but it will take steps to lessening it, and make it harder for bad people to get guns.
That all makes sense to me. I think the opposing argument may be that 'it infringes on people's rights to own guns'. That is why I would be in favor of a constitutional rewrite of the 2nd to address the edge cases where not everyone really should be in possession of guns or all types of guns. I hate the vagueness of the 2nd that lets people claim that any restriction or regulation is an 'infringement' of their rights.

>The idea that anyone is "coming for all their guns" is ridiculous and doesn't need to be validated or dignified.
You don't get to define how other people feel. Even if it is a false narrative, many people legitimately fear their guns will be taken away. You can either try to dispel that notion like I am, or you can alienate the other side more and get nothing done. You choose.


Texas is the crazy redneck the other states don't invite to parties.

How does one dispel the notion of a completely false idea?


It really isn't completely false, mind you. If my sister-in-law was the entire legislative branch, she'd outlaw all guns on the spot. Maybe the democratic party isn't driving specifically to eliminate all guns, but a not insignificant amount of the democratic constituents would be all aboard a complete gun ban. So, making it explicit that isn't your goal is a very important aspect of bipartisanship (and nothing is getting done right now without it).


What some people want and what is actually possible are not always the same. Would certain people want a gun ban? I'm sure. But like I said in >>605529
>For one thing… they have guns. You can protect your gun… with your gun. Second, "taking all the guns" would mean having the US military. Their own sons and daughters, husbands and fathers come to every home in America and take their family members property away. There's no way they can organize something of that scale and not have people refuse to carry out the order.



The opposition to things like licences is more likely than not rooted in the idea that the purpose of the right to bare arms is to provide citizens with some form of recompense against hypothetically corrupt government, and the fear that a licensing system would be disastrous to that purpose should said hypothetical corrupt government have control over that licensing system. Admittedly, I  believe popular opposition to it on the right is very much rooted in popular paranoia and am otherwise in support of such a licensing system.


File: 1507692587552.gif (1.6 MB, 500x324, 125:81, a86.gif) ImgOps Google

>Let's talk about it all the time!

We do.  I'm sick of talking about it.  When he says "talk about it", what he means is "do exactly what I say", because he assumes that if everyone wasn't just trying to avoid talking about it we'd suddenly understand that he's right.

Why would the CDC study gun violence?  Guns aren't a disease.

Ultimately, no matter how they try to twist it, gun deaths are going down, which seems like things are just going to improve.  I'm certainly not opposed to more regulation, especially when it comes to licensing and testing and monitoring of sales.  But I also don't think it's actually some kind of national emergency.  Yeah, sometimes we have crazy mass shootings, but we're full of crazy people that want to murder everyone.  I can't downplay how often I hear from people how great it would be if someone they didn't like died.  Not in a joking manner, either, they actually want people to die because they think the world would be better and they'd be happier.  It's morbid.

And speaking of crazy people, that freqeuently played clip of Trump talking about how Rico threw his budget ouf of whack is immediately followed by "but it was definitely worth it", which everyone just cuts out and ignores for some reason.  I get that y'all don't like Trump, but cutting out funny sound clips isn't going to convince anyone else of how terrible he is.  It's a very echo-chambery self-pleasure sort of thing to do.


>You can protect your gun… with your gun
Yeah, the vast majority of gun owners are actually law abiding. And in the face of an actual federal law, many of them would turn over their guns, begrudgingly. Sure, there would be hold outs, and some people would rather turn to violence, that wouldn't likely be the common attitude. Frankly it is a little ridiculous that you believe any significant gun owners would be murderously protective of their guns in the face of a legal, constitutional gun ban.


>And speaking of crazy people, that freqeuently played clip of Trump talking about how Rico threw his budget ouf of whack is immediately followed by "but it was definitely worth it", which everyone just cuts out and ignores for some reason.  I get that y'all don't like Trump, but cutting out funny sound clips isn't going to convince anyone else of how terrible he is.  It's a very echo-chambery self-pleasure sort of thing to do.
I totally get that playing that clip like that is totally cherry-picking, but even with the full context it was a really lame thing to say to a devastated population after a fairly slow federal response (at least in comparison to the florida and texas responses). I get what you are saying though, how much I am seeing that clip is a little tiresome.



Yeah, I mean, he's not some kind of saint or anything, but it's brought up way too often.  OP video case in point, it wasn't about Trump or storms at all, but in it goes.


>I'd like it if people actually watched the video
>13.7 minutes
Nope, not watching.  Can you summarize the main points?


>We do.
Who does? It only ever gets brought up after violent shootings and then is quickly forgotten about. I'm sick of it too. I'm sick of lots of people getting shot.

And the president should not be talking about how the deaths of American citizens (Puerto Ricans are American Citizens) "threw the budget out of wack" That's just callous.


We aren't expecting him to be a saint. We are asking him to be a decent human being.

How do you expect me to summarize something that takes 14 minutes to say in a few lines of text? If you're not going to watch it, don't be part of the conversation?


That ignores the other part. The part about sending Americans to take the property of other Americans.


>How do you expect me to summarize something that takes 14 minutes to say in a few lines of text?
The same way that I summarize a 10-page paper in a 75-word abstract.  


File: 1507693975085.jpg (27.96 KB, 353x320, 353:320, Sleep happens.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google


Everyone take about gun control all the time with exactly the same points, exactly the same arguments, and exactly the same opinions.  The conversion never stops but also never gets anywhere.

It might be better to talk about of specific thing rather than "gun control", which is a vague broad topic that results in videos where people recite their anti/pro-gun speech for fifteen minutes with some bad comedy and general disdain for the other half of the conversion thrown in.


You don't do the original writing justice. If you don't have less than 15 minutes to watch a video, then you don't have time to partake in this conversation. Toodles.


The conversation never goes anywhere because the other side always shuts it down with "take our guns away" straw men, instead of addressing the real underlying issue. That guns kill and have no other purpose other than to kill. And that guns need to be more regulated and harder to obtain than they are.


I'd just like to point out that this is a meeting of the largest group of gun advocates, stating they would rather die than give up their guns. But again, it's a non-issue since no one is talking about taking their guns away


The purpose of the summary is to determine if the video is worth watching.  (Just like the purpose of an abstract is to enable the reader to determine if the paper is relevant.)  Right now I feel this video is not worth watching.  If the video brings up anything novel (as opposed to being a regurgitation of the same old tired points that anti-gunners have been making for years), I'd consider watching some or all of it.


Then you are not actually interested in discussing the points brought up in the video. Which is what this thread is for.

Tell you what, how about every time you say something, I'll just quote the part of the video that rebuts you.


File: 1507695521874.png (50.42 KB, 599x466, 599:466, Put my cream all over that….png) ImgOps Google


Right, they say those things because that's what they believe and it won't change.  That is having the conversation.  It's the entire conversation.


If the other side won't meet you half way, then maybe it's time we start ignoring that side and doing what's best for society. Like lobbying for gun control.


>instead of addressing the real underlying issue. That guns kill and have no other purpose other than to kill.
Nah, another purpose is that they're fun to shoot.  And you say "no other purpose other than to kill" as if that is an indictment of guns.  It's not. First, sometimes people need to kill other people, wild animals, and vicious dogs in defense of themselves or others.  And most Americans aren't vegetarians, so you're not going to get very far to condemning killing animals for food.


People don't kill people, the unfiltered neuroses of a fundamentally confused and broken species of animal kill people


Guns kill. That's their primary objective. Target practice? You can do that with things that look like guns but don't kill people. Hobby? Your hobby kills people. Collector? Collect things that don't kill people. The argument is always some form of 'guns don't kill people, people kill people' Ignoring that guns were literally invented to kill people." 10 minute mark in the video.

No one is using bump stocks for hunting, so "killing for food" isn't really a good excuse. Hunting rifles aren't usually used in mass shootings.


3 minute mark, sorry. 10 minute mark is about how Republicans are willing to enact gun laws to if it's minority people carrying them.


File: 1507698412314.png (35.21 KB, 452x427, 452:427, Reporting For Duty.png) ImgOps Google


I mean, yeah, that's fair.


>"We make people get a car driving license, …Why aren't guns treated the same way?"

Cuz driving's a privilege.

How's that grab you.



wait so you think guns shouldnt be regulated at all in any way?


File: 1507733697827.jpg (161.19 KB, 1366x768, 683:384, angrytwilight.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

What gives you that idea?  But thank you for asking, I mean jumping to conclusions.

I was pointing out the ridiculous "driving's a privilege" bullshit while "guns are a right".

I was just without a driving privilege for 7 years because of how hard it is to pay the $2000 fine for driving without insurance in 2010 when I was struggling to pay my bills and ended up homeless and destitute because insurance companies charge more for companies with workers without drivers licenses, so most labor jobs require a drivers license even when there is no driving involved in the job, so won't hire you (in California).  It took me five years to get a job and I just got my license again a month ago.

That whole time, sleeping in the forest and unable to earn money or pay my fine, I could have easily picked up an illegal gun on the street for a couple hundred bucks (that I could probably have stolen easily enough) and killed whoever I wanted to, held up stores or committed all manner of crimes with.  I could have used a gun to rob people instead of losing my house (which I owned) and my equipment it took decades to earn and all my vehicles and tools and even my goddamned tutu.

Crime is easy, but getting a job is really hard because "driving is a privilege".

I find it unlikely that criminalizing guns is going to keep criminals from having and using them.  But I don't think we should make it easier to kill than to earn money to pay our fucking bills.


ok, what is this huge tangent you just went off on?

I'm sorry you had a hard time with money for that long, but I really don't think mass shootings have anything to do with the ease of committing crimes.


File: 1507776487475.gif (3.77 KB, 284x112, 71:28, terra-7-7.gif) ImgOps Google

Oh hi Manley!  Have you ever played old-school RPGs like Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest?


Not really an RPG person. I like the original pokemon. And I've started Final Fantasy 1 and 6, but never finished them. Why do you ask?


File: 1507777629825.jpg (84.76 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, mahoujin_guruguru_2017___0….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Well, if you did like RPGs, I had an anime recommendation for you.


Magic Knight Rayearth?


