Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Pete Svarrior

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 315  Next >
1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Cancel culture
« on: October 24, 2021, 09:07:10 PM »
I've seen a fair amount of defenders of poor, rural, white people and lonely, virgin, men on Twitter whenever someone does try to pointlessly belittle them.
What was the overall response to them?

2
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Cancel culture
« on: October 21, 2021, 02:05:07 PM »
in general, how would you rewrite and/or re-characterize this rule to expand the freedom of speech?
I wouldn't rewrite it, I don't think it warrants a constitutional amendment, that's way too high up the chain. Also, there is a reason I said "freedom of speech" and not "the 1st amendment" - I know (roughly) what the 1st amendment says, and that it doesn't provide full coverage of the democratic principle of freedom of speech (compared to, say, articles 18 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). That's fine - it can and should be covered by other laws. I am also not the right person to write legal texts - anything I come up with will be deeply flawed. But hey, let's try:

I'd like to see firing people for expressing bad opinions to be considered a form of discrimination.

So, we're one sentence in and the deep flaws are poking through. What's a "bad opinion" and what's "discrimination"? Let's go for something like James Damore's Google memo. It was controversial, and at odds with scientific consensus in many places, but the intent was harmless, and the execution was pretty benign, too. I'd like for something like this to be considered discrimination in the same way that firing someone for being Jewish would be discrimination. It's a personal belief which he expressed politely - it should not be grounds for his firing just because some people on Twitter demanded an ideological purge.

This would potentially come with an added benefit to businesses who don't want to participate in cancel culture, but who do so for the fear of reputational damage. If it's their choice to fire someone or not for their latest hot take, then their reputation will be impacted by the choice they've made. By removing businesses' power to dictate workers' ideology you liberate both the workers and the fat cats.

Though, obviously, line still needs to be drawn. Other countries offer too much protection to religions (and other personal beliefs that they choose to call religion because it's an easy way out). If you're calling for the gays to be purged because Lord Baby Jesus (pbuh) said so, get fucked and get fired lmao.

tbh it seems rather disingenuous to me to insist that since the constitution doesn't fully cover the principle, then the principle cannot be followed - doubly so to imply silly things like "the founding fathers clearly wanted you fired for your tweets my dude". It's the same kind of disingenuity 2nd amendment freaks put forward to justify owning recreational nukes or whatever.

3
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Cancel culture
« on: October 21, 2021, 08:31:54 AM »
So if the choice is fire one replacable employee or lose 1,000 customers, guess what they pick?
This could be easily solved by expanding the protections on freedom of speech. The cancel culture crowd managed to convince people that "freedom of speech means the government won't shoot you for saying mean things, nothing more". Clearly, the solution is to prevent such misinterpretations in the future.

4
I'm renaming your thread to something that more accurately represents its purpose. Please remember that a thread title is supposed to provide information. The original title "As a firm non-suporter of the FE theory..." tells us nothing about what you're about to say. Please feel free to rename the thread further if you feel you can describe it better than I did.

Please also avoid setting your own rules for threads ("Talk about your opinions on religion, science, society and current affairs if you like, NSFW topics are off-limits."). Forum rules apply to all threads, and there is no expectation for anyone to follow your requests if they are stricter than the rules.

As for your questions, they're quite common and are indeed typically asked. You might want to use the search function to have a look at previous threads. This is generally an expectation - we want you to read before you write. By the time you make your first post, you should be relatively familiar with the community, and you would have found the answers you're looking for during that familiarisation stage.

I might chime in with some thoughts of my own later, but I make no promises.

5
Arts & Entertainment / Re: 2022 FIFA World Cup
« on: October 13, 2021, 07:03:07 AM »
I see nothing in here to contradict the fact that the UK is currently losing hard to the Dutch.
Considering that Gibraltar is not part of the UK, I don't think this "fact" was established in the first place.

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Experiment mentioned in faqs
« on: October 11, 2021, 07:15:09 AM »

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Experiment mentioned in faqs
« on: October 10, 2021, 07:41:38 PM »
That's not how forum threads work. Please stop deflecting and get back on topic.

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Experiment mentioned in faqs
« on: October 10, 2021, 07:10:53 PM »
I'm sorry, but you're simply comparing apples to oranges. This is not how geometry works, and the maths behind each claim is explained in detail in their related articles - you can read through it and make more coherent objections if you wish.

Humour me and explain in your own words: what is measured in each experiment? Why was the distance and altitude chosen accordingly? Show your understanding, since it currently seems that you have none.

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Experiment mentioned in faqs
« on: October 10, 2021, 06:22:37 PM »
Are you somehow comparing the altitude of an aircraft to the length of a stretch of water and wondering why they're not the same number in two very different contexts?

10
Arts & Entertainment / Re: 2022 FIFA World Cup
« on: October 09, 2021, 10:32:59 PM »
Why does the UK get to have 4 separate teams. I thought it was one nation? Or are they so desperate to have the World Cup in the aisles that they just forego their super important sovereignty in this case?
This is a decent primer, though it's obviously pre-Brexit. Just ignore the bits about how the UK is in the EU for now.


11
Arts & Entertainment / Re: 2022 FIFA World Cup
« on: October 09, 2021, 09:00:21 PM »
Routine England win.

Andorra 0 - 5 England

12
Technology & Information / Re: Hella lit keyboards
« on: October 09, 2021, 07:20:10 PM »
It would be pretty cool to build a faux-retro PC setup, combining the good ol' beige with more modern technology. I might have to consider that the next time I'm changing things up.

