Total Posts:246|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

At 10k posts, the state of DDO

YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2014 10:41:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Back in December, thought that once I reached 10,000 posts I would deactivate my account because that was a threshold I thought indicated at once that I'd spend too much time on DDO and that it was therefore time to go. This was after the election turned out the way it did, something I'm still not at all pleased about. But, rather than my concerns manifesting, at least so far nothing has really changed, which I'm pleased about.

I have very real concerns about the future of this site, though. I think that so long as Airmax is doing most of the member dispute stuff, the site will carry along nicely but if he decides that he's had enough I'll be reluctant to see who takes his place. There is no one on this site, not even myself, that I think could fill that role -at least not yet, and it's not as if I haven't been looking. I'm also always concerned about future "improvements" (and by improvements, I mean changes that only amplify already extant problems) from both site leadership and those who actually control the site. Those concerns are ongoing.

I am reluctant to claim that ten thousand posts is an especially big event, but it's an opportunity which I didn't want to waste. Things are alright now, but I question whether they will remain that way. The tiered tournament system didn't make much sense (because of mismatched talent/ability, principally) -but that's not really a pressing concern. What is a pressing concern are the number of people who join this site for the wrong reasons, or who remain on this site not because they wish to do anything good, but because they want to complain about the site's culture, validate their own egos or because they have something to prove to themselves about their own intellectual ability. Coming to DDO for any of those reasons is not necessarily a problem, but remaining to do that is -because that kind of mentality necessarily comes at the expense of the community's sense of community, and the overall community's health.

People come and go, and that's alright, but ultimately while site leadership is invariably a reflection of the people who elect that leadership, how members conduct themselves in the forum is equally something that's not to be ignored. Trolling, spamming and things like that which are harmless aren't all that problematic -in my view, at least. But, harassing younger members, malevolently attacking aspects of the site's culture without cause are undesirable, though not the single greatest problem out there.

The single greatest problem now, is much more insidious. When members are unable to have a rational discussion about any given issue without distorting an issue, taking disagreement as a personal attack, becoming offended because of any given member's irrational perception of condescension and above all when any such member proceeds to attempt to take "the moral high ground" in response to being proven wrong, their argument in error or their ideas to be without merit is something that is worse. I say that because if this site is truly about expanding intellectual horizons, then there is nothing so caustic to that end as pretending to be a victim of harassment when you're wrong or taking disagreement as a personal attack, and then using that as a basis to try to "take the moral high ground." It's deeply offensive when I see that, and when it happens members recognize it for what it is -but very, very few actually call it out, so the offending party keeps on.

The practical consequence of acting like that in the forums (or in life) is that it kills any chance of having candid, honest, meaningful discussion. It makes people not want to have any kind of a conversation with such an individual or group of individuals because people inherently recognize the extent to which debating with someone who interprets disagreement as a personal attack is something that is categorically, that is always already in conflict with what it means to debate. That is why that particular mindset and behavior that follows is so manifestly against the values of this site and what it means to be a part of this community. Disagreement is healthy, but being unable to handle disagreement is as much a reflection of personal immaturity as it is a reflection of poor character. To see this end is what we need, especially when those who think and act like this represent a considerable percentage of those on DDO -especially among some of the newer, less well established members.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2014 10:47:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
By considerable percentage, I'm not talking about the number of members, but only a small number of members who post in high volumes.
Tsar of DDO
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2014 6:54:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Different people have different values, so what's interpreted as insulting, offensive, indecent, rude, vulgar, obtuse, etc. to someone isn't necessarily interpreted that way by everyone. The same goes for "rational" debate.

This isn't to say objective values don't exist, but to say that everyone doesn't acknowledge objective values. If subjective values become popular, powerful, or prominent, then the very definition of what's "offensive" becomes a debate unto itself, and you can't take moral high ground because the debate itself depends on the very language which is being morally taken.

Another thing is bullies will call victims bullies in a "word race". Whoever can call the other offensive first wins, especially if they're already popular.

This is why newer users are constantly being attacked - users are effectively being tested for having a predestined calling or not, and older users supposedly are in touch with what that means. Users are also trying to ingrain themselves into the community to achieve a sense of security, so those who are secured don't want to give it up.