File: 1507778113397.jpg (348.66 KB, 1440x1600, 9:10, 1507672695934.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Mahoujin Guruguru (2017).   It's kinda a parody of early RPGs, particularly turn-based games such as the Dragon Quest games. The narrator speaks in place of the dialog in such games, and this is one of the comedy elements of the show. Often role-playing videogame-style information boxes are displayed on screen with accompanying narration in the traditional RPG style.


I haven't watched anime in many years, so I'm not sure what it'd be like.



I'm struggling to take this guy seriously or find his jokes funny when he just throws in things like "(rapist)" after mentioning Bill Clinton.  He's a whack-job.

I'm not saying he doesn't have any points because it seems like he does but he's just agonizing to try and watch.


Maybe when I'm not exhausted. I still need to watch whatever that weird little girl witch anime was.

It's satire. He doesn't actually think Bill Clinton is a rapist, he's mocking the people who do. And yes, he's playing an exaggerated character. That's part of satire. You shouldn't take this like it's completely serious news story. The fact that it's from Cracked.com should have given that away.

The reason I want people to watch it is because it is using satire and comedy to make very good points. Did you just now bother watching it, when I asked people to in the first post?


File: 1507781981914.jpg (98.35 KB, 1000x667, 1000:667, 1504922876465.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>whatever that weird little girl witch anime was.
Little Witch Academia


Yeah, that's probably right.


File: 1507782155489.png (238.27 KB, 451x340, 451:340, 1504857255122.png) ImgOps Google

You should watch it, it's really good!                                                                   



Are you paying attention to your own thread Manley?

Your speaker's point compared gun control to driving licenses and it was asked how they are different and I point out the difference which led to a conclusion about my views that was incorrect, so I explained myself.

It's not a tangent.  Or maybe it is but it wasn't out of left field or anything.

wait wait
>"i don't think mass shootings have anything to do with the ease of committing crimes"

do you think about what you say or do the words just fall out?  Dang.  Isn't the whole point of gun control to maker it harder to commit crimes, in particular mass shootings?  Or am I high or something because that makes no sense to me.  

And my point was obviously not that it is easy to commit crime but that restoring a lost driving "privilege" can become impossible and take most of one's life with it.  I'm not the only one, important people in my state have discussed it and passed legislation to remedy the problem that excludes many from law-abiding productive lives.  Making a life of crime an easier choice due to the ridiculousness of difficulty in owning a driving privilege vs the ease of owning guns with which to commit crime.

Which if it isn't the whole point of gun control, then somebody please shoot me because this is stupid.


We had this conversation already. I said I was hesitant to watch it because it was a girl's show, and other people insisted it wasn't a girl's show. Completely missing the point that if it was, they wouldn't have watched it either. But Wheat asked me to watch it and I said I would. Just been busy.


Ok, you're right. But please do not insult me with lines like "do you think about what you say."

What I meant was, You went off on a tagent about how it would have been "easy" for you to rob a bank when you were having money troubles, and what I was trying to say is that the easy of robbery is not a factor in mass shootings. Mass shootings do not facilitate anything but murder, so I don't know why you are bringing up how easy robbery is. Unless you're still thinking about it.


> I was trying to say is that the easy of robbery is not a factor in mass shootings. Mass shootings do not facilitate anything but murder, so I don't know why you are bringing up how easy robbery is
When you go to illegally acquire a gun on the black market, the seller generally does not inquire into whether you intend to use the gun in a robbery or in a mass shooting.


Maybe he should?


I would grant a request not to be insulting if you weren't deliberately crafting a false conclusion that I ever considered armed robbery, Manley.  If I had committed some crime, i could have remedied my fine quite easily but as the suspension of the license prevented gainful employment I suffered and lost everything.  I think enduring 5+ years of watching 45 years of hard work disintegrate demonstrates I did not consider crime a solution.  You owe me a fucking apology unless you meant your words to be disparaging, in which case I have more specific profanity for you that I will keep to myself.

Why because he's such a moral person?



I menat to type 35 years of hard work not 45, I got some choice words for my typing ability now too.


I'm not drawing a false conclusion. The fact that you keep saying "if I had committed a crime, I could have fixed it." means you considered it. I'm glad you didn't, but why keep saying that if you didn't consider it an option but decided against it?

And i meant, maybe it should be required people ask that before they sell firearms.


>And i meant, maybe it should be required people ask that before they sell firearms.
Because if a seller is illegally selling a weapon on the black market, I'm sure he'll comply with this new law that you're proposing.


That's the problem, though. He doesn't even have to be "illegally" selling a firearm to sell it to a criminal. Person-to-person gun sales aren't subject to the same laws as a licensed gun vendor. That's the "gun show loop hole" people keep talking about. It needs to be dealt with.


File: 1507783716927.png (298.41 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, 1507424655759.png) ImgOps Google

> He doesn't even have to be "illegally" selling a firearm to sell it to a criminal.
Selling a firearm to known felon is illegal regardless of whether you're a FFL or not.


File: 1507784374142.png (1.25 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, gunvendingmachine.png) ImgOps Google

But you're not required to ask when you sell it, and if you later find out, you have plausible deniability. Because you didn't ask.


By that logic since you keep talking about mass shootings you have obviously considered it.  

I never said rob banks you idiot because that takes a fast car as well as a gun, do you think I'm an idiot or just a criminal?


I'm out.  You're on your own.  You might want to re-read the last few posts between us when deciding why people get tired of trying to be your friend.  It doesn't pay.


But I'm talking about preventing mass shootings. I've never said "doing this would have fixed something."

Also, stop insulting me and calm the fuck down.




File: 1507785743608.jpg (27.58 KB, 530x346, 265:173, 1507763449108.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Geez, Manley, you're completely blind to how obnoxious you've been to lostpony.

>The fact that you keep saying "if I had committed a crime, I could have fixed it." means you considered it.
No, it doesn't.  I said "If I had wings, I could have flown under my own bodily power", that doesn't mean that I was seriously considering growing wings.


What am I apologizing for? You're the one that's been insulting me…

But you're considering what it'd be like to have wings? I'm not sure what the hell is going on here or why he's flpping out.


> I'm not sure what the hell is going on here
You worded things in a disparaging way to suggest that lostpony seriously considered becoming a criminal when he obviously didn't.


Then I'm not sure why he brought it up that way? Or why he brought it up in the first place?

I'm glad he didn't commit any crimes. It shows he's a sensible person with a moral center, but I'm not sure why he brought up how he could have committed a crime if he didn't consider it and decide against it.


File: 1507792721771.jpg (8.42 KB, 300x168, 25:14, th.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>manley makes thread about controversial topic
>people say, this always ends bad, why are we talking about controversial topic
>thread inevitably leads leads nowhere constructive and people get angry at Manley
>Manley doesn't understand how this could happen *again*, why does everyone treat him so badly

and then the whole process repeats.


Why is not wanting people to get shot a "controversial topic"?


maybe cause you keep strawmanning like that

I have to be not here


File: 1507818206903.png (113.75 KB, 450x375, 6:5, youre-going-to-have-a-bad-….png) ImgOps Google

That's why it's best to ignore him.

Straw men and the adding of hominems everywhere. Because if you don't agree with him, you're evil.


File: 1507821305115.png (433.93 KB, 805x1024, 805:1024, large.png) ImgOps Google

>subject related


You're one to talk about ad hominem when you called me a "fuckwit" for not agreeing that poor people should Sie if they can't afford insurance


I don't get it.


Also, I never called you evil. I said that if someone believed that poor people who can't afford insurance should have it taken away because it "wasn't theirs" or that Muslims should be banned from the country because "no one deserves to be here", then that person was evil. That was where you could have said " I don't believe those things" or "I don't think believing then makes you evil". Not called me a "fuckwit".


File: 1507830854028.gif (637.38 KB, 300x331, 300:331, 865661.gif) ImgOps Google

>>606525  So you want to force people to argue against your non sequitur ad hominems rather than argue ideas or principles.  I had actually considered watching the video and giving my 2¢, but now I'm glad that I didn't.


They aren't non sequitur. The things on quotations are things he actually said in the other thread.

And my previous argument with him has no bearing on the video or its points. That's a fallacy.


File: 1507832566739.jpeg (115.72 KB, 800x800, 1:1, 1203657__safe_magic_starl….jpeg) ImgOps Google

>>606568  I'm not referring to your quotes; I'm referring to
>I said that if someone believed …, then that person was evil.
I never said anything about the points made in the video.  I said that your responses to people who disagree with you about the video does in fact have a bearing on my desire to post a response.  How you think this is a fallacy, I can't imagine.


Then I suggest you watch the video and then don't post. Regardless of your feelings about me, the video itself still makes good points about a serious issue.

Also, that argumemt wasnt about this video.



That's generally how it works. Notice how his argument for government run healthcare boils down to If you disagree with him you want poor people to die and so, you're evil.


How else can you justify taking health care away from poor people like Republicans are trying to do? And again, I never said you were evil. Only that someone who wants to take health care away from poor people is evil. Do you?


File: 1507838491360.jpg (20.25 KB, 600x600, 1:1, dae55fc902781e60780b1eea48….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google


It's not that people "want to take away health care".  They want to fix the broken system that is modern health care rather than continuing to prop it up with government funds.


File: 1507838559879.gif (556.25 KB, 992x405, 992:405, 41f.gif) ImgOps Google

The system is fucked.

Burn it all down and start over.


File: 1507838620865.jpg (23.44 KB, 320x320, 1:1, 21909856_120927221905217_8….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google


Gotta start somewhere!


File: 1507838703771.jpg (25.55 KB, 640x360, 16:9, Anime-Hanekawa-Tsubasa-Bak….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

No better place than charred remains of the old.



And all the while prevenenting the Democrats from getting their way in instituting single payer.

I'd prefer free market solutions to everything instead of what Wilkow points out as the standard Democrat argument of "Well if you don't want the government to do it, then no one can/should."


It's… kind of the government's job to pay for things. That's why we pay taxes. Not so Trump can go on million dollar golfing trips.

Health Care in America can be fixed with 8 words. "You see what Canada is doing? Do that."


