Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
and again, it's very telling when your biggest example of someone who was against trans athletes competing in high level competitions has many posts advocating the exact opposite if you casually search posts by uke containing the word lia
As you well know, I didn't choose uke as the "biggest example" of an advocate for restrictions. I cited him because I explicitly remembered him conceding that there should be restrictions, notwithstanding his consistent support for transgender rights.
The posts by uke that you embedded also fall far short of actually supporting your description of his views.
that's why i keep telling these guys they are in a cult - if you don't agree with us on 100% of issues then you are an evil fascist!and the very notion that you think i don't predominantly date liberals or that the women who made it clear they wouldn't want me masturbating were conservative just shows how out of touch you arefrankly, it's beyond obtuse to try to break down the
77 % of american women over 50 in 2018 thought porn is "morally unacceptable"
If all liberals were like rickroll i would very very probably be less extremist myself, as i don't feel he is my enemy, i just think he is wrong on some policies but he shares enough humanity with me i could get along with significant compromises in a society where my "opponents" were like him.
In a society where cordie is the normal opponent and more than half the opponents are even more radical than him well sorry but not sorry we are at "civil war level" of disagreement, it's impossible to even consider to live long term with so many people like you having power over me.
You pretty much pointed out the fact that the window has shifted enough that Ricks views are now center right and not center left
I certainly wouldn't consider Rick a lib in any sense of the word and neither would you
I do consider him a liberal because he is. I listed why he is. Why don't you comment on that?
The window didn't shift. Only you guys on the left did. The right is actually more moderate than it was when goldwater was the candidate (and that was already exceptionally more moderate than normies were in 1880). The left today is to the left of the most extremist candidate from 1968 ok?
Can you ****ing stop for a couple of generations? can you hold some values and KEEP THEM UNTOUCHED so that 60 years from now that's still what you think?
[QUOTE=Luciom]anime porn[/QUOTE]
It’s not anime, it’s hentai you weirdos
As you well know, I didn't choose uke as the "biggest example" of an advocate for restrictions. I cited him because I explicitly remembered him conceding that there should be restrictions, notwithstanding his consistent support for transgender rights.
The posts by uke that you embedded also fall far short of actually supporting your description of his views.
this is another very roundabout manner of conceding your original thesis was wrong
this is the most frustrating part about dealing with you guys, just constant gaslighting - i don't even think it's intentional either which is even worse imo
77 % of american women over 50 in 2018 thought porn is "morally unacceptable"
If all liberals were like rickroll i would very very probably be less extremist myself, as i don't feel he is my enemy, i just think he is wrong on some policies but he shares enough humanity with me i could get alongGiving really big emperor palpatine energy here
anime doesn't involve real people, that's a different topic.
And btw the most depraved anime porn imaginable doesn't touch me as much as finding out some people actually believe in astrology.
I mean i got my skin tough seeing people eating pineapple pizza. After that, there is no perversion that can tilt me
We Sagittarians don't believe in nonsense like astrology.
Yeah and its incredibly obvious to everyone that Lucio is literally lassoing you right now Rick. You are getting owned by a horrible person trying to own you
There is no owning, 13a doesn't allow it.
In a decent, normal world where we have the rickrolls on one side and the lucioms on the other side, in some places they win and they govern, in some others we govern, we quarrel and fight like a family with problems do, even bitterly, but at the end of the day we think we are part of the same polity for real.
Who said anything about "evil" or "conservative idiots" here? I just pointed out that being anti-porn is a standard center-right view. Less spewing text, more reading, please.
It isn't. It's the standard "religious fanatic" view, + some feminists (not all).
A rightwing atheist, even if very rightwing, wouldn't want to ban porn. Matt walsh wants to ban porn, Rufo doesn't give a ****. Get the picture?
Luciom has a consistent world view but to say its clear and logical kind of points to the issue here....
His world view is 100 years old. Archaic and outdated. Hes a philosophical dinosaur endlessly grasping at the straws of the past
I think you often present a mindset that is stuck in the early 2000s so maybe this tracks?
cordi pls try to use word properly.
I have values. And i have a worldview. That's 2 completly different things that rickroll perfectly understand as different.
When i *describe actual reality* that's a worldview. When i profess what i would like things to be like, that's values.
I have VALUES that often enough are 100 (or many more) years old. Not all of them btw. But a significant number, yes, sure. That, you are right about.
But my WORLDVIEW, the picture of what exists i use to inform my decision making... that's not my values. That's a ruthless, objectively correct and constantly refined analysis of WHAT IS REAL. Which i am able to keep fully detached from WHAT I WOULD LIKE THINGS TO BE. Rickroll gets it. Why don't you get it?
this is another very roundabout manner of conceding your original thesis was wrong
this is the most frustrating part about dealing with you guys, just constant gaslighting - i don't even think it's intentional either which is even worse imo
rick,
Your certainty that I am searching for ways to gracefully concede that you are correct without explicitly admitting that you are correct is unbridled arrogance.
The only other possible explanation is that you don't know what the word concession means.