All of this said, the problems on this website aren't limited to this website, nor are they limited to the internet.
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2014 6:58:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
By the way, the harassment you're talking about is called "malicious prosecution".

Just be careful you don't take it too far. Many people actually are harassed.
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2014 7:10:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/17/2014 6:54:34 PM, Daktoria wrote:
Different people have different values, so what's interpreted as insulting, offensive, indecent, rude, vulgar, obtuse, etc. to someone isn't necessarily interpreted that way by everyone.

That's true.

The same goes for "rational" debate.

That's also true.

This isn't to say objective values don't exist, but to say that everyone doesn't acknowledge objective values.

This isn't about whether people acknowledge values or not. This is about what is most basic to DDO; what this site is fundamentally about.

Another thing is bullies will call victims bullies in a "word race". Whoever can call the other offensive first wins, especially if they're already popular.

There is too much use of the word "bully." I blame society, but that doesn't mean that DDO has to reflect what is already culturally deplorable about the world. If people feel persecuted, they can leave. If some actual wrong has been committed, then it will be addressed. Having these idiotic discussions about who is a bully or not serve no value, reinforce an ongoing manifestation if individuals' weak character and principles, and inculcate the idea that rather than doing something about being "bullied" if it even occurs, that people instead should whine about it to the general public. That's disgusting, because it removes power from individuals to positively affect their lives and makes their state of being contingent upon someone else, some higher "authority" to do for them what they are too weak to do for themselves.

But most of the time when people accuse "bullying" of occurring, there is NO bullying occurring in the truest sense of the word. There is only candid, forthright discussion of ideas -and sometimes that might be insipid, and other times it could get personally "spicy." Whatever the case, whining about someone mistreating you is not how not to be mistreated. It's how to ensure that no one will respect you, because the kind of person who whines demonstrates that they don't even have enough self respect to take care of themselves. It's the epitome of personal weakness. That said, however, that is not a license or justification for people to bully others. It's only a statement that how people respond to difficult situations reflects who they are. There are people who whine, and there are people who take care of their problems.

This is why newer users are constantly being attacked - users are effectively being tested for having a predestined calling or not, and older users supposedly are in touch with what that means. Users are also trying to ingrain themselves into the community to achieve a sense of security, so those who are secured don't want to give it up.

Not all members are constantly attacked, and most aren't attacked at all. Some new members, like those who want to climb on their soapboxes and whine about TWS, do, because they are attacking established members of the site. It's astonishing to me that people don't understand that if you go to Rome, and tell all the Romans why they're wrong, that Rome is not going to be pleased with this zealous outsider. So, your position is nonsense because it isn't based on reality.

All of this said, the problems on this website aren't limited to this website, nor are they limited to the internet.

The problems with this community are the same as any other community faces, sure. But the way to fix them is much easier. People just need to get their sh!t together. That's all.
Tsar of DDO
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2014 7:14:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I just want to point something out to you.

You see where you said "what this site is fundamentally about"?

A lot of people don't believe justified true beliefs come about from "fundamentals":

http://plato.stanford.edu...

http://plato.stanford.edu...

I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I hope this explains how "fundamental" the real problem is. Different people have different worldviews that are "fundamentally" different.
Daktoria
Posts: 497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2014 7:17:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Another thing is your ruggedly individualist attitude can come back to bite you over bullying. Moral relativism tends to spin rugged individualism on its head by saying rugged individualists don't deserve to be treated with respect based on who's on the inside that counts. Instead, they need to relate with others around them, and when they don't, others are entitled to neglect and abuse them.

Be careful.
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/17/2014 8:11:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/17/2014 7:17:32 PM, Daktoria wrote:
Another thing is your ruggedly individualist attitude can come back to bite you over bullying. Moral relativism tends to spin rugged individualism on its head by saying rugged individualists don't deserve to be treated with respect based on who's on the inside that counts. Instead, they need to relate with others around them, and when they don't, others are entitled to neglect and abuse them.

Be careful.

I am not a moral relativist, and I am entirely apathetic to what any moral relativist would have to say about me or how I see the world. There is an attitude that some people have that people's worth cannot be measured, which is obscene because individuals' actions and choices dictate their worth. There is an attitude that some people have that right and wrong do not exist -a belief which is predicated upon a denial of objective value against which man can be evaluated- because some are made uncomfortable by the idea that some are absolutely and indefatigably good, and others are equally not.