I'm confused.  Am I a criminal or aren't I?  I cannot sort out your assumptions about me.  I admit, I have considered plenty of crimes of violent revenge.  I'm human, trying to be Pony so I committed none of them.  But I've never even considered crimes of gain because I once stole a trinket from a classmate in the first grade and seeing how crushed she was made me feel really bad, and cowardly too because I wouldn't return it so as not to implicate myself and had to pretend to be innocent and know nothing while she sobbed in front of the class with the teacher glaring at everyone for my crime.  I never wish to feel that way again.  I kept the trinket as a reminder until I lost it along with everything I had in the debacle I described above.  I don't think wanting to avoid acts that make me feel terrible makes me a "sensible person with a moral center" any more than discussing how people all around me choose to use guns to steal makes me a criminal.  One is a platitude, the other is an unfair attack and I want no part of either.

My point in discussing drivers license and gun control together was to address a point raised by the person in the OP video.  Someone responded to this issue saying what's the difference, and I pointed out the constitutional difference between driving privilege and guns.  Because I have direct experience with same (both my license difficulty and having experienced being robbed at gunpoint, to be clear), I stated my example to express the issue as I see it because there is always a huge functional gap between the lawmaker's intended effect of any law and the extreme unintentional corner-cases that will inevitably result.  In particular, how having one's ability to make money legally can be cancelled by the government's desire to disincentive an illegal act, in this case failing to buy car insurance.  It is not the government's intent to destroy a successful member of the proletariat's ability to remain in the workforce, but to collect a fine to compel the desired behavior.  On the other hand, the government's laws to disincentivize undesirable gun behavior has no effect on those who are already acting in defiance of the law.  My conclusion is that lawmakers (including the electorate) need to carefully examine the balance between undesired effects and actual effectiveness of anything that is decided should be made into law before crafting law.  Law should not be based on imaginary and unlikely certainties like criminal ("black market")gun sellers would actually comply with a law that says they have to ask what the buyer plans to do with the gun being sold.  Statements of same are simply a distraction and demonstrate a lack of perspective on reality while discussing what should and should not be made into law.

I don't think comparing driving privilege to gun regulation is outside the scope of the above video that rather disrespectfully compares driving to gun ownership along with weird offensive supposed "jokes" like attacking people as rapists in the middle of a sentence.  Jokes which I have difficulty distinguishing from the actual points of the speaker because 1) it's not funny and 2) some of his points are presented with about as much support, so I really am not sure what he's trying to say.  I'm unclear why anyone trying to open a serious discussion about such a topic would consider such a video relevant or meaningful.

If Manley is unable to see how my anecdotal discussion of the differences between guns and driving from my own personal experience has any bearing on a video that directly proposes a relationship between them, then I still think he should at least be polite when asking me what the hell I am talking about.  If he doesn't wish to know what I am talking about, then I think he should ignore my comment and not draw disparaging conclusions about me just to start drama, and then pretend to be offended when he gets what he wants and I lose my cool.

I definitely did lose my cool last night.  I had a bad attitude and had to run away before my bad behavior spiraled even further out of control than it dd.  I went to go see the new Blade RUnner and I hated it, probably becase I could barely focus on it and had a really dark mood, I think I wasted my money and should have just gone somewhere to sit quietly and stare at the darkness or something.  I woke up with a bad attitude too, and gaffed off an important appointment and went back to sleep for a few more hours to try and regain my serenity.  Thanks to curling up clutching ponies for a couple ore hours, I was mostly able to compose myself and get back into a constructive frame of mind to go to work.

If Manley does not realize that he is responsible for how his words affect people, then this demonstrates either a lack of empathy, or a dishonesty if his intention is to make people feel bad.  Regardless, when it is made clear to him that someone is offended the proper civilized response is to apologize.  It's not necesary to admit one has done wrong:  possibly offense was inferred but not implied.  Either way, the offending person shoud say Gee I didn't mean to make you feel bad and I'm sorry for that.

When someone directly attacks someone instead of examing what they have said, to me that is prima facie evidence of intent to offend.  While I am unqualified to decide if Manley really does intend offense or is just that socially inept, the effect on me was still the same and it really doesn't pay to try and have a discussion with him.  An unwillingness to apologize to someone demonstrates a lack of desire to interact for any constructive purpose and in the totality, I am forced to conclude that Manley is actually more interested in an argument and he likes people to call him names so he can say "stop insulting me" when he has gotten far less than he has instigated.  It's hurtful and unfair.  I believe if he conducted himself this way in personal interactions, he would get the crap beat out of him on a regular basis.  I think my bad attitude is starting to creep bad in so I am going to end this rant right here.

To those who commented on this after I left last night, I want to say thank you very very much.  I appreciate that when I came back to look at the thread today that there were some voices of reason.


I never called you a criminal. If that's what you took me to be implying then I apologize for not being clear. Which is why I asked you to calm down and not flip out, because it ends any rational discussion.

If you wanna talk about this, rationally, stop talking about me like I'm not right here.


File: 1507845946329.jpg (216.69 KB, 1127x709, 1127:709, koffing_and_weezing_by_imo….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>It's… kind of the government's job to pay for things. That's why we pay taxes.

Well not really.  The job of the government is pretty debated, but the opposition here believes that the government should be doing less and that we should be paying fewer taxes as a result.

Or, at least, that's what they say.  Honestly, Republicans lately haven't quite been adhering to that.

>Health Care in America can be fixed with 8 words. "You see what Canada is doing? Do that."

What exactly does Canada do?  I'm not sure on the details.


Canada provides complete free medical care to all citizens.

However, citizens of Canada have told me that the care is less than those who make such statements claim.  There are long waits, red tape, lower standards and really it is stupid to say Canada's system is perfect without discussing it in detail with a Canadian.


File: 1507846331565.jpg (10.94 KB, 242x208, 121:104, download (1).jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>Canada provides complete free medical care to all citizens.

Well those aren't really "details".  Provides free how?  The hospitals are government owned?

Though yes, I've heard of people having to cross the American border for treatment at times because lines were too long or doctor's were refusing treatment for one or another reason.


"perfect" and "better than what we have now" are not the same. Canada's system is better than the one we have now. Because poor people don't die for being poor.

I don't use public schools anymore, yet I have to pay taxes for those. I have no choice in the matter. So I don't see any problem with paying taxes so poor people don't die.

And I don't know the exact details of Canada's system, since I'm not a politician. But I do know that a system where poor people don't die and everyone, regardless of income has access to a doctor when they are sick is a good system.


One important fact is that Canadian hospitals are required due to the government mandate to publish wait times and outcomes,whereas American hospitals really only do that if theirs are exceptional. So outside of the realm of anecdotal evidence (which I consider worse than useless) all evidence will show a strong anti-Canada bias purely because of survivorship bias in the US data.


I've forgotten any details I knew about Canada's system.  But I remember clearly that no Canadians I've ever discussed it with have stated they are entirely happy with it.

You use public school every time you use services supplied by people who studied at one.  Do you like having your jobs go overseas because there are not enough qualified workers here?

>you "don't know the exact details of Canada's system" yet, you state we should copy them verbatim.  Your arguments are tragic.

I'm making no claims about Canada's system.  Only that people who use it have told me it's not a model for how it should be done.  Lots of those people cited some other countries that do a great job and I've forgotten which ones they recommended, but it is pretty certain that it can be done well.   It's also certain that those countries have high taxes because taking on health care and other cradle-to-grave services are expensive even if done both well and efficiently.

The issue of whether the government is responsible for providing social services is not something that can reasonably be seen as dividing people into "good" and "evil".  Yes, many politicians and voters want to have their cake and eat it too.  That makes them human, not evil.

I'm not entirely sure why health care is on-topic in a thread about gun control other than these are deeply divisive political issues; although in completely different ways.


I know that their system is better than ours, so how is it tragic to adopt a better system?

Also, Isn't that already happening? Unemployment is sky high in the US, even with public schools.


It's kind of veered into anon trying to understand why Manley likes to demonize people he disagrees with like you just touched on in your big post, and how healthcare is a big one he likes to double down on with his demagoguery by saying that poor people were dying en-masse everyday until Obamacare came along, and that if you don't like O'care or agree with his stance on healthcare you want poor people to die.

With gun control it's pretty standard, if you don't like gun control you're Pro people getting shot/killed. And thus, evil.


They are far from ideal, true, but by and large those are non-critical and elective procedures and basic coverage is excellent. We pay far more per patient for objectively lower quality care than many countries and our low rate of coverage compared to our GDP is actually becoming a public health concern. Many parts of the US south (like mine) are beginning to experience "neglect" diseases typically associated with the soviet bloc and developing nations.

I really don't give a shit about the politics of healthcare or gun control in general. A lot of masturbating over personal opinions without any meaningful outcome from people with a poor understanding of healthcare (on both sides).


File: 1507847874945.jpg (54.06 KB, 600x600, 1:1, 0d0e7dc411f4eb76d8ba47ba76….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>But I do know that a system where poor people don't die and everyone, regardless of income has access to a doctor when they are sick is a good system.

The Republican goal is that everyone has access to a doctor.  The current Democrat plan for that is to just pay for their insurance.  Republicans oppose that on the grounds that paying for things and favoring the current system is only going to entrench its flaws, such as the astronomically high prices.  The reason it's so hard to buy health services here in the first place.  

If surgery cost something more in line with what it actually costs, then there wouldn't be as much issue with who's paying for it.  But as it stands, US hospitals have deals with insurance companies to artifically inflate their prices, thus forcing you to go to an insurance company and pay for their services.  The insurance company then doesn't actually pay the inflated prices at all, they're just waived.

Meanwhile, with all their extra cash, the insurance companies have lobbied and bribed politicians so much that there's actually a penalty for not buying in to their scam.  It's completely ludicrous.


File: 1507848359514.png (47.57 KB, 250x250, 1:1, equality.png) ImgOps Google

>>606736  I haven't seen a doctor for anything resembling a physical in about…  9 years?  haven't seen a  dentist in 3.  no insurance, despite the mandate.  ain't life grand?


My point exactly.


