By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Machiavellian said:
ConservagameR said:

Ah I see, I think. I didn't look at it from the other side when it comes to integrity. Didn't dawn on me at all.

Has nothing to do with integrity, but if that is how you feel fine.  You can continue along the line I mentioned and it will go another way.

To me it would have been beyond hypocritical, and flat out idiotic, if my stance, or anyone taking me stance, was to be a super wealthy snob who wouldn't bend over to pick up a $100 dollar bill, let alone offer some average person a helping hand, while also thinking slave labor was ok. That would be pretty embarrassing.

What does this have anything to do with anything.

Apparently I should've, and should in the future, assume everyone takes a hypocritical stance. That will help me to better explain myself knowing that's also the assumption about me. It doesn't exactly seem very ethical and respectful, but who are we to judge? Though that assumption would also lead me to want to ask many questions of them, to verify their integrity, which would seem to be a concern here. What a pickle.

Are you really going to try the whole persecution tactic.  I do not know you so I have no assumption on who you are, I am talking about your statement and particular the 20 question one.  Your perception of how others see you has nothing to do with what I pointed out.  If you want to ask questions, without any context to your position then state your position on those questions, then ask them.

The questions I asked most recently, no different than in the past, weren't asked to overwhelm, weren't asked to misdirect or change the conversation, and weren't asked for nothing as if I didn't care about the answers. They are clearly based on the conversation and were asked because the likely answers would've furthered my point. To call them sealioning would've been to call a penalty before the infraction even occurred, like Minority Report.

I see it different. The only way it further your point is if you provided your point first.  As I stated, provide your point first and context to those questions and your position instead of throwing them out there.  Also I did not call them sealioning I said it was close and the continued use of that tactic make the case stronger against you.

What I believe, hasn't always been found to be good enough though, which at times leads to me ask more questions. Questions where the likely answer will further explain and prove the point I'm making, if answered, and honestly. I can't exactly make a strong statement if I don't have enough information from them for a point I'd like to make, so the only way to do that is to ask more questions.

I am going to call that BS.  You absolutely can make a declaration statement on your stance to your own questions.  Why ask them if you already do not have a stance and position. You are giving me this feeling that you are trying to play the victim role because your stance may not be shared by the majority.  I on the other hand do not care if your opinion is shared by the majority, as long as you debate in good faith.  I am telling you a particular tactic you use is probably going to get you moderated, so adjust that tactic so it does not have to come to that.  If your opinion never meets how the majority feel, I care not.  Not looking for an echo chamber here.

What was said between us prior is an example. You asked questions about my stance. I found them to be useless because to me the answer was, and is there within the prior conversation, if you assumed I was being genuine.

I am telling you that it was not.  Especially to the rapid questions you threw out.  Instead, its more like you trying to play devil advocate then anything else.

Yet you asked anyway. Why? Likely because regardless, you felt you needed more information to make a solid statement that you couldn't have otherwise, and there's certainly no point in making a weak useless statement, so why not ask?

Why not be direct with your statements instead of this middling way you like to go about things.  You will never not know my position on any subject because I will tell you.

Now should I have assumed the worst about you and called that sealioning prior, or been ethical showing respect by assuming you weren't just wasting time, and answering your questions? Hopefully it's more clear now to you why I reply the way I do at times.

You can assume whatever you want as I do not care about assumptions, what I do care about is people following the rules of the site and debate in good faith tactics.  I am telling you that tactic needs change, its up to you going forward in understanding where this goes next.  Its a simple modification on your part, I suggest you take my advice.

 

What does this have anything to do with anything.

You seemed to want a more precise explanation with my thought's all put together, as you mentioned you didn't find there to be enough context on my position, so I put everything together from prior, which apparently fit with what I had stated prior, based on your follow up reply.

Below (in bold). Context from the start of the conversation. Notice his and my points about hypocrisy and how that played out over the conversation, including when you joined in and where that went as to questioning what I actually believe?

Again, it's like you didn't read or didn't understand much of the context of the conversation so you are not able to reference what my most recent points are about, which all relate to the conversation up until this point. Either that or you just assume I'm full of crap.

ConservagameR said:
Pemalite said:

What I am finding to be an issue is that, yes free speech is important... But not if it comes at the expense of being ethical towards other people.

There is no room for bigotry, fake information, hate speech, homophobia, sexism, racism and more, period. Real life or online.
It's called being respectful.

I think Musk just thrives on attention, Trump does the same thing, they like to be the center of it, that is how they make their "brand"... So the crazier the idea, the more disruption they can cause, the better for their particular brand... Which is themselves.

But you know what? If twitter falters and fails, there will be another company to take it's place.

Pemalite said:

Generally free speech has a ton of restrictions anyway. Libel/Slander for example are some restrictions to free speech.

In saying that, proponents of free-speech don't seem to recognize those fundamental limitations and desire a free-for-all.
That is... Until they suffer the wrath of other peoples free-speech, then wish to impose limitations and start acting like a snow-flake until they get their own way.

In short, the guy is your typical hypocrite, they exist on the left and right side of the political spectrum.

I'd guess Elon had about enough of hearing, it's a private business so they can do what they want, and, if you don't like it go build your own.

So he just bought it instead and then decided to do what he wants by actually taking it private.

Hypocrites will soon be the norm at this rate. The right is increasingly realizing that pointing out hypocrisy doesn't accomplish much, while the hypocrites tend to keep winning somehow, so they're shifting from playing heads they win, tales we lose, to playing hypocrisy as well. Do not do as you say, collect $8 per blue check.

Twitter failing could very well mean a right wing platform becomes the new town square, and if that takes place while conservatives are shifting from morality to hypocrisy, then we just might get old Twitter back again, just flipped politically, and that no doubt would be a nightmare to some.

The last thing I'll say is I find it quite coincidental that when a point or accusation is made about me and I explain myself, the resulting reply the majority of the time, from whoever, is that I'm wrong for whatever reason and that's final. Yet when I make a point about someone, they or someone else, will explain to me that I, again, as per usual, are wrong for whatever reason, and that's final.

Even when it comes to someone else admitting they don't know me so they can't know exactly what I'm like and what I'm thinking, seems like one way or another I tend to almost always be wrong, especially when it comes to knowing myself.

As for the rest I'm not going to bother because it's getting ridiculous at this point.

Don't worry though. I'll be more selective when choosing who to, and not to, start a conversation with or reply to going forward. I can only hope that won't somehow become a problem.