To warn me to be careful, is to imply that I am in the wrong for failing to accommodate to a moral framework that is not even what it claims to be, because relativism is not only an argument about what "is" good, but an outright denial that "good" can objectively exist beyond individual preference. If individual preference is the highest authority, then there is no authority at all, because everyone is his or her own sovereign. Moral relativism hangs precariously between on one side nihilism and consequent fatalism, and all competing conceptions of "the good." But I worry not, because accommodation to others discomfort with the very basic concepts of right and wrong are not something that I seek to rectify.

That doesn't mean that I refuse to relate to, or empathize with others. It likewise does not make me an individualist. It makes me a person who understands individual responsibility to be self sufficient in relation to a greater whole. The individual, after all, knows himself as an individual only in because he can see that he does not comprise the sum of the collective. Instead, what it means is that I want people to know how to take care of their own problems, and in doing so take responsibility for their lives and welfare.

The reason that real bullying continues to be a problem is because the solutions offered by the people who talk about bullying's being a problem only amplify the extent to which bullying is a problem. Said more concretely, bullying is a stronger person preying on a weaker person. When the weaker person seeks out an "authority figure" to deal with the problem, the bullied person's weakness is only reinforced insofar as that person failed to take responsibility for the problem him or her self, but instead sought help from someone else. The way to make bullying stop is to make would-be victims stronger. Sometimes that means having the courage to look someone in the eye and tell them to fvck the hell off. Other times that means a punch square in the mouth.
Tsar of DDO
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 3:40:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/17/2014 8:11:00 PM, YYW wrote:
The way to make bullying stop is to make would-be victims stronger. Sometimes that means having the courage to look someone in the eye and tell them to fvck the hell off. Other times that means a punch square in the mouth.

I was with you somewhat until I read this. I'm not sure that physical or emotional violence is ever really a source of strength. To me, becoming so frustrated with someone that your only reliable recourse is reciprocated abuse indicates emotional servitude to others--being so sensitive to provocation, in other words, that the "courage" to respond explosively is unmasked as a fundamental emotional turbulence which can be manipulated by anyone clever enough to tease out the desired reaction. Resisting this, as I see it, entails neither quietism nor aloof pretensions of moral superiority, but the projection outward of an impenetrable serenity which cannot be bothered by most forms of provocation.

I contend it isn't really bullying which is the problem--you're right, bullying is, roughly, predation of the stronger upon the weaker. This is not what I think is occurring here--on the contrary, I think what we see now is more like outright fighting than bullying, because there are never really victims, only combatants. People are behaving in a provocative fashion, yes, but this is often reciprocated in the form of flaming, name-calling, condescension, etc. If it were bullying, the other person would likely withdraw and cower, or immediately seek administrative protection (which seems to occur only secondarily after the initial volley and counter-volley); instead, we see that they often choose to hurl insults at each other in a contest of attrition.

Frankly, the problem seems mostly to be a snide kind of wrathfulness which creeps up out of otherwise pleasant conversations (and often masquerades as civility) and induces discussants to behave [futilely] disagreeably toward each other. This is remedied, not by people pretending to be nicer to each other, or by trying as much as possible to avoid "hurting someone's feelings"--this would only be an attempt at sequestering people in their own insecurities--but by guiding people toward a genuine, unbreakable sanguinity according to which they find themselves neither bothered by trolling nor enticed to defensively reciprocate any aggression they encounter. This, as far as I can tell, is much different from trying to "toughen up" would-be victims by equipping them with a thicker hide and a stronger right cross.
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 6:44:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/17/2014 8:54:20 PM, FREEDO wrote:
The site is considerably more civil than it used to be. Welcome to the 10,000+ club.

Thanks, Freedo.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 7:04:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 3:40:20 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 1/17/2014 8:11:00 PM, YYW wrote:
The way to make bullying stop is to make would-be victims stronger. Sometimes that means having the courage to look someone in the eye and tell them to fvck the hell off. Other times that means a punch square in the mouth.