>But as it stands, US hospitals have deals with insurance companies to artifically inflate their prices, thus forcing you to go to an insurance company and pay for their services.  

Uh, I  think you're overlooking something here, insurance doesn't want to pay for anything. They want to minimize what they have to cover in order to maximize profitability. Half the reason Things like surgery cosy as much as they do is because hospitals set their prices astronomically high expecting to fight with insurance to negotiate prices down.

On a tangent, I find this fantasy that "competition will fix this" to be ludicrous considering that one of the things that was contributing to the soaring cost of healthcare is the inelastic demand for healthcare services, a big part of the reason health insurance ever needed to exist in the first place.


People didn't need to be "dying en-masse" for Obamacare to be saving lives. That's a fallacy.

Are you saying that as a critique of the system, or are you saying you are lucky to be healthy?


File: 1507849770473.png (495.77 KB, 1280x1102, 640:551, 1171399__safe_solo_belly b….png) ImgOps Google

>>606788  both


How can you think Republicans want everyone to have access to a doctor when they are trying to take that away from people? Also, what >>606781 said. Keep in mind, the Republican party is working with the insurance company's interest's in mind, not the American people's.

If you're a lucky person to be completely healthy, then this issue isn't really your problem, is it? You just better hope you don't get sick. The rest of us flawed mortals have to worry about paying for a doctor we can't afford and the Republicans trying to take that away.


>>606798  Just making sure, do you understand the core concept of insurance?


You pay a company a ton of money so that in case you get sick, they might pay for the doctor. Or they may not. Based on their own whims. And that's if you can even get it.



I honestly don't think most republicans have any intent on taking away healthcare from poor people, I do think they genuinely believe that "competition will fix everything!". I also think republicans have a penchant for wishful thinking and an attitude that anyone who would tell them that they're mistaken is a sinister oppresive elitist.  


>>606807  close enough


Republicans are trying to repeal Obamacare. That is taking away insurance from people, who are covered under it. Each replacement plan they have brought out has removed millions of people from insurance one way or another. That's why they keep getting push-back on it.



I mean, I am not arguing against that fact, but I don't think that fact logically implies sinister intentions. You were asking how Mondo could believe what he does and I was pointing out that it is perfectly possible that republicans can genuinely believe that all the experts in organizations like the CBO are just wrong.


Possible, but unlikely. I'm more willing to believe sinister intent, given the Republicans' track record.


File: 1507851160750.jpeg (113.65 KB, 620x559, 620:559, glaceon-and-cirno.jpeg) ImgOps Google

Okay, I legitiamtely literally laughed out loud at that.



I am sure there have been plenty of cronyist in the republican party who have taken advantage of an anti-elitist strain of populism amongst their own constituency. But you have to also recognize that many of those constituency have become part of the party itself.

But even with their track record, their actions can still be explained by their true belief in their own rhetoric. There isn't a lot of logical justification to treat "sinister intentions" as a null hypothesis.


I'm… not sure I follow.


File: 1507851882354.png (424.19 KB, 860x860, 1:1, vvKJOjc-crop.png) ImgOps Google

Well Manley, try to think harder about how it relates to you and your threads.



I am saying that you don't have any logically valid reason to assume, by default, that the past actions of republicans indicate sinister intentions.

I am saying that such actions can be perfectly consistent with someone who genuinely believes the reasoning they give to everyone.

So, mondos assumption that "Republicans don't actually want to take anyone's health insurance away" is just as logically valid/invalid as your specious assertions of ill intent.


File: 1507852063635.jpg (13.08 KB, 236x333, 236:333, fe8d2f0d6e015c388391bfca4a….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Too many big words.

I have little to contribute at this point as to opinion on the things in the latest posts, but I did stumble across an interesting fact today.  Trump is doing his best to undermine the effectiveness of Obamacare in efforts to help it fail:

Lucky lucky!  I really like the little belly-buttons on those Starlights.

I'm out!  have fun guys.  But not too much fun, don't want anyone getting arrested or anything.


File: 1507852263897.png (160.55 KB, 509x673, 509:673, Tempest Punk hair.png) ImgOps Google

I get it!


I'm not sure. The Onion article is satire, pointing out the hypocrisy of saying that something "can't be avoided" by the only place failing to avoid it. But I've never said dumb arguments "can't be avoided" in my threads. They could, if people would actually discuss the issue and not resort to personal insults.

Please don't use insulting phrases like "too many big words" when you yourself have admitted to having regressed mental facilities. Which I will again repeat were your words and not mine. I'm curious, where you serious when you said that, or were you trying to get me to insult you or something? Because it seems like you use that as an excuse when it's convenient, but expect us to forget it when it's not.


> yourself have admitted to having regressed mental facilities. Which I will again repeat were your words and not mine.
postpone has stated that he has regressed emotional so those aren't actually his words


*emotional faculties

Damn you auto correct


That would explain a lot. But the way remember it, he said he had the mental facilities of child. Which is why I asked him to clarify.



He has clarified this to you many times already.


I… don't think he has? I've never seen him do that, and if he has it's been buried in a text wall and I must have missed it. But I'm willing to accept I might have missed it. Still, I'd like some clarification from him on the matter.


File: 1507854085844.png (546.09 KB, 553x1024, 553:1024, JSa3Rwm-censored.png) ImgOps Google

Manley, you regularly say things that are tactless, logically invalid, needlessly insulting, and bigoted.  And then when people get mad at you, you blame everybody except yourself.  


I contest the "bigoted" part.



I think you've well established that you have a self-serving memory since the first time he made any mention of this he described himself as having the emotional faculties of a four year old.


Then, that would explain a lot.


But where does one draw the line between the two?


File: 1507861639821.jpg (19.32 KB, 289x296, 289:296, Awww Flutter.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

…please be polite to each other. there's never a good reason to break out into personal insults in a debate


Are you referring to me?

Ironic that my choice of image's words are "I don't know what went wrong" because I am not sure what went wrong here.

If it is "too many big words" it is my turn to point out that Manley has complained of having difficulty following large words and above he states that he has dismissed much of my participation as "textwalls" that he "dismissed" and yet complains that he cannot understand me.  He also reiterates his mis-quote of my statement that I have the emotional development of a four year old as having "the mental capacity of a child" when he has previously been corrected on this and claimed to understand.

If it is my statement of "too many big words" I didn't mean that to insult anyone; I was actually having difficulty understanding the point being made myself because I am not sure if "cronyist" was a mistype of "cronies" (my assumption is that it is) and in particular I've forgotten what "populist" means exactly and further the concept expressed is a bit advanced for me to grasp anyway.  

Manley has repeated stated that he has trouble with both sophisticated terms and long sentence structure so I really meant the comment constructively.  I composed it hurriedly as I was running out of the office, and did not see how it could be interpreted as impolite.  Upon review, I can see that potential but I did not intend it that way and even if I did I do not see how it would be even close to as rude as Manley's comments to and about me have been in this thread.  

Also I must say I find it in poor taste for Manley to be doing something here that he has specifically stated he finds to be unfair:  speak about me after I've stated I have gone.

Fluttershy ##Mod, I have to say I feel very disappointed if I understand correctly that I am to be chided for "personal insults" in a thread where manley has assassinated my character most aggressively, a point which is observed by several posters as well as myself.  Especially when I have not been "debating" anything, but attempting to discuss the video Manley posted, in attempts to have a friendly conversation.

Last night, I even took a break to refrain from posting at all, abandoning a very nice conversation I was also having in another thread, because of Manley's direct personal attack on my character.  I was losing my cool, and I left the house entirely and went out for hours to be alone where I could not interact with anyone.  

I believe Manley attacked me with intent to harm my feelings, and he adamantly refused to apologize and repeated the statement that I said had offended me.  I think this is especially despicable for him to do to me when I have made it clear that I am autistic and emotionally fragile.  Expressing that my condition makes my emotional state equivalent to that of a four year old is a rather, non-challenging way to express that I am vulnerable to being deliberately attacked and that I am easily provoked.  It also means that once someone has done something to me like Manley did last night, that I am affected for potentially many days and this morning I missed an important appointment where I promised my friend to help him move out of his house, while I instead struggled clutching ponies in my bed for hours to compose myself to go to my afternoon job working in a psychologist's clinic.

If I have understood correctly that something I said in my quickly-composed farewell message today as I left work for the week happily, to cash my paycheck and take a friend to see the pony movie, then returned to find that I was talked about negatively in my absence by Manley, someone who specifically has stated same is not nice, and then that my words were the ones singled out to be chided as impolite, then I:  1) apologize to any I may have unintentionally offended including Manley and 2) am dismayed and wonder if perhaps I should not be spending my time on this forum.

I request clarification from Fluttershy as to whether I understand correctly that my words are the ones singled out as the impolite ones.  If this is so, then perhaps I should take my leave from this site before I am further impolite because if this is the case, then this is not a good place for my mental health.

If I misunderstand, which is likely and I hope is the case, then I apologize.  But I ask that this be clarified for me because I am unfortunately jumping to the first conclusion and a very dark emotional state is coming over me.


>A good place to start is a gun license. Like we have a drivers license. And making gun safety training mandatory to get one.

Both those things are required to legally own a gun, around here. I wasn't aware there was any other options?


I've never said I have difficulty with "big words". Ever. And you DO post text walls. I've never said that I dismiss them, atleast not because of their length, but "text wall" is an accurate description of your posting style. This post in and of itself has 10 paragraphs, when most posters only post 2 or 3 at a time.

>Manley has repeated stated that he has trouble with both sophisticated terms and long sentence structure

I have NEVER said that and I don't know where you are getting that from. Is it from the fact that I don't always read your text walls? Well, that's got nothing to do with the size of words you use. It's the amount. I have no trouble UNDERSTANDING the words you post, I just grow tired of reading an entire novel every time we converse.

I never intended to harm your feelings, and I'm not even sure what posts you think are a "personal attack". In fact, I even apologized in >>606699 for not being clear.
>I never called you a criminal. If that's what you took me to be implying then I apologize for not being clear.

Either way, even if you took..whatever it is you have a problem with as a personal insult, it is not OK for you to throw insults in return. That's still against the rules.

