The Tanoubliette: Pussy Hurt and Delusions or TTPHAD for short.

Quaid said:

Tanoomba, should there be written laws against adultery?

Since there aren't, do you find infidelity is acceptable behaviour?

Click to expand...

Adultery generally isn't subjective. And considering adultery is grounds for divorce (the only grounds for divorce besides physical/mental abuse that doesn't require living apart for a year), and that even in that case adultery has to be proven, I think your argument is helping more than hurting my case. People take this shit seriously and they made rules about it.

AngryGerbil said:

Tan will forget this post happened.

But for now, let's just follow it up with the Cult Master herself:

View attachment 8551

Click to expand...

You're talking about the guy that made a list of times he admitted he was wrong. Why would I forget a post I can show to the next person who claims I can't admit when I'm wrong?

Also, I honestly don't know if you're just trolling or if you sincerely don't realize that clip has already been shown to be taken out of context.

Mario Speedwagon said:

The context makes it even worse though.

Click to expand...

That's highly, highly debatable.
Besides, the point is that the ever-popular clip doesn't mean what people present it as meaning. I'd be happy to go into why it isn't "worse" if you like, but even considering that as a possibility forces the acknowledgment that the context makes it different.

khalid said:

It is true that you are all these things.

However, you did not receive the RRP for these things. After all, you are still those things right now.

Click to expand...

"being delusional and unable to accept reality"
This was your OFFICIAL EXPLANATION for the RRP. The RRP that you jumped right into, despite the rules clearly stating all warnings (infractions) count for one warning (infraction) only. The RRP that directly contradicts your campaign promise to not over-moderate in exactly this way.


To go back to Quaid 's example,
"Adultery" is an objectively-defined behavior that has explicit legal consequences for the people directly involved.
"Being delusional and unable to accept reality" is an incredibly vague, ridiculously subjective behavior that has no officially-enforced consequences.

Sure, both behaviors might be seen as socially unacceptable, and both behaviors might lead to being judged harshly by the others. Why, those others might even express their strong disapproval of those behaviors by outright condemning them through censure or ridicule... WORDS. Not authority-enforced punishments. We as a community had decided that we were mature enough to handle people acting like pricks ourselves. You couldn't even make it through one argument before you brazenly disregarded both the demands of the community and the actual official rules we agreed on.

AngryGerbil said:

No it hasn't. We just went over this.

It is out of context only slightly. She is telling an old story, not declaring her world view in this clip, yes. That is true. It is only a story she is telling.

But the story is about a time when she had her world view challenged by the people around her. She is explaining that her world view is not taken well by many people and she had to alter her mode of speaking (probably by applying many of the things that she learned in those marketing seminars) in order to make her message more palatable and marketable. But in explaining all of this, she must re-state her world view. Which she does. Which is what is captured in microcosm in that :7 second clip.

How much money did you give this red haired clown anyway?

Click to expand...

See, what you don't understand is that all of that is your interpretation.

Here's another one: She was clearly saying that when she started studying these systems, it SEEMED like everything was sexist, racist, etc. It seemed so over-the-top that she felt obligated to talk about it all the time, as many people are wont to do when they become overwhelmed learning about something new. It was only with time that she learned some perspective and was able to see things in a more reasonable light, which tempered her over-eagerness to preach her initial impressions.

...That wasn't even hard. That was my default reading of what she said and I'm not alone, even among the anti-Anita crowd. The context changed the meaning of what she said. "Sarkeesian in a nutshell" is a lie.

khalid said:

Indeed. However, he was RRPed for shitposting over and over again, derailing a thread and making it impossible to have an actual conversation while being delusional and unable to accept reality. Funny enough, the shitposting he was arguing about, he has since admitted he was wrong. So the RRP not only stopped that derail but got Tanoomba to take some time and actually read the rebuttals to his arguments that he was ignoring and spewing venom about.

Successful rehabilitation!

Click to expand...

Shitposting isn't against the rules. It's a time-honored tradition we don't want mods fucking with. Besides, "shitposting" is also highly subjective.
I didn't derail anything. My posts were on topic, relevant and in the right thread.
I didn't make it "impossible to have an actual conversation", since nobody was obligated to engage me and everyone was free to talk about whatever they wanted.

Quaid's point was one among several being discussed. I was right about Sark's "everything is sexist" quote being taken out of context. I was right about anti-SJWs sacrificing reason and rationality to indulge in moral grandstanding. I don't remember what other points came up, but I was right about those too.

I would have addressed Quaid much earlier if I hadn't been RRPed, so your power trip actually stunted my realization that he had a point. Your post-hoc rationalization is weak sauce.