I was with you somewhat until I read this. I'm not sure that physical or emotional violence is ever really a source of strength.

I never said that physical or emotional violence is a source of strength. I said that bullying is a result of strength's predation upon weakness. Assuming that bullying only occurs to the extent that one party perceives weakness in a would-be victim (because bullying an equal match or someone stronger would be irrational), the way to stop bullying is to at least equalize power. That requires that either the weak be strengthened or the comparably stronger be weakened. The latter is probably not ideal if even practical, because that only means that they could either become targets themselves because universal power-equality is infeasible. The roamer is probably more messy in the here and now, but more likely to normalize interactions in the future.

To me, becoming so frustrated with someone that your only reliable recourse is reciprocated abuse indicates emotional servitude to others--being so sensitive to provocation, in other words, that the "courage" to respond explosively is unmasked as a fundamental emotional turbulence which can be manipulated by anyone clever enough to tease out the desired reaction.

There is a difference between being frustrated, and fighting back.

Resisting this, as I see it, entails neither quietism nor aloof pretensions of moral superiority, but the projection outward of an impenetrable serenity which cannot be bothered by most forms of provocation.

I think that's what's ideal, sure. I would even go so far as to say that refusing to be affected by what another said is practically not at all different from what I'm saying. But sometimes, words aren't the only "measure" of bullying in play.

I contend it isn't really bullying which is the problem--you're right, bullying is, roughly, predation of the stronger upon the weaker. This is not what I think is occurring here--on the contrary, I think what we see now is more like outright fighting than bullying, because there are never really victims, only combatants.

On DDO and the internet, I'll agree with you that the majority of instances where people call other people bullies, or where people think that they are being bullied, this is probably the case. I think that is because people, on a very basic level, do not understand what bullying is, so when they see something that is really just bickering and it looks like one of the belligerents is winning, they call that "bullying" because they either don't know of a more accurate term to describe the phenomenon of human behavior they're observing, or because in calling the party they disagree with the "bully" they are trying to invoke a certain moral connotation and implicit judgement that comes with calling a person a "bully." In most cases, I think that's what happens when people call other people bullies on DDO, at the very least.

But, for those cases which are not the majority of instances, there are some actual instances of bullying which genuinely are one person who is stronger, maliciously preying upon a weaker person, with malevolent intent. (I realize I did just modify my earlier definition of bullying, and this is what I was referring to -however ironic that it may be that I'm doing this now.)

People are behaving in a provocative fashion, yes, but this is often reciprocated in the form of flaming, name-calling, condescension, etc. If it were bullying, the other person would likely withdraw and cower, or immediately seek administrative protection (which seems to occur only secondarily after the initial volley and counter-volley); instead, we see that they often choose to hurl insults at each other in a contest of attrition.

While I'm not sure that a bullied person, who was truly bullied, would necessarily immediately seek help, that they would not fight back or even respond is most likely necessary for bullying to actually be bullying -though I'm not quite sure its sufficient.

Frankly, the problem seems mostly to be a snide kind of wrathfulness which creeps up out of otherwise pleasant conversations (and often masquerades as civility) and induces discussants to behave [futilely] disagreeably toward each other.

Snide wrath isn't something I'm uncomfortable with, and I don't think that being wrathful -in a snide manor or otherwise- is futile, either. Wrath is a way of expressing hostility in response to a particular behavior or action, and when in response to an immoral or unethical action, it is probably more likely than not justified. But baseless, arbitrary aggression (especially that directed on something that does not merit an aggressive response), on the other hand, is as futile as it is stupid.

I want to be sure, though, that the difference between wrath and arbitrary aggression is not lost in this discussion, though. Both are aggressive, but the former with cause, and the latter, not. Aggression may be unpleasant to watch and experience, but whether it is unpleasant or not is not a reason that it should be written off in sum. Whether it is justified or not depends on the circumstances of the situation.

This is remedied, not by people pretending to be nicer to each other, or by trying as much as possible to avoid "hurting someone's feelings"--this would only be an attempt at sequestering people in their own insecurities--but by guiding people toward a genuine, unbreakable sanguinity according to which they find themselves neither bothered by trolling nor enticed to defensively reciprocate any aggression they encounter.