For clarification, I take your constant belittling of my intelligence and constant insistence that I "don't like big words" (which I repeat, I've never said) as a personal insult.


It's not required in all states. In fact, I don't think it's "required" in any on a national level. Just some states CHOOSE to implement that. https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/shall-issue-may-issue-no-issue-and-unrestricted-states


Please don't talk to me, Manley.  I am not talking to you.  You are very mean to me and I am unable to cope with it.


I'm the one you are being accused of insulting, so I have a say in this. That mod is not going to know all the details that I can provide. You are also making statements about things you've claimed I've said which are false and need to corrected.

And I don't think I've been mean to you at all. I've been trying to figure out why you are upset and either apologize or clarify what is upsetting you. But you've only ever acted in an overly emotional way that didn't facilitate discussion. If you could remain calm, we could fix this issue.


I will ask you one more time to leave me the fuck alone.


Then don't make claimes about me that are false. I'm asking YOU one more time to stop saying that I have "repeatedly stated that he has trouble with both sophisticated terms and long sentence structure" It's not true.


Did that article list all the states? Because reading through that, it seems like most of the states make you get some kind of license and safety training. Unless I misread something.

Personally though, I do agree completely that someone applying for a license should get full training on safety and handling.


LP, I get that you didn't mean it to be an insult but it is easy to interpret that way. I personally didn't think much of it but I can see how that sounds like an insult without the right context.

And of course if it were seen as an insult, Manley would fire back. And of course if it were seen as an insult a mod might step in (the mods are usually very hands off, but the way your words were interpreted could justify mod action). And while you don't like Manley talking behind your back after you said you were stepping out, it is reasonable to think he would respond immediately to a perceived insult.

I like having you around here, but it might be in your best interest to stay out of politics threads and not engage Manley. He will not hold back against you, regardless of your mental health needs. If you disagree with him, you should just accept that someone was wrong on the internet and move on to happier threads.

I think there is a place here for you if you decide it is in your best interest to stay. But, you should know that the politics threads are practically No Holds Barred and if you can't emotionally handle that, you should stay away from them. Most posters stay out of these threads for a reason.


File: 1507884344441.png (663.4 KB, 1280x1395, 256:279, tumblr_osjdudW7wO1vuyqw4o1….png) ImgOps Google

And here you are, getting to the point of the matter.

These threads should NOT be No Holds Barred. Manley SHOULD hold back. These threads should NOT have ANY insults within them.

But as we have seen time and time again, that just can't happen.

So these threads should not exist. If people can't stay civil in these threads, they should not be allowed to continue.

Just a thought. Probably going to bring it up with Moony at some point.

But for now maybe just think about it.


I like the concept of politics threads. I feel like there is something to be gained by them, in theory. I remember when /dis/ was first created on ponychan, there were productive and polite conversations on normally hot button topics (for a short while at least).

But I can't argue with anything you've said. I was actually thinking about bringing it up with the staff as well, in light of this thread. Great minds, they say.


File: 1507885572637.jpg (91.17 KB, 500x709, 500:709, tumblr_okpkq0p0sG1rhzzn0o1….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I think politic threads can work, I think they can be useful and they can be good discussions.

But only if they follow certain rules of civility. This website has gone on long enough with political discussions that turn into insult fests between Manley and other people. That almost always has Manley being either the instigator or the victim of instigation.

But this isn't about Manley, not solely, this is about people who can't stay civil and talk about politics.

Sometimes you can't be civil and talk politics. And that's okay. But save it for the protests, it's got no place on a website where supposed friends come to hang out.

So if people can't be civil, they shouldn't be allowed to talk politics. And if nobody can be civil, as it seems to be, then nobody should be allowed to talk politics.


File: 1507885772158.jpg (76.95 KB, 982x813, 982:813, scarf_by_pegawolf-d7c8vvz.….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

/dis/ was a good board actually!

There were good ground rules or something, idk. People were civil, anyways.


"This Just In: "No Way To Prevent This" Says Only Equestrian Satellite Where This Regularly Happens.

In The hours following the violent rampage of insults exchanged between Ponyvillians, injuring the mental faculties of those directly involved as well as dozens of bystanders, Ponyvillians living in the only Equestrian-supporting satellite in the multiverse where this regularly occurs reportedly concluded Friday that there was just no way to prevent people from emotionally breaking down down and hurling insults at each other until everyone on all sides is hunched over at their computer desks, typing furiously into their monitors, tears streaming down their faces, shaking."

Now - I'm not saying we should ban all words, per se, as sometimes words can be useful in the minds of people who know what they're doing with them, but I do think we should require psychological examinations for people using keyboards, in which hundreds and sometimes thousands of words can be fired off in an instant, without so much as a second thought as to how it will affect the mental well-being of others.

If this is a violation of free-speech, which I don't see how it possibly could be as words are so very dangerous, the constitution should be amended.


File: 1507885941406.png (428.98 KB, 521x944, 521:944, tumblr_oso65jQYY81vi5wreo1….png) ImgOps Google

[this post is left blank in respect for those fighting against the use of speech]


I could be so fucking civil. Like, what if we made a separate board, our own /dis/ and enforced some stricter code of conduct. It'd probably get very little traffic, but at least there would be a place for it.

I liked /dis/, a lot even. It got rowdier over time I think, but I never considered it overly bad. I pretty much stopped posting on ponychan when they dissolved it.


File: 1507886392118.jpg (60.84 KB, 500x500, 1:1, tumblr_o0pty4tPjr1tywo6so1….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

You've got the right idea, my guy.


I've asked you three times now not to talk to me, Manley, and I have not repeated the things you object to.  Your objection has been aired twice without response from me and now you can stop.

I appreciate your input and that you do not despise my presence as Manley seems to.  I really, really do.

I don't care about people talking "behind my back", that was Manley's standard of fair play and he's not following his own rules of etiquette which is why I commented on it.

I have not even disagreed with him, except his twisted analysis that I'm a criminal.  That it bothers me so much makes me question whether he's got a point because I shouldn't care about such meaningless drivel.  Like you said, someone's wrong on the internet, ooooooo.  Why do I take offense at that?  Perhaps I am in denial.  There has to be a reason it bothered me into the next morning.

He claims I belittle his intelligence when I constantly rely on it, trying to communicate with him about things.  I'm frustrated that he pretends to be stupid so he can constantly reach such flawed conclusions just to offend and provoke people.

I certainly don't care that he belittles my intelligence, with his "mind of a child" imagining that's actually rather amusing.  The person who writes me a check every week, who has a Ph.D. told me today that I am very intelligent when he assigned me to represent him in government meetings next week and write the proposal to obtain a services grant worth .6 million per year.  Which is a responsibility more important than hanging around in what I thought was a safe pony place.

It bothers me that I have taken no position against Manley, yet he insists on "not holding back against me".  Why is he against me?  Why does he assume I am attempting to insult him?  I tried to make friends with Manley and all I get is bruises.  Manley doesn't want to be friends with me, and I guess I'm OK with that.  I'm not Twilight Sparkle.  If Manley wants to be right more than he wants friends, I cannot change that.

If this thread is a no-holds-barred, level playing field, that would be fine.  But why does Manley get to rip me a new one for two days straight and no one intervenes, but I don't get to make one ambiguous comment without getting cautioned?  Was it just timing?  Or is it an unlevel playing field where Manley gets to have his way and I am supposed to hold my ass cheeks open for him?

The mind of a child wants to know.


File: 1507887450408.jpg (130.88 KB, 700x700, 1:1, 163e30dfe3245b542de3dbb234….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

i stand corrected.  I meant Princess Twilight Sparkle.  because she's a Princess.

I feel a bit better now.  thanks guys.


correction:  two days straight and no mod intervenes.  several members did say things in support of me and I thank those who did.  I meant no mod stepped in to break it up.



i like to think of Manley as that naive little brother with overbearing fundamentalist parents, giving him a small world-view, resulting in him not understanding a lot of things and sometimes intentionally annoying people as a defensive mechanism when he's backed into a corner and his sense of self is under threat.

i mean, really - his name is "Manley" - another way of writing "Manly" and "…Dragon Puncher" - obviously, only a very, very strong person could punch through a dragon's very thick scales. I mean - sometimes scales are so thick that not even swords can cut through them! it's a name something my little brother might come up with to inflate his ego and gain the favor of his elders. no offense intended. little brothers are special too.


File: 1507888100108.jpg (139.31 KB, 1080x1080, 1:1, 18580990_1903393919945647_….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google


I liked /dis/ a lot, too, but I don't think the website gets enough traffic, or especially politically oriented discussion traffic, to warrant a quarantine board for it.  Rules for civility apply to this board regardless of what people are talking about, and I don't think these threads usually get as bad as some people claim.


File: 1507888603149.jpg (97.9 KB, 460x750, 46:75, tumblr_o56609uETW1uvnmrto1….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

If you're going to keep these threads around and expect them to civil, then there needs to always be a mod around to watch the thread.

Because I don't think YOU realize how often these threads go downhill. Every single one of these politics I have seen (that has gained traction, some political threads die out after a few posts), have had several moments like these.

Not all threads end like this, no, but they always have several moments like these, several posts of thrown insults between people (I won't lie, it's mainly Manley and others).

If you want to keep them around they need to follow rules of civility. And that won't happen if someone isn't always watching. And I don't think you mods want to spend all your time on political threads. But if you don't do it, you really should get rid of them.


File: 1507889243530.jpg (35.87 KB, 500x742, 250:371, 2463bcc9e8a88d5f7396801bd1….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google


I don't see why such topics have to be debates.  People with opposing or slightly differing viewpoints should be able to discuss things without trying to convince or browbeat each other.

Mondo, you're so much cuter as a plush!


File: 1507889412256.jpg (217.97 KB, 800x600, 4:3, 3af93dffd835f25f2dbd9b3a18….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>I don't see why such topics have to be debates.

I don't, either.  I just like to talk about stuff with people.  When you approach things as a debate you're inherently trying to win rather than learn.  And it's really hard to win a debate.  They're all pretty much going to end in a draw.

>Mondo, you're so much cuter as a plush!

I really want a cute weezing plushie.  Maybe I could hang it somewhere.