I'm using a MOTOSPEED CK104 with off-brand red switches. It's not *great*, but it beats a membrane keyboard. That's the best I can say about it.

13
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Abusive DMs
« on: October 09, 2021, 03:16:20 PM »
You're not helping your case on the drama front. Since we agreed a solution, I'm locking this thread. I'll update it when the new list is implemented.

14
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Abusive DMs
« on: October 09, 2021, 02:59:37 PM »
OK, I'm going to ignore whatever AATW just wrote (I'm sure it's a riveting read) and focus on what appears to be the consensus solution.

SMF code is a pile of shit, so it might take a while to figure out the best approach.

15
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Abusive DMs
« on: October 09, 2021, 02:13:56 PM »
I had a similar thought to Gary’s that someone might want to engage publicly with someone’s posts but not have to deal with whatever content is sent privately. It seems a reasonable thing to do. Is there a way to have separate ignore lists for DMs and posts that is easy to implement? If there is, then that would seem a simple fix to my ignorant ass.
Sure, that should be easy enough to implement. Though I'm not sure what about the current solution is such a deal-breaker. If you ignore someone, you can view their posts just fine. Does a single click on the "hey, you previously indicated that this person upsets you, you sure you wanna read this?" button really cause you much strife?

16
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Abusive DMs
« on: October 09, 2021, 01:59:43 PM »
fwiw i think it's perfectly logical to suggest that if we're not allowed to spam insults at someone on the forum, then we shouldn't be allowed to circumvent that by sending those messages as pms.
I agree - it just so happens that I'm not the sole decision-maker here. Restricting everyone's use of the forum for the sake of one person is not a popular suggestion at this point in time (and if this was someone else's idea, AATW would be starting thread after thread about how much he hates new rules).

no offense my dude, but you are just way way to quick to assign malice to other users simply because they don't agree with the way you see things.
He doesn't disagree with how I see things - we're both on board with the change. Nonetheless, starting pointless drama over it is not going to help, and, indeed, is very likely to only make things worse. He didn't get what he wanted, so now he's trolling. I should probably just close this thread, but let's see if others want to chime in - not with meta-discussion on whether AATW's trolling is very good and legitimate, or whether it's trolling at all (take that to AR), but with specific comments regarding the suggestion made in the OP.

also yes for sure users can just put that person on their ignore list. but it seems reasonable to say "i want to see the things this person posts on the forum but not the insulting private messages they send."
You can still see the posts of someone you ignored - you just have to click on them to reveal them.

17
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Abusive DMs
« on: October 09, 2021, 08:47:23 AM »
And above you seemed to agree that it would be a good idea.
I still do, but you need to keep in mind that imposing restrictions on users is something we don't do lightly. As one of our main champions of the "mods shouldn't do anything ever" cause, I'm sure you can see why.

I know. I am suggesting you do.
The "why" is very important here. When two members were complaining about abusive PMs, it seemed likely that this would grow into a widespread issue. If it does, then it becomes pretty obvious that something should be done. However, if you actively choose for your problems to continue (for example, by not choosing to ignore the one person that's annoying you), who are we to make you happy against your own will?

I don’t know what that mean.
Okay, let's expand on 2 parts of your recent post, then.

No, it's a stop to the messages I want. And as I said above I don't think I should have to do anything to make that happen.
Sorry - that's never going to happen. Rule change or not, it would always be down to you to do something. Right now, you have a way of doing it yourself, without involving us, and without starting drama over it. You are asking for a more complicated process to be implemented, for your sole benefit (the only other person I'd heard from used the ignore function as far as I know), and one that involves pointless back-and-forths and drama. It is difficult to believe that you're doing it for anything else than drama or, as Thork suggested, revenge.

When Tom ran crying to the mods to say that the bigger boys were being mean to him - in AR, which was within the rules
It wasn't within the rules. Rule 2 applies in all fora. I explained this to you time and time again, and it really doesn't matter if you think otherwise.

Therein lies a crux of the issue. When you and your buddies went out of your way to harass one member as a group and continued once he asked you to back off, you broke the rules. When you decided to start further threads harassing Tom to manifest your Marvellous Objection™, you once again broke the rules. The one user currently messaging you mean words is not breaking the rules. The case for changing the rules is contentious among mods (even if I personally lean towards it) and there's not enough evidence of this being a big enough issue to restrict everyone's use of the forum for the future.

My intention is to improve the board’s experience. Not just for me.
I believed you until the post I just quoted. You now made it clear that this is just another complaint about that one time you weren't allowed to break the rules.

Ignore him. If the problem becomes more widespread, there may be a stronger case for adjusting the rules.

18
Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Abusive DMs
« on: October 09, 2021, 08:01:47 AM »
We currently have no rules governing PMs. "I want to be happy but not to do anything about it" is unlikely to stick as a case to change the rules (your case was much stronger before you revealed your true intentions just now).

Your happiness is one click away - considerably less effort than writing lengthy non-sequiturs about how you're still upset about rule 2.

20
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: The Communist Manifesto
« on: October 07, 2021, 05:01:07 PM »
No, it's not.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 315  Next >