I think you're talking about self confidence, and I agree that increasing someone's self confidence would solve the problem (and would equalize the power relationship between would be victim and bully), but only insofar as bulling only occurs in words. Physical bullying requires more than just a boost of self confidence. It requires, more often than not, physical retaliation.

This, as far as I can tell, is much different from trying to "toughen up" would-be victims by equipping them with a thicker hide and a stronger right cross.

I don't think so. I think that "toughening up" means "be more self confident." It might also mean punching someone in the face, but self confidence is a prerequisite for that anyway.
Tsar of DDO
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 7:34:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/17/2014 10:41:03 AM, YYW wrote:
The single greatest problem now, is much more insidious. When members are unable to have a rational discussion about any given issue without distorting an issue, taking disagreement as a personal attack, becoming offended because of any given member's irrational perception of condescension and above all when any such member proceeds to attempt to take "the moral high ground" in response to being proven wrong, their argument in error or their ideas to be without merit is something that is worse. I say that because if this site is truly about expanding intellectual horizons, then there is nothing so caustic to that end as pretending to be a victim of harassment when you're wrong or taking disagreement as a personal attack, and then using that as a basis to try to "take the moral high ground." It's deeply offensive when I see that, and when it happens members recognize it for what it is -but very, very few actually call it out, so the offending party keeps on.

..... ha..... . ha ha.......... ha haha .. hah a ha .. HAAHAHA!

. . . . . . HA!!

For those who wonder why I call YYW a hypocrite, just.. just keep reading this paragraph and post #42 of http://www.debate.org... side by side over... and over again.

Let me give it to you play by play:

1. [Post 28] YYW claims that objective scientific evidence is at odds with the personal beliefs of anyone who would entertain the idea that social/post-natal environmental factors play into one's likelihood of being a homosexual. He manages to imply that anyone who does so believe is ignorant, an idiot, or full of sh!it. Keep in mind he is not responding to any particular person, this was an open statement which means he could not have been provoked.

But, let me just say a few words: the idea that social/post-natal environmental factors play into one's likelihood of being a homosexual is as stupid as it is ill founded. This is one of those instances where it is irrelevant what individual people think/believe/posit/proclaim/decry, because where empirical evidence is at odds with what you "personally" believe to be true, either you are ignorant (insofar as you are unaware of what science says), an idiot (if you know what science says, and you reject it) or full of sh!t (if either you don't have the cognitive ability to process and understand what science has to say about this matter or you accept what science says but refuse to admit it because your politics are at odds with objective reality).

2. [Post 28] YYW attempts to relieve himself of any responsibility to back up the claims he just made by essentially implying that he doesn't give a sh!t if you don't already agree with him.

And before anyone who disagrees with me has the gaul to say "SHOW ME THE EVIDINCE, YYW! SHOW ME THE EVIDINCE!" ...have enough personal dignity to realize that at this point, what I just said is something called common knowledge while realizing that I don't give a sh!t if you accept what I've just said or not. Why? Popular belief does not make something the case or not the case.

3. I challenge him to provide evidence seeing as this is a debate site and he just tried to get away with an insulting Op Ed.

Well that was one very long but ultimately pointless paragraph. Allow me to summarize it: "People are born gay and I don't care to support it."

You may not care but I'm still going to demand it. Show me the evidence YYW.

Now consider YYW's statement above about 'taking the moral high ground in response to being proven wrong.' As you will see I didn't even need to prove him wrong. Simply challenging him to support his position is enough of a trigger.

4. [Post 42] YYW posts this (labeled by me):

[A]
So, I now ask you... which one of these categories do you fit into? Are you simply ignorant? An idiot? Or perhaps full of sh!t? One or more of the above?

[B]
Furthermore, I just want to say, for everyone who reads this post, that Liberty here is a fan of animalfucking

[C]
Evidence: http://www.debate.org......

[D]
Conclusion: This fuckwit needs a special feature on the Weekly Stupid.

In response to a simple and expected component of rational discussion about any given issue (see YYW's paragraph above) YYW can be seen to do the following things:

[A] Insult another poster without provocation. Contrast with "taking disagreement as a personal attack" in YYW's paragraph above.