File: 1507889671569.png (226.77 KB, 500x375, 4:3, tumblr_ope3g8uwum1wolgfxo1….png) ImgOps Google

I completely agree, but sadly they always devolve into that. Which is why I'm saying that if they're going to do it they should do it civilly. And if they can't, they shouldn't be allowed to do it.

Again, if a mod is willing to monitor political threads to make sure they don't become debates or arguments, and are also willing to make sure they don't dissolve into insults if they DO become debates and arguments, then there is no reason to get rid of political threads.

But if they're not then they simply should be removed in order to keep this site friendly and civil. Like Manley does with issues relating to gender and sexuality, sometimes it is best to just stay away from those topics around friends. In this case it's simply removing political threads from the equation.

Once more, I in no way want political threads to be banned if there is ANY other BETTER alternative, but if nobody can find one, and enough people get tired of being in a hostile environment, then I believe political threads should be removed.

Also her name isn't on the guest list because it's not Derpy, it's Ditzy. That should clear things up.


Did you ever report him? I didn't see any reports in this thread. Mods aren't always reading through every thread for infractions, they rely on a little community policing. And that isn't to say all reports lead to action either, but if you aren't submitting reports then the mods won't usually act.

And no, as far as I could tell, nobody reported you either. I don't know why Moony stepped in at that moment and specifically linked you. But generally, these threads reach a point where a mod thinks they need to intervene and they will step in and remind everyone to be nice. It just so happened that of the most recent posts, yours didn't come off as so nice so Moony likely linked you for that reason. Getting linked there doesn't reflect how behaved you or Manley had been over two days.


File: 1507890640790.png (129.28 KB, 689x589, 689:589, 587201.png) ImgOps Google

>If people can't stay civil in these threads, they should not be allowed to continue.
Does "they" refer to "people" or "threads"?  I'd argue that the threads should be allowed, but the people who can't stay civilized should be removed from such threads.  In fact, I'd go further and say that people should also be removed from political threads if they consistently make obvious logical fallacies, engage in straw-man attacks, and slander the character of their political opponents, e.g., pic related and the following posts:
>Why is not wanting people to get shot a "controversial topic"?
>Saying someone is both evil and Republican is redundant.
>evil things like take health care away from poor people
I get it. You guys are pedos. Do you need to talk about it all the time?


That's part of why I would advocate for a separate board. Finer granularity for bans. Plus a more refined code of conduct including less leniency for non obvious infractions like blatant strawmaning, etc.


File: 1507891004478.png (253.46 KB, 500x555, 100:111, tumblr_osu5nrJ3ZW1r3wcbxo1….png) ImgOps Google

Both, actually, people first, threads second.

I've said it already, but I would much rather political threads NOT be banned if we can help it.

I'm not simply going after Manley, though, like you have seemingly opted to do. Rather, anyone who has shown the inability to stay civil in the past should be talked to about staying civil in the future. Everyone should be given another chance to prove they can stay that way, even when others have chosen not to. But if they still can't, then they should be removed. Anyone. Not just Manley. Not just the frequent offenders. Anyone.

I agree with you that there should be a separate board for it. But the people in charge here seem to be almost AFRAID of making more boards. Like somehow adding more is going to be a problem. We've already got a problem, and that's these threads being in the general chat where anyone could see them and get tempted to intervene.

It's not going to hurt the site to make another board just for politics, in fact I think it'd improve it. Just look at Ponychan, it's gotten quite more tolerable with a containment board for their petty politics. Why can't we have one too?


A problem with a separate board is that it would have little traffic, so people will rarely visit it, so it will get even less traffic (because people aren't regularly checking it), leading to a spiral of death.


File: 1507891156776.png (428.98 KB, 521x944, 521:944, tumblr_oso65jQYY81vi5wreo1….png) ImgOps Google

The upside to that is no more political threads in the main chat.




So uh… considering politics is inherently unkind in that they're based on force, and therefore violates rule 0, political threads should not even be allowed…


File: 1507891505872.png (173.37 KB, 500x411, 500:411, tumblr_ouzqhoQYnO1uhflzzo1….png) ImgOps Google


File: 1507891545665.png (8.22 KB, 225x225, 1:1, images.png) ImgOps Google

>We've already got a problem

Again, disagreed.  You are able to collapse threads you don't want to see, so you could minimize this whole thing and be done with it.

>considering politics is inherently unkind in that they're based on force

Taxes are theft, am I right?  Would you consider yourself libertarian or fully anarchist?



neither. i am of the post-scarcity mentality.


File: 1507891640658.jpg (986.74 KB, 1690x2329, 1690:2329, 1507431992569.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Another way to accomplish that would be to require that political thread be tagged "#political" and have an option to hide all of them.  Another option is to implement an "/all/" board so that people don't need to check separate boards.


File: 1507891962577.jpg (59.11 KB, 500x711, 500:711, 0e5c635b177c711fc9511e17e8….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

the all board is here, we're on it now

we dont have tags and this website is ALSO afraid of being allowed to hide things.

That's not the point here. That was never the point. This isn't about drawing in people that will have a problem with it.

The whole point here, if you would actually read the posts I've put a lot of effort into instead of acting smug, is that the people who frequent these threads ALWAYS end up arguing and throwing insults at each other. There has never once been a political thread that hasn't had some percentage of posts where people are rude.

If you REALLY think there isn't a problem here, then you obviously haven't been paying attention. And if you haven't been paying attention, then maybe you shouldn't be a moderator.



File: 1507892081340.png (93.1 KB, 1800x1578, 300:263, 1504461302082.png) ImgOps Google

>You are able to collapse threads you don't want to see, so you could minimize this whole thing and be done with it.


File: 1507892083786.png (1.12 MB, 680x680, 1:1, derpy.png) ImgOps Google

it didn't occur to me to report anyone.

linking me in particular inflamed Manley further as the "harmed party" or at least so it seemed to me.

I don't understand why manley gets away with direct attacks like calling people evil and worse than Nazis etc without getting warned.  He also likes to mis-state things people say on a regular basis and it's tiresome to be challenged to prove it when we all saw it.

Further, in this thread I tried to avoid talking to him but he came attacking.  In the OP, he specifically asked for conversation about a really rotten video and because it was at the top, I went ahead and watched it and had something of personal experience to say about it, and he flamed me for that:

then he accuses me of not watching the video he asked commenters to watch,

and then i suppose I set myself up for attack here when I challenged his logic which was flawed:  (I only used such phrasing as it is in his style) and I responded to his flawed statement about the relationship between my anecdote and his precious video:

he didn't like that and then he twisted my reference to people solving their financial challenges with gun crime to accusing me of saying that robbing banks is easy, and still thinking about doing it, all while accusing me of being the insulting one.

Looking back, I think I was not off base in getting pissed off at him and perhaps I should have reported it then.

But, it's hard to see a post with the name Manley without seeing an example of him antagonizing others and calling them names.  I understand he's…special, in that he can dish it out but can't take it, and that is somehow tolerated but why does he not get a warning even without being reported?  It's almost every post.

And those who step in to point it out to him just get some pain too.  It's out of control.

I fail to see how saying maybe it's too many big words, even if I had intended it to be an insult, rises to the level of calling people pedos, worse than nazis, or thinking of bank robbery (and that same is easy).  I don't see how ANY name calling goes without a warning.  Name-calling has absolutely no place in friendly conversation yet he gets away with it every single time.  And he often uses things people say to find their vulnerabilities, twisting their words back on them as weapons and I've seen him complain about others even mentioning something he is sensitive to like it's the end of the world and they should be executed.  The example I saw was in canterlot forum and i don't really want to say it in particular.

It's really unfair.  

Before any serious discussion of new rules etc I think perhaps enforcing the rules we have equally might be more productive.


File: 1507892130105.jpg (58.21 KB, 640x360, 16:9, 1501920036079.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>the all board is here, we're on it now


File: 1507892493870.jpg (11.22 KB, 212x200, 53:50, chibi_weezing_by_redpawfig….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>There has never once been a political thread that hasn't had some percentage of posts where people are rude.

There has been more than one civil discussion thread, and even ones like this were relatively tame.  This thread is not something I feel needs to be stopped, it was not a mistake to be avoided in the future.


They mean that /pony/ is the only board that gets used, really, and that everything posted goes here.  The introduction of an actual /all/ board would require that we make other boards like a /dis/.  The tagging idea from earlier would probably be better, though, I think.


File: 1507892737541.png (93.97 KB, 500x470, 50:47, tumblr_orx3je3sZT1vb01ruo1….png) ImgOps Google

Then you haven't been paying attention.

My last point stands.


File: 1507892868445.png (699.54 KB, 800x800, 1:1, 110___weezing_by_tsaoshin-….png) ImgOps Google


I read the entire thread, I don't know what you think I'm not paying attention to.


File: 1507892938992.jpg (97.9 KB, 460x750, 46:75, tumblr_o56609uETW1uvnmrto1….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Look, again, the problem isn't that people have a problem with political threads.

We've gotten away from the main issue here. It's not that people are tired of seeing threads.

The issue here is that the people who DO frequent these threads and who DO like to post in them, cannot keep things civil. They almost always devolve into insults and other untoward things.

Again, the problem isn't the people on the outside looking in, but the people inside the threads who constantly make problems. Regardless of whether a poster wants to be in a political thread, regardless of if they hide the threads and don't look in them, it only serves to make a toxic environment on the site for everyone. I don't know about you, but I don't think having threads full of people insulting each other is very welcoming to any potential newcomers.


File: 1507892994994.png (253.46 KB, 500x555, 100:111, tumblr_osu5nrJ3ZW1r3wcbxo1….png) ImgOps Google

This isn't the only thread.

And again, if you SERIOUSLY see nothing wrong with what has happened in this thread, then your position as moderator should be reconsidered.


File: 1507893157635.jpg (112.09 KB, 800x801, 800:801, tumblr_on0pd7gNhA1qmh1uqo1….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Anyways, I said my piece a long time ago, it's just circular now.



Manley gets away with a ton. A lot of that is so borderline though. And he gets away with most of it because you can't prove he didn't legitimately innocently misunderstand something. I agree that there needs to be more mod intervention, but like I said, he is never reported. Like seriously, never. The mods can't ignore it if he gets continuously reported.