I mean, trying to out-lawyer a lawyer is probably one of the most entertaining things to watch as a bystander. Let him try to cook! 
cordi pls try to use word properly.I have values. And i have a worldview. That's 2 completly different things that rickroll perfectly understand as different.When i *describe actual reality* that's a worldview. When i profess what i would like things to be like, that's values.I have VALUES that often enough are 100 (or many more) years old. Not all of them btw. But a significan
values are part of a worldview (if such a thing actually exists, many philosophers are skeptical of the term) because the ontology of moral truths are partially an epistemic question (in fact many people add whether we have/don’t have access to moral truths to the moral propositions they affirm).
so yeah when you say “I value x because of y” and “y” endorses some epistemological thesis, then it must be part of your worldview if you endorse worldview semantics.
I of course would concede that that some people understand the world better than others. I wasn't claiming otherwise.
My point was that you should be skeptical when people who promote cruelty claim that their views are a consequence of being brave enough to see the world as it really is.
I never claimed to be brave in seeing the world how it is. I claim i am smarted and more capable of seeing the world the way it is because my judgment isn't clouded by morality.
My morality is that whatever benefits me (and my family and the people i care about) is moral. So i don't need any particular worldview to help me morally. Whatever the world is, then i have to understand what benefits me.
So i actually need to understand the world better than most people do. Because for most people it's about living in a fantasy where they feel ok with it. For me it's about living in a reality where i ****ing win. So i need to get a very precise picture of reality before i start asking for this or that to happen. Unlike other people, who usually feel accomplishment *in the asking itself*.
Like MAGA is fulfilled just by talking badly about illegals. At the end if 2M or 8M are deported, then don't change their lives significantly. They "win" with deportations existing and happening and being prominent.
I win when SCOTUS actually reverses Chevron. I would have been ok even if that happened with very little fanfare. Which in some sense it did outside specialized outlets. It was an epic change in the regulatory structure of the most powerful country in the history of the world, and it has been talked about 1 / 1000 Epstein has. That's reality.
See the difference?
Democrats didn't have any hand in Lia competing you potato. That was the NCAA's decision and their decision alone.Schools don't tell 6 year olds to be transI don't know how many times I have to repeat this to you. You are just buying into nonsense over and over and overMy trans niece has anti trans parents, goes to school with anti trans people, didn't have a libtard teacher,
LOLOLOLOL at the attempt to deflect from democrats, what leftist fortresses decide. Every institution where leftists are a majority *is part and parcel of the democratic party*.
This is like the NRA does some terrible **** and republicans trying to say "oh no wait we have nothing to do with the NRA". **** yes you do. It's your tentacle.
Every institution where leftism rules is a tentacle of the democratic party and everything they do is a direct responsibility of the democratic party. That's the game.
i don't blow it out of proportion - as mentioned earlier, it's basically the only thing i post about that gets heavy doses of responses - look at all the stuff i post here that gets crickets and then i mention lia thomas once and it starts a 100 post conversation
you are also not a zealot, i admire your rational opinions
I guess I never noticed that, but then again I’m not going to deny certain people will accuse people of being anti-trans on this point alone.
For what it’s worth I’ve said for a long time that people should be able to disagree on this issue without being called anti-trans. So you’re not wrong that people have been triumphalist about it. I’ve never felt it on this forum though.
I’m against trans women participating in professional or collegiate women’s sports, I just don’t blow it out of proportion into the most important issue or even an important issue at all…
I’m much more worried about the destruction of trans rights that has happened under this administration.
Which destruction of "trans rights"? and what are "trans rights"? which rights do trans people have that non-trans people don't have? and why should they have any at all to begin with?
A belief in this:
My morality is that whatever benefits me (and my family and the people i care about) is moral. So i don't need any particular worldview to help me morally. Whatever the world is, then i have to understand what benefits me.
doesn't imply this:
my judgment isn't clouded by morality.
why? i don't want any ****ing centralized power to begin with. In my model of society there is no option to give "emergency powers" to whomever EXACTLY because it always end with a palpatine.
There is never any emergency that justifies to run the worst possible risk for society which is centralization of power in the wrong on. In my model of society you accept whatever external or internal event without EVER being able to suspend basic rights WITH NO EXCEPTIONS.
Doesn't matter how many "experts" tell you , there is exctinction incoming if you don't suspend rights. You just don't , full stop, with no exepction.
So tell me again, which Palpatine?
values are part of a worldview (if such a thing actually exists, many philosophers are skeptical of the term) because the ontology of moral truths are partially an epistemic question (in fact many people add whether we have/don’t have access to moral truths to the moral propositions they affirm).so yeah when you say “I value x because of y” and “y”
Again it's semantics i guess.
My worldview is that , for example, local minwage increases aren't disastrous in their effects. Worldview meaning that i have seen the data correctly analyzed by smart people who i have the tools to understand aren't lying about it, and detrimental effects are small.
That's a picture of reality, of how things are.
My values are that localities should be barred constitutionally from setting min wage laws, EVEN IF i accept that literature is correct and when they do , no disaster happens. Because i am not a consequentialist and i simply don't think wages should be allowed to be interfered with by government, ever, no exception. Because of freedom considerations.
See the difference? you tell me which words we want to use for those 2 completly separated phenomena (analyzing reality vs stating what you would like things to be), and we go from there.
I KNOW most people are ****ing lying hypocrites all the times so they just warp their "worldview" to accomodate their values. I never do though.
For example i can accept illegals are good for the economy in aggregate in the USA (=worldview) and still be very happy if they are violently and cruelly deported , every one of them (=values).