[B]
1. Commit a poisoning the well fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org... . Contrast with YYW's statement above "When members are unable to have a rational discussion about any given issue without distorting an issue"

2. Call another poster a crude name.

3. Tries to take "the moral high ground." Contrast with YYW's statement "and above all when any such member proceeds to attempt to take "the moral high ground" in response to being proven wrong, their argument in error or their ideas to be without merit is something that is worse" in his paragraph above.

[C] Post a link as if his informal fallacy needed to be supported.

[D] Insult the poster again, and demonstrate support for a program whose only purpose is to seek out and call people's statements stupid.

Was this some kind of fit of rage? Did YYW regret it later? No, he continued on with at least six subsequent repetitions of his insulting poisoning the well fallacy.


Ladies and gentlemen, a prime example of the enemy of rationality and civility on this site sits there on the mound of filthy insults and evasions built by his own hands. What is it he is saying? He preaches about not taking moral high ground!
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 7:42:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 7:34:49 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:

rofl, that's actually pretty hilarious. I think you probably missed a few things, though.

I think I probably said all of that stuff at one point, and I stand by all of it. I'm not perfect, after all.

lol
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 7:45:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I also don't pretend to take the moral high ground. As I have always said... I prefer the gutters. In the gutters, there is honesty. In the gutters, there is truth. In the gutters, it's ok to point out obscenity for what it is, without being lambasted by a sexual deviant for calling deviancy by its name. So, you can have your self righteousness, Liberty. I have no use for it.
Tsar of DDO
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 7:47:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 7:42:57 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/18/2014 7:34:49 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:

rofl, that's actually pretty hilarious. I think you probably missed a few things, though.

I think I probably said all of that stuff at one point, and I stand by all of it. I'm not perfect, after all.

lol

See! See! (waving arms about) by its own admission the creature stands guilty of grave hypocrisy.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 7:49:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 7:47:27 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 1/18/2014 7:42:57 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/18/2014 7:34:49 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:

rofl, that's actually pretty hilarious. I think you probably missed a few things, though.

I think I probably said all of that stuff at one point, and I stand by all of it. I'm not perfect, after all.

lol

See! See! (waving arms about) by its own admission the creature stands guilty of grave hypocrisy.

I am wrathful, Liberty. I am wrathful against obscenity. I am wrathful against deviance. I have been wrathful with you, and I make no apology for it.
Tsar of DDO
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 7:54:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 7:49:32 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/18/2014 7:47:27 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 1/18/2014 7:42:57 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/18/2014 7:34:49 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:

rofl, that's actually pretty hilarious. I think you probably missed a few things, though.

I think I probably said all of that stuff at one point, and I stand by all of it. I'm not perfect, after all.

lol

See! See! (waving arms about) by its own admission the creature stands guilty of grave hypocrisy.

I am wrathful, Liberty. I am wrathful against obscenity. I am wrathful against deviance. I have been wrathful with you, and I make no apology for it.

That sound a little terrifying, actually.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 7:55:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 7:45:45 PM, YYW wrote:
I also don't pretend to take the moral high ground.
Liar, there was no other possible purpose for bringing up my sexuality in that context.

As I have always said... I prefer the gutters. In the gutters, there is honesty. In the gutters, there is truth. In the gutters, it's ok to point out obscenity for what it is, without being lambasted by a sexual deviant for calling deviancy by its name.

Its name is zoosexuality not animal fvcker, and deviant or not it was totally irrelevant in that context.

So, you can have your self righteousness, Liberty. I have no use for it.
You couldn't take it if you tried.

At 1/18/2014 7:49:32 PM, YYW wrote:
I am wrathful, Liberty. I am wrathful against obscenity. I am wrathful against deviance. I have been wrathful with you, and I make no apology for it.

Your wrath is the film of despicable slime atop a mountain of ignorance and self-contradiction. I would see you dead rather than free to enact your delusional pseudo-morality and I make no apology for it... buttfvcker.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 7:57:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/17/2014 8:54:20 PM, FREEDO wrote:
The site is considerably more civil than it used to be. Welcome to the 10,000+ club.

Could have fooled me, seems worse to me.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 8:07:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 7:55:31 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 1/18/2014 7:45:45 PM, YYW wrote:
I also don't pretend to take the moral high ground.
Liar, there was no other possible purpose for bringing up my sexuality in that context.