Yee - and don't forget politics are inherently divisive, since no matter what your position is, it involves the implicit use of force on another to get your way. "Civil" discussion is not a discussion like friends like the mane 6 would have where everypony is loved - it simply means "we're not going to hurt each other until we see who can get the most people on their side, and whoever get the most must be right and therefore can do what they want."

Of course, just because most people can be convinced to believe a certain way on an issue, that doesn't mean it's best for everyone…

But it always involves forcing others to conform to whoever the victor happens to be, which is inherently unkind.


File: 1507894322956.jpg (27.24 KB, 400x356, 100:89, mayoi-ec301f103bc38ec697b3….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>Of course, just because most people can be convinced to believe a certain way on an issue, that doesn't mean it's best for everyone…
>But it always involves forcing others to conform to whoever the victor happens to be, which is inherently unkind.
What you're describing is called the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP).


File: 1507894370386.jpg (9.35 KB, 300x168, 25:14, download (7).jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

but he insists he understands everything.  Cake and eat it too.  It's nauseating.  I have had many times when the only other person to interact with was him.  New people might judge the entire community by their interaction with him and never come back.  I have people here that I really like and in the last two days I am pretty sure it is only my OCD that keeps me hanging on.

Perhaps it's time for this wheel to begin squeaking.

Politics do not have to be divisive.  Yes, people disagree but there is a large pool of people in the middle who are interested in examining information before making up their mind.  And an issue as complex as gun control has a lot of granularity.  It should be possible for people to share ideas and anecdotes and gather knowledge on which to base their opinions without having to fight it out like starving dogs.

The Mane 6 don't always get along by the way.  But that gives me an idea.  Perhaps we can judge who belongs on a pony forum by requiring a declaration of allegiance to pony.  I know someone ion particular who has been giving me a hard time who no longer cares for pony…I'm just saying.


>Perhaps it's time for this wheel to begin squeaking
Do it! Hell, encourage other users to report. It is your direct line to the mods about what you think is and isn't site appropriate. Most reports don't see a mod response but the more feedback mods get, the better they can tune their response to the community's desire. I don't think this thread generated a single report, so ya got to understand what message that sends to mods.


there is at least one report, i sent it yesterday.


File: 1507895409139.jpg (91.17 KB, 500x709, 500:709, tumblr_okpkq0p0sG1rhzzn0o1….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I can confirm for a fact that at least two people left this website in the past because of Manley.

Their names were Derpymouz and Cartographer.

But your idea for a declaration of allegiance to pony is as stupid as it is idiotic. I don't watch the show and I know a lot of other people either don't either or don't watch it frequently. And I can say without a doubt that there will be multiple people who have a problem with declaring an allegiance to something as idiotic as a child's TV program.

watch out, dont violate the nap


Looks like you are right. Dumb report bot is on the fritz again. A bot is supposed to post reports into the mod's discord but it is always failing for some reason or other. Wow, one of those posts was really bad. That really should have gotten a response, well, imo. I don't do any actual mod work.


>But your idea for a declaration of allegiance to pony is as stupid as it is idiotic. I don't watch the show and I know a lot of other people either don't either or don't watch it frequently. And I can say without a doubt that there will be multiple people who have a problem with declaring an allegiance to something as idiotic as a child's TV program.

This isn't really my idea of how civility looks. A simple "I don't think anyone is gonna be interested in swearing allegiance to a child's tv show, nor would I think it a good idea if they did" would suffice.


File: 1507896366895.png (117.42 KB, 500x670, 50:67, tumblr_inline_nj9bpcFGZz1s….png) ImgOps Google

I never said I was trying to be civil.

Last I checked we're not debating politics right now.


File: 1507896555695.jpg (53.58 KB, 286x300, 143:150, derpyharmony.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I'm aware of two others but not of my direct knowledge.

Did you think my allegiance to pony idea was serious?  I'm not sure how to feel.

I didn't see anywhere in there that it it wouldn't be a good idea…

in all fairness the idea was supposed to be idiotic.  it's just my stupid humor when I should have been sleeping hours ago instead I'm fretting and realizing I forgot to buy milk that I'm gonna need in the morning.

Imagine…civility exclusively in politics.  I detect humor.


What was the really bad post?  or is that secret admin information.  I saw the trainwreck as it happened, but might as well check out the highlights reel.


File: 1507896685608.png (540.21 KB, 660x579, 220:193, tumblr_nkjq5iSAEt1r4cgduo1….png) ImgOps Google

Oh really, you know some others? Nice.

No, not really. I mean look at my last post.

"Last I checked we're not debating politics right now."

>Imagine…civility exclusively in politics.  I detect humor.
Ah, see, you got it.


File: 1507896898160.jpg (24.95 KB, 500x500, 1:1, 4c9c50e2f5ac062c1b11f44cec….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google


Yeah, but Moony replied to that stuff, and it's not the norm.  Lostpony was a bit out of line, is all.


File: 1507896918074.png (272.76 KB, 1092x1335, 364:445, 1507657944245.png) ImgOps Google

i still don't see how the guy in the OP's video is funny though.  It was pretty bad.  Manley insists it's satire but i didn't get any of it.


the one I was warned on, or somewhere else?

I bet it was the waste of skin part.  That quip was wasted on him.


File: 1507897197835.png (226.77 KB, 500x375, 4:3, tumblr_ope3g8uwum1wolgfxo1….png) ImgOps Google

Yeah, that Cracked series is a bit hit or miss, honestly.

I watched a couple episodes of it when it first started but stopped watching almost immediately. Just not that funny.

LP wasn't really the person who was all that out of line. All he did was lose his cool when Manley was constantly rude to him.

It was definitely that part.

See, these people actually don't have any real problem with people being rude assholes to each other, they only really care when people start outright insulting people. So if you can keep it subtle they won't actually have that much of a problem.

Course if you ask them, they'll deny it, but their actions speak much louder than their words.


You read the entire thread.  Do you agree that Manley was also out of line?

Whether my name is added to the list of people who are no longer around depends on the general position of management on this question.


File: 1507897357723.jpg (59.11 KB, 500x711, 500:711, 0e5c635b177c711fc9511e17e8….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Oh yeah, and if you actually DO have a problem with someone's behavior, they'll just tell you to ignore it.

Because they don't really care, they just want to seem like they do so they can have the "moral" high ground if you try to take  things into your own hands.

Just some stuff about the moderation team here you might want to keep in mind going forward. Out of all of them, the only one who'll even consider your side of things is Moony, but he'll still bow out when he starts to get outnumbered.


File: 1507897485638.jpg (86.79 KB, 1024x576, 16:9, pokemon___weezing_figure_b….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google


Yeah, the waste of skin bit.


He was, though I can't remember anymore if he was addressed.  Would be odd if he wasn't, but I was asleep for most of it.  He should've been, at the least for the post of his that got reported.

In any case, don't take the intervention too hard.  It was just a polite reminder.


File: 1507897744944.jpg (6.21 KB, 258x195, 86:65, images (1).jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>See, these people actually don't have any real problem with people being rude assholes to each other, they only really care when people start outright insulting people. So if you can keep it subtle they won't actually have that much of a problem.

And no, that's mostly right.  I think you've got it down.  There are some users, like you, who tend to take advantage of that distinction, but you're a bit of an outlier.  Most other users aren't a rude asshole all of the time, and it seems overbearing to step in every time someone gets slightly upset.  The line is drawn at personal attacks and insults, not at interpersonal relationships.


File: 1507898335047.png (151.88 KB, 647x315, 647:315, tumblr_otf1qx8QQ41vt10jao1….png) ImgOps Google

Ah, but interpersonal relationships are the lifeblood of sites like this, Without them, nobody would want to come here because nobody has any attachment to people. Discussion of episodes in a TV show is hardly enough to keep a community oriented website active for long.

Honestly, all I'm getting from you is that 1) You don't understand how people work and 2) you're too lazy to actually try and prevent bad things from happening, you'd rather just sit back and wait for them to happen so you can come in and solve it.

Both things don't really make for a good or effective moderator. A moderator's task isn't just to solve the problems when they do come up, but to also try to prevent them from happening in the first place. If you can do one but not the other, then you're not a good fit for moderation.

Yes, yes, I know, I'm harping on you a lot as a moderator, but I just want it to be abundantly clear that I don't think you should be one.


File: 1507898822411.png (9.75 KB, 300x167, 300:167, heartbroken_twilie_by_snet….png) ImgOps Google

He was absolutely not warned publicly that I could see.

I've actually never seen him receive a warning, not that I've seen very many threads.  And I've seen a lot that makes 'waste of skin" look complimentary, a few of the more moderate gems cited above in this thread.

It took me many hours to get my serenity back after the first half of what happened, costing me valuable rest and then failing to meet an obligation while I struggled to regain my composure for my job.

The next day I was doing pretty well after a successful day at work, with its reward of money that I spent on a pretty good time with a friend and then I check in to see that I was cautioned, however politely, for something that is not very insulting even if I had intended it to be.  I believe the support for its truth can be found in posts accusing me of learning the words I use on TV shows or something to that effect a couple days ago.

Being the one in trouble, however slight or politely administered when the instigator goes free is a positive reinforcement of his bad behavior and this is an unfairness that I have been ruminating on for hours.  If this is how things are done here, then I will not be able to stay.  Not as a matter of principle, but because this is my "group therapy".  I have quickly come to love some people here but if the culture is to allow one person to instigate any and everyone without so much as a "polite reminder" while those who have been genuinely hurt do get warned, then this is not the kind of place I am able to fulfill my needs for safe socialization.  It becomes the opposite.

I don't think most sites are blessed with good moderators, not that I have direct experience with more than two of them.  That you are not banned for speaking out so bluntly demonstrates that Mondo is a least 1000% better a moderator than the ruling staff at mlparena.


File: 1507900118157.png (656.6 KB, 1024x1024, 1:1, weezing_used_smog__by_hozu….png) ImgOps Google

>I've actually never seen him receive a warning, not that I've seen very many threads.