As I have always said... I prefer the gutters. In the gutters, there is honesty. In the gutters, there is truth. In the gutters, it's ok to point out obscenity for what it is, without being lambasted by a sexual deviant for calling deviancy by its name.

Its name is zoosexuality not animal fvcker, and deviant or not it was totally irrelevant in that context.

So, you can have your self righteousness, Liberty. I have no use for it.
You couldn't take it if you tried.

At 1/18/2014 7:49:32 PM, YYW wrote:
I am wrathful, Liberty. I am wrathful against obscenity. I am wrathful against deviance. I have been wrathful with you, and I make no apology for it.

Your wrath is the film of despicable slime atop a mountain of ignorance and self-contradiction. I would see you dead rather than free to enact your delusional pseudo-morality and I make no apology for it...

Sure.

buttfvcker.

There is nothing you could say or do to change my mind, Liberty. I don't even know why you talk to me, knowing what I think of you.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 8:08:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 7:54:55 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 1/18/2014 7:49:32 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/18/2014 7:47:27 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 1/18/2014 7:42:57 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/18/2014 7:34:49 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:

rofl, that's actually pretty hilarious. I think you probably missed a few things, though.

I think I probably said all of that stuff at one point, and I stand by all of it. I'm not perfect, after all.

lol

See! See! (waving arms about) by its own admission the creature stands guilty of grave hypocrisy.

I am wrathful, Liberty. I am wrathful against obscenity. I am wrathful against deviance. I have been wrathful with you, and I make no apology for it.

That sound a little terrifying, actually.

It shouldn't be.
Tsar of DDO
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 8:11:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"zoosexuality" Ding ding ding> made up word alert!
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 8:12:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 8:11:23 PM, sadolite wrote:
"zoosexuality" Ding ding ding> made up word alert!

lol, I think you're probably right.
Tsar of DDO
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 8:34:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 8:07:54 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/18/2014 7:55:31 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
buttfvcker.

There is nothing you could say or do to change my mind
Funny I feel the same way.

Liberty. I don't even know why you talk to me, knowing what I think of you.

I was talking about you not to you. The goal is not to change minds least of all yours you have done an excellent job convincing me it is beyond salvation.

At 1/18/2014 8:11:23 PM, sadolite wrote:
"zoosexuality" Ding ding ding> made up word alert!

'gay' was flat out commandeered James Bond style, at least we're polite enough to make our own title.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 8:37:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 8:34:41 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 1/18/2014 8:07:54 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/18/2014 7:55:31 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
buttfvcker.

There is nothing you could say or do to change my mind
Funny I feel the same way.

Liberty. I don't even know why you talk to me, knowing what I think of you.

I was talking about you not to you. The goal is not to change minds least of all yours you have done an excellent job convincing me it is beyond salvation.



At 1/18/2014 8:11:23 PM, sadolite wrote:
"zoosexuality" Ding ding ding> made up word alert!

'gay' was flat out commandeered James Bond style, at least we're polite enough to make our own title.

You already have, one it's called "bestiality". Don't be like the gays and make up words like "Homophobe".
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 9:43:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 8:37:42 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 1/18/2014 8:34:41 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 1/18/2014 8:11:23 PM, sadolite wrote:
"zoosexuality" Ding ding ding> made up word alert!

'gay' was flat out commandeered James Bond style, at least we're polite enough to make our own title.

You already have, one it's called "bestiality". Don't be like the gays and make up words like "Homophobe".

Bestiality refers to sex. Zoophilia refers to the orientation however it means animal-love (even though it officially refers to the desire to have sex) as opposed to animal-sex.

Since there is non-sexual love zoosexuality is the more accurate term for a sexual orientation.

There is nothing wrong with making up words whose roots accurately describe the concept in Greek or Latin. Just ask any scientist :p
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
Josh_b
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 10:03:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/17/2014 10:41:03 AM, YYW wrote:
. What is a pressing concern are the number of people who join this site for the wrong reasons, or who remain on this site not because they wish to do anything good, but because they want to complain about the site's culture, validate their own egos or because they have something to prove to themselves about their own intellectual ability. Coming to DDO for any of those reasons is not necessarily a problem, but remaining to do that is -because that kind of mentality necessarily comes at the expense of the community's sense of community, and the overall community's health.