Well he's been banned in the past for crossing too many lines and will be again if he returns to causing that level of conflict.  He was a bit abrasive in the beginning, but I think the whole event was largely a misunderstanding between the two of you.

>The next day I was doing pretty well after a successful day at work

Wasn't this all just last night?  Or are you talking about some other event now?


I only have time to point out the irony of lostpony complaining about me "talking behind his back" after he had left, and then proceeding to do so to me. Ill unravel this when I'm done at work.


File: 1507915830154.gif (995.42 KB, 504x504, 1:1, thinking.gif) ImgOps Google

>>607375  Being a "questionably" bad faith debater whose intentions cannot be proven doesn't mean you haven't succeeded in overwhelming the opposition in complete and utter bullshit.  As an example, the Gish Gallop 'works' whether you're just bad at debating or whether you intend to overwhelm the opposition with pointlessness - the end result is the same.


Sure, but how do you moderate bad faith debating and incompetent debating? It is infuriating but not really against the rules. "You're banned for having too many logical fallacies". I mean, I wouldn't mind that…


File: 1507918456199.png (784.46 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, -_S6E1.png) ImgOps Google

>>607659  The only winning move is not to play.


Yeah but I've only really won on the internet once I've convinced somehow of how utterly wrong they are in their opinions. That isn't possible when I don't play.


>>607661  the eternal struggle


I'm not asking for anyone to be banned; that is the last thing I want.  Just that both parties be mentioned and not one singled out when both are offending.

I'm sorry to be unclear, my days tend to start and end at different times as I have two different jobs on different shifts.  I was referring to "day" from my perspective as I was describing my own experience not the calendar day.  The events complained of are all contained within this thread.

To be fair, if by not playing you mean not debating, that seems to be insufficient to spare one from the Wrath of Manley.  I was discussing his video in good faith, as his OP asked, in interest of participating and contributing to the whole.  Not debating anyone or taking any position whatsoever, and I was attacked ruthlessly and yes, I lost my cool.  I have not really regained my cool as a result.

If one bothers to read all of my words in this thread, one will see that I refer to Manley's whining about speaking when someone is not here in context of his own stated rule of conduct.  That is not my rule, and I expect to be judged by what I've written whether I'm here or not.  Further, my words in this thread are indefensible so it matters not whether I am here to discuss them.  They are an abomination and I do not deny that.  I don't see how Manley plans to "unravel" something that is a frayed pile of garbage from all angles.

If I might suggest to Mr. Manley, should he not despise me and wish for my noninteraction forever, that he simply declare that mistakes were made and apologize without reservation, limitations, or admissions.

I for one certainly apologize to all for this embarrassing recurrence of early grade school.  I'm not proud of myself nor do I consider myself to be right or my conduct to be particularly excusable, and I certainly don't wish to see anyone attempt to defend of justify their participation and I don't think anyone else does either.

Wait wait:  You say that someone has been banned and returned.  Is this true of a permaban?  Or is that genuinely permanent?  I am thinking of someone else who is very repentant and I want to know if that person has any hope of return.


Permabans have been overturned before. But I can tell you that Steam Twist and Pipes are perma-perma banned at this point. Anyone else might have a chance.


File: 1507934999904.png (51.66 KB, 518x388, 259:194, wrima-518222.png) ImgOps Google

>Steam Twist
Ah yes, that guy (AKA "Wrima").  He almost makes Manley look tame.  You can see him in action on /luna/: http://www.getchan.net/luna/res/103114.html                                                                   


Can someone please point to the post where I "viscously attacked" lost pony, because I seriously have no idea what the fuck he's even talking about. I also hope you guys had fun talking about me behind my back when I had no way of clarifying or defending myself.


Clarify or defend yourself right now. Get over this whole 'talking behind my back' thing. It doesn't really qualify as talking behind someone's back when it is said out in the open for that someone to hear.


The LostPony has no grounds to claim that I was "talking behind his back" either. But you didn't say what you just said to him.

Either way, nothing annoys me more that people talking about me like I'm not here, like I'm a pest that needs to be dealt with. If you have something to say to me, say it while I'm posting, which is as close to "to my face" as one can get on the internet.

Well, there's a lot to unravel here. I'm not even sure where to start.


I spot-read through that thread a little bit and it is very sad.

That person is putting forth an indefensible theory and trying to prove it to people who are just picking him apart.  His exasperation seems similar to mine in this thread with multiple Manleys attacking him there and further makes me question if I should even be participating in forums.

I'm not saying anyone is right or wrong but that place makes this seem a much happier place and whether I am up to the challenge of successful interaction here or not, it does put my perception of Manley into perspective.

I guess I can kind of see why Manley's a bit of a mascot here.

Don't bother, Manley.  I think the problem is that I actually cared what you said to me and I am not sure you could be any other way.  Perhaps I am too thin-skinned and emotionally immature to even be here.

I have enough problems in real life to go looking for hurt in places that don't seem able to supply the support-group sort of interaction I am needing.  It's not your fault that I had the wrong idea and that my skull is even thicker than my skin is thin.


I don't hate you and I'm not trying to insult you. If you would just calm down and talk to me, we could work this out. I have no problem co-existing with you.


Come on, man. Look. I don't want you to go. I'll agree to stop talking to you if you want, but I really just want to know WHY you're upset.


File: 1507945044867.png (164.98 KB, 400x347, 400:347, Derpy_muffins.png) ImgOps Google

I'll take that peace offer.

I'm upset because I exposed myself and you presented a conclusion that was inconsistent with what I said, that hurt my feelings because apparently I am sensitive about something I didn't realize was an issue for me.  I demanded an apology in a way that just added fuel to the fire and it's my fault.

It wouldn't have happened if I had just backed away when I felt a reaction.  I think you like to foment arguments, and I don't like them.  I assumed that by not taking any position against you I would be spared from that, and I wasn't prepared for what you always do because I'm not smart and I took offense for no good reason.  You just did what you do and I should know better than to take it so seriously.

You don't have to stop talking to me.  I just need to know when to take a time-out.

I'm glad you don't seem to have intended to provoke me or deliberately make me feel bad.  I apologize for making a big deal out of it and I'll try to be more careful when interacting here.


Yes. I didn't know what you were demanding an applogy for, so I was confused. And my confusion just made you angrier. It was a simple misunderstand on both our parts that spiraled out of control. That's why I'm trying to keep a level-head and talk this through with you.

I said it already once before, but I'll say again, I'm sorry for not being clear what I meant, and making any implications that might have insulted you. I'm not trying to insult you or make you feel bad. I almost never am, and I get upset when people assume that's my intent.

You got reported because I took your statements that "big words confuse me" as an insult. I've never said that or implied that. If you weren't trying to insult me with those comments, then I would accept an apology from you too.

Yes, I think it would be best if you took a time out if you feel yourself getting worked up. But I want you to come back and tell me why you were upset and what I did to upset you when you're calmer. I think it would help us interact better. I'm not a bad guy. Or a monster. I'm not out to make people feel like crap. OK? We don't have to fight. I'm willing to meet you half way here if you ware.


File: 1507948617881.png (152.5 KB, 849x941, 849:941, Derpy_is_a_happy_pony_by_n….png) ImgOps Google

Your immediate apology after I was cautioned was buried in this textwall:

" I:  1) apologize to any I may have unintentionally offended including Manley"

I'm not entirely sure in retrospect if it was entirely unintentional anyway, I think I meant it to torpedo both of us.  I am sure I didn't mean for it to be very insulting, just mildly deprecating and not a big deal.  I was happy and getting chased hurriedly out of the office with my meager week's pay at the time so I really didn't think about it very much.

I also made another qualified apology just above in >>607813
"I apologize for making a big deal out of it"

which I believe by your standards both of these are apologies but I'd like to add an unqualified apology for the whole thing:

 I wholeheartedly apologize.

I think if you had simply apologized without understanding when I was going crazy-stupid it would have defused me but, I don't know why I thought you would.  Or if I thought you might.  That's not your deal.  You do say things that offend people, and on the receiving end it can be hard to believe that it's unintentional, at the time.  In retrospect I can feel a lot better taking responsibility for the whole thing and looking back I believe that you didn't mean it to be hurtful.  It was just for arguing.

I appreciate that you want to meet me halfway but I guess it was mostly all me.  I think it took a glimpse of getchan posted above that made it clear to me.  I don't think the guys roasting Storm Twist would be willing to meet him halfway.  They were really enjoying ripping him to pieces and I don't know what he has done in the past but that was hard to read and had to be harder to experience, whether he set himself up for it or not.  

And like I pointed out somewhere above i don't know why I would care so much about the thing you said anyway.  At the time it seemed like a huge big deal and quite obvious that you should know….but, I don't even know why I felt so strongly either now, so how could you know.  Now I'm going in circles so I'll stop rambling.

Thanks everyone for putting up with autistic mess.  I feel a lot better.  Thanks Manley and everyone who weighed in on this.  I'll try to be less of a dorkwad.

Now I'm getting all mushy.  Like I said the emotions of a four year old.  It can be quite delightful when it's love of ponies but it can make social discourse a bit challenging for me.


File: 1507949080446.png (125.24 KB, 900x584, 225:146, sleeping_derpy_by_fercho26….png) ImgOps Google

Oh yeah and it gives me a warm fuzzy that you actually care about having me around after I was going off like that.  Thanks.  and thanks to everyone for putting up with my crazy.


Then I accept your appology. We should try to discuss things like this, next time you feel offended by something I've said. Just take however long you need to relax, and then come and tell me calmly that something I said upset you. I'm usually willing to apologize if people approach me that way. Which is difficult when you're upset, I get. But it doesn't help anyone to get angry. On either side.

Without getting too much into it, Steam Twist has severe mental issues, and he liked to blame society (and by extension all of us) for the problems of the world. Most people just wanted him gone, and ignored him, but I tried to talk to him and get through to him, but it never went anywhere. He was too far gone in his own delusions.  Eventually he got himself banned for harrassment. It's best not to worry about that guy.

I do. Misunderstandings happen, but that's not any reason for someone to be driven away. I'm glad we worked this out, we should try to talk more like this in the future.

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