Either I've misjudged the culture here, or you believe in a fairy tale. I am new to this site and very much the person you describe in this section.

The culture of DDO. It is very clear, and is repetitively claimed and referenced by well integrated users, that there is a gate which new users must pass through to become an accepted DDO member. This gate is the three debate rule which all users will either pass through and become long term users of DDO, or they will not pass through it and fall by the wayside when they lose interest. This particular gate requires that long time users have a certain sense of self righteousness in that they keep using the site despite losing their initial debates, or else their ego is justified in winning debates and they continue on, either proving their egotistical nature when they lose and continue to participate, or fall by the wayside when they lose.

The Egotistical nature and mentality of the accepted DDO members. Everyone has something to gain when they use DDO. Debating in itself is a game that people play to justify their own positions. No debate category proves this more than religious debates. Everyone has their own idea of religion and there is greater challenge than disproving that religion for either personal gain or for honing the user's competitive prowess. DDO is not for a person to gather new information on a topic, it is, by the very nature of debating, to prove that the information you have disproves the information that someone else has. Long term users must be egotistical, with or without the gate, in order to maintain their own sense of self worth if they are to keep using this site.

The sense of community What can be more satisfying than being a part of a group of like minded, self-ego boosting individuals that can all never be wrong? If you can think of something, maybe DDO is not for you. Steel sharpens Steel. That means to me that unless you are willing to go round for round, nose to nose with someone who is specifically trying to prove you, and your philosophy, wrong, you don't need to be here. And the people who are not willing, are not here. DDO is a group of warriors all engaged is some fashion of war. Some people identify their enemies (like liberty) and some people are willing to fight anyone who has an opinion other than their own.

God forbid that Airmax ever does leave. I have had my run in with him, and other moderators, as I'm sure that many others have had. The issues resulted in many of my votes and initial debates being deleted for TOS violations. Did I think, "This guy is being a jerk"? Well, I did at first, but then it didn't make sense to me that a guy would live his life just to go around being a jerk to every new user. I found that he is a reasonable person who sincerely believes in DDO and wants the regulations to be followed to ensure that long term DDO users follow certain formalities. I took his challenges seriously, I changed my attitude, and I conformed to the rules and regulations of DDO as they were presented to me. There is no goal that users are kind to one another, the only goal is that they are civil and well articulated.

My own higher cause I came to this site because it was the best among its kind. I took a class on Critical Thinking and I enjoyed the Logical Fallacy portion so much that I decided that I want to put my own Fallacy abilities to the test. I started a forum and have been in two fallacy debates thus far. There are many troll debates which often use the same tactics, and there are many people using the tactics without realizing it. If these debates work out, and catch on, I think they may change the nature of DDO in some fashion, and at some point become one of its functions. If I'm good enough, or if someone else is good enough, this debating style may even become training for proper and improper debating techniques. If my goals are lofty and egotistical, let them remain lofty and egotistical. I have found a home for sharing these ideas with DDO. If they are reasonable, and beneficial to all, then join me in this cause to teach others the skills and attitude you find necessary for elite DDO members. But please don't discourage the very nature of the site you have been a part of for so long.
Scrutiny Welcome

AMAA http://www.debate.org...
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2014 10:39:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/18/2014 9:43:00 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 1/18/2014 8:37:42 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 1/18/2014 8:34:41 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 1/18/2014 8:11:23 PM, sadolite wrote:
"zoosexuality" Ding ding ding> made up word alert!

'gay' was flat out commandeered James Bond style, at least we're polite enough to make our own title.

You already have, one it's called "bestiality". Don't be like the gays and make up words like "Homophobe".

Bestiality refers to sex. Zoophilia refers to the orientation however it means animal-love (even though it officially refers to the desire to have sex) as opposed to animal-sex.

Since there is non-sexual love zoosexuality is the more accurate term for a sexual orientation.

There is nothing wrong with making up words whose roots accurately describe the concept in Greek or Latin. Just ask any scientist :p

No, I think I'll ask a English